Constitutional Council (CC) Chairman and the Speaker of the Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana feels that the recent letter sent to President Ranil Wickremesinghe and the CC by the Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, regarding the filling of the vacant Inspector General of Police (IGP) position is ‘totally inappropriate’. This however is a letter which the Catholic Church feels is acceptable, as they believe that it is rightful to make such an intervention.
In the letter, the Archbishop seems to be trying to weigh in on the appointment of the new IGP, and his arguments are about who should not be appointed as the next IGP. Pointing out media reports that state that Senior Deputy Inspectors General of Police (SDIG) Deshabandu Tennakoon and Nilantha Jayawardena are among the top nominees for the position, the Archbishop urged that neither of the two be appointed as the IGP because of the allegations against them over the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings. To support his demand, the Archbishop cited certain matters, especially recommendations, pertaining to inquiries conducted by the relevant Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) and Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Easter Sunday bombings, among other matters, which had raised concerns about the duo’s performance as high ranking Police officers.
Taking into account demands or recommendations from any unauthorised, external party regarding the appointments that are to be made by the CC is not something that is generally a part of the CC’s decision making process. However, as any other citizen of the country, the Archbishop too has a right to express concerns about the decisions that may affect him as a citizen. What is more, him being a representative of a particular religious community, that too a community that continues to demand more in-depth legal actions from the law enforcement agencies regarding the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, he has a duty to express his community’s concerns about the next IGP. In this context, labelling the Archbishop’s letter ‘inappropriate’ merely because it is not something that the CC requires or is obligated to consider, instead of paying attention to the reasonableness of the Archbishop’s concerns,is not a very well thought-out conclusion.
What the CC should do with the Archbishop’s letter really depends on whether the CC feels that the contents of the letter deserve its attention, and the sender of the letter should be immaterial. However, the CC’s decisions cannot be based on allegations, conspiracy theories or personal opinions, but verifiable, logical, and fact based reasons.
In the case of SDIG Tennakoon, despite the Archbishop’s disapproval and the massive aversion towards Tennakoon that exists in the general society, there are not many facts for the CC to consider. Although a plethora of allegations have been levelled against Tennakoon, especially concerning his alleged political and criminal connections, it was the abovementioned PSC and CoI that recommended actions against Tennakoon, not law enforcement agencies’ led investigations or a court of law. Therefore, although those recommendations have been accepted by the general society, how much weight those recommendations have in the country’s legal system is a matter that the CC has to consider.
The same concerns apply in Jayawardena’s case too. Although the said PSC and the CoI have recommended certain actions against him, they are not legally binding, and the recommended actions cannot be taken by the law enforcement authorities unless an investigation by an authorised, legally empowered authority recommends the same. However, Jayawardena is in a considerably more difficult situation than Tennakoon because of a Supreme Court (SC) verdict concerning the Easter Sunday bombings. The verdict, which was based on several Fundamental Rights petitions, ordered that Jayawardena pays as compensation a sum of Rs.75 million to the victims of the Easter Sunday bombings and their families. That was also a civil case, not a criminal one, which makes high level decisions by the CC based merely on that verdict difficult.
The CC should act in a mature, logical and responsible manner. It should understand that what they should essentially deal with is not the Archbishop’s letter, but the concerns of the people that were conveyed via the letter, and that locking horns with the Archbishop is not the solution. The CC is slated to fill the IGP seat soon. To take the best possible decision in this regard, it should take into account the country’s law and order situation which is struggling to deal with social unrest sparked by the socio-economic crisis and also the recently emerged crime wave, in which the Police plays a key role. In this context, the IGP that the country needs is someone who can do the job and who is also trusted by the people to do the job. If the Archbishop’s letter points out anything that could help the CC to reach a good decision, it should be considered, and if it does not convey any such valid argument, the CC could simply ignore.