A number of media reports on the string of shootings that the country witnessed during the past few months have raised common concerns, which are shared by the public as well. They question, as to how safe the public are, and the extent to which they could expect the law enforcement authorities to protect them. Although most of these shootings have been carried out by members of organised criminal gangs against members of similar groups, this issue cannot be confined to mere disputes between such gangs, because, on a number of occasions, ordinary people, especially businessmen, were also targets of such attacks.
Increasing criminal gang activities is the main concern in this discussion. However, these crimes further point out the dangers of the illegal, uncontrolled circulation of imported firearms as well as the manufacture of home-made ones. Alarmingly, it has been reported that firearms used in some of these crimes are suspected to have been obtained from bodies that are legally permitted to keep firearms, while certain individuals involved in these crimes have in the past-held positions in the defense forces.
It is in this context that the Government has paid attention to another aspect of firearms ownership, i.e. firearms provided for Members of Parliament (MPs) which should rightfully be returned to the Government. The Ministry of Defense has already informed 20 MPs who represented the Parliament from 2015 to 2020 to return the firearms that they were given for their safety. As per the reports, over 100 out of 150 MPs who were provided with firearms during the 1980-1990 period are yet to return them, while certain political parties are said to be in possession of hundreds of firearms which were also issued during that period.
Sri Lanka has strict firearms-related regulations. A person who wishes t0 acquire a firearm must fulfill a number of requirements and wait for a substantial period of time, in addition to establishing the reason why as to he/she requires a firearm. Even after obtaining a firearm, firearm owners are required to adhere to a number of regulations, which have strictly limited the ownership, possession, transport and use of firearms. However, how effective those regulations are is a highly questionable matter, because, as was said, there are hundreds of firearms concerning which the owners or users do not adhere to the relevant regulations. In a context where politicians and organised criminals or criminal activities have been linked on many occasions, this unaccounted for ownership of firearms is a threat to public safety.
According to the reports, the MPs who were informed by the Ministry to hand over the former’s firearms had represented the Parliament from 2015 to 2020, while the other MPs and political parties who are said to be in possession of firearms have been provided those decades ago. Why successive Governments took years to merely ‘inform’ the MPs who have broken the law by not returning the firearms is a huge concern for which successive Governments owe an explanation to the public that elected them. An ordinary firearms owner would not have received such freedom. On the contrary, even forgetting to renew the relevant firearms licence attracts considerable repercussions. The State Minister of Defense has noted that the Government would have to take policy decisions regarding MPs not returning their firearms, and that the Government is in the process of amending the Firearms Ordinance. If the existing laws are sufficient to take legal actions against ordinary firearms owners, why does the Government have to wait for policy decisions and what such policy decisions can do and that the laws cannot, are pressing concerns for a country affected by heinous acts by both organised criminals and politicians.
If Sri Lanka is to deal with crimes effectively, dealing with organised criminal gangs alone is not sufficient, although it is an integral step. Political and other forms of protection and support received by some such figures, especially the ways through which they acquire firearms, should receive attention. Selective actions aimed at removing firearms from those who are not legally entitled to be in the possession of firearms, will not ensure public safety.