Supreme Court decisions are not mere suggestions

The Government is clearly on a confrontational path with the judiciary over the case of the Inspector General of Police. Last week the Supreme Court issued an interim order suspending Deshabandu Thennakoon from carrying out the duties and exercising the powers associated with the position of IGP. The Court having determined that the appointment of Thennakoon was not in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, directed President Ranil Wickremesinghe to appoint a suitable officer to oversee the duties of the IGP.

The Supreme Court had previously determined that Thennakoon was responsible for torture, prior to his appointment. The recent determination was in relation to nine fundamental rights petitions filed against the appointment of the IGP. Since the determination by the Supreme Court the Cabinet of Ministers announced that it will be studying the validity of the verdict and later Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena announced in Parliament that the Government will be ignoring the ‘order’ of the highest court plunging into an unnecessary and ill-timed constitutional dilemma.

An order of the Supreme Court cannot be overturned by Cabinet decision. Any attempt to defy the court order by any party will be contempt of court and will have no legal force. This will not be the first time the current administration has defied the Supreme Court. Last year the Court ordered the Government and the administrative officials involved to hold the local government elections, an order that was blatantly ignored without any judicial consequences. Had the court held those responsible for defying its orders to account, including the Government servants, then it would have set an actual precedence that court determinations, especially those from the highest appellate courts, are not mere suggestions but orders that have weight in law. Since that was not done, as in many other cases, today the Supreme Court finds itself being blatantly dismissed by the executive.

The separation of powers is as a cornerstone principle, ensuring that the governance of a country is conducted through a system of checks and balances. In Sri Lanka, this principle is not just a theoretical ideal but a practical necessity, deeply rooted in the need to safeguard democratic freedoms, prevent authoritarianism, and ensure the rule of law.

The Constitution delineates the powers and functions of each branch. However, the effective functioning of this system depends not just on the constitutional framework but also on the respect for the autonomy and authority of each branch by the others.

Upholding Supreme Court determinations is crucial not only for maintaining legal consistency but also for reinforcing the principle that no individual or branch of government is above the law. It is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance that the judiciary’s decisions are final and binding, except through lawful appeal or constitutional amendment. When the Supreme Court makes a determination, it is not merely expressing an opinion but is issuing a binding legal decision. The integrity of the judicial system, and by extension, the democratic framework, depends on the respect for and implementation of these decisions.

As Sri Lanka moves into a crucial election period, it is vital that the Wickremesinghe administration maintains stability. Creating chaos through a purely unnecessary and unwarranted constitutional crisis will only exacerbate the challenges to democracy at a moment of enormous importance. If not for his own prospects of re-election then for his legacy, President Wickremesinghe would be better served if he contributes to strengthening democracy and the rule of law rather than being an agent of chaos and instability.