Ranil Wickremesinghe. File
| Photo Credit: N. Ram
COLOMBO
Sri Lanka’s President Ranil Wickremesinghe has drawn sharp criticism over his government’s defiant response to a recent Supreme Court decision, which senior lawyers and critics say, amounts to “wilful disregard” of the Constitution.
The attack comes in the wake of an interim order issued by the island nation’s top court on July 24, 2024, in regard to the President’s appointment of the police chief.
The order restrained Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon from continuing in the post and asked Mr. Wickremesinghe to appoint a suitable official to the post for the period of the stay.
The Supreme Court’s ruling followed nine Fundamental Rights petitions challenging the IGP’s appointment, mostly on constitutional grounds.
The senior police official’s appointment has remained controversial also because the Supreme Court in December 2023 held him personally responsible for torture in a 2011 case.
Following the recent court order, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena told Parliament that the government refused to accept the decision. The post of IGP was not vacant and therefore prevented the President from appointing an acting IGP, he contended.
His remarks drew flak from Opposition politicians who termed the government’s response “reckless”.
Taking to social media platform ‘X’, Leader of Opposition Sajith Premadasa said: “When a President defies the Supreme Court, he attacks the very fabric of our democracy. At a time when we are striving for justice and progress, his reckless actions and political chess games risk plunging us into chaos and oppression.”
Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who leads the Opposition National People’s Power (NPP) alliance, vowed to take legal action against IGP Thennakoon if he continued functioning in the post. Further, he challenged PM Gunawardena to make his statement rejecting the Supreme Court decision outside the House, without the protection of Parliamentary privilege.
Meanwhile, President Ranil Wickremesinghe on July 28 called upon the Parliamentary Speaker and the Chief Justice to hold discussions to resolve the issue.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), a prominent professional body of lawyers, said it “strongly condemns” the efforts of the government to “subvert the course of justice”.
“The claim that the Supreme Court does not have power to call into question appointments made by the President which are approved by the Constitutional Council is totally untenable,” the BASL said in its statement, even as the executive appears to be on collision course with the judiciary.
“It is essential for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary that the executive and legislature respect the judgments of the courts of the land,” it said.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), a Colombo-based non-governmental organisation, noted that the President is “duty bound” to uphold the Constitution.
“Wilful violation of the Constitution, including by refusing to do what the Constitution requires him to do, is a ground on which a President can be impeached,” it said in a statement. Contrary to claims made by sections, the SC’s interim order had “no impact” on the conduct of Sri Lanka’s presidential elections scheduled for September 21, 2024, the CPA noted. “While the order leaves it open to the President to make a suitable acting appointment to the post, in the event he does not, the Election Commission could, as per the Constitution, give necessary orders to the hierarchy of the Sri Lanka Police to perform functions relating to the election,” it said.
