Thursday Nov 21, 2024
Thursday Nov 21, 2024
Saturday, 27 July 2024 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
A tense situation arose in Parliament yesterday after Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena declared the injunction order issued by the Supreme Court against Inspector General of Police (IGP) Deshabandu Thennakoon functioning in his post as not legally valid.
Delivering a special statement in Parliament yesterday on behalf of the Government, the Prime Minister said while there have many arguments over the matter, the appointment duly made by the Constitutional Council is one made under parliament as it is an extension of the Parliament.
“The decisions made by the Constitutional Council are essentially decisions of the Legislature and are subject only to Parliamentary control. No other institution, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to question or interfere with the Constitutional Council’s proceedings and decisions,” the Premier said.
“The legal authority to remove the current IGP lies with Parliament, which must support such a move by a majority vote,” he argued. “The Supreme Court has no power to issue such orders and therefore the injunction order is not legally valid. The Parliament is supreme,” he said.
President Ranil Wickremesinghe and the Government faced a significant setback on Wednesday when the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed with nine fundamental petitions challenging Thennakoon’s appointment as IGP. The court also issued an injunction order preventing him from functioning in the post until the cases are concluded. However, the Government’s defiant stance according to political and legal analysts has created a deadlock between the Executive and Judiciary, giving rise to a Constitutional Crisis.
The Prime Minister also claimed that despite the court’s instructions to appoint an Acting IGP, the President is unable to comply due to the lack of legal provisions allowing such an appointment.
He insisted that IGP Deshabandu Thennakoon remains in the post, as no vacancy in it has been created. Gunawardena maintained that the IGP can only be removed through Parliament approval and therefore the President has no legal provision allowing him to appoint an Acting IGP. “Therefore one cannot expect the President to appoint an Acting IGP now,” he said.
The Prime Minister clarified that the Police Ordinance specifies the procedure for removing an IGP. “The IGP cannot simply be dismissed. The Supreme Court must also follow existing laws. There is no provision to prevent the IGP from fulfilling his duties. The President cannot stop the IGP from working or appoint an Acting IGP. Thennakoon remains the IGP, and the position has not been vacated,” he said.
Gunawardena also suggested the injunction order will only apply after 11 November when the Fundamental Rights petitions against Thennakoon’s appointment will be taken by the Apex Court. He also urged the Speaker to issue a ruling rejecting the Supreme Court’s interim injunction against the IGP.
In an attempt to interpret the Supreme Court injunction order, Education Minister Dr Susil Premajayantha stated that the interim order issued by the Supreme Court has only prevented the IGP from carrying out his powers and duties, but it has not made the position vacant. “How can an Acting IGP be appointed if the position is not vacant?” he questioned.
However, Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella criticised Premajayantha for attempting to interpret the Constitution in Parliament, emphasising that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to do so.
The Opposition strongly opposed the Government’s announcement with Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa demanding for the President’s immediate resignation if he could not appoint an Acting IGP.
Joining the debate, Premadasa said it is unacceptable to claim that the President cannot appoint an Acting Inspector General when there is no legal impediment to doing so.
Commenting further, the Opposition leader said that despite Thennakoon’s position as IGP being suspended by the court, he is illegally continuing his official duties in civilian clothes.
Referring explicitly to constitutional provisions, Sajith Premadasa emphasised that Article 126 grants the Supreme Court exclusive authority to adjudicate fundamental rights petitions.
“The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the sole authority to hear and issue determinations on fundamental rights petitions,” he said.
He emphasised that decisions on such matters, whether interim injunctions or final judgments, fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary and are not the responsibility of Parliament or the executive.
Drawing attention to Article 41 of the Constitution, he highlighted that Presidential appointments, including that of the IGP, must be approved by the Constitutional Council. He noted that the recent interim injunction issued by the Supreme Court regarding the IGP appointment is a procedural step and not a final decision, with a subsequent hearing date scheduled.
“It is imperative that we respect the Supreme Court’s order and proceed with appointing a new IGP in accordance with constitutional procedures,” Premadasa said, advocating for adherence to the rule of law and constitutional norms.
Discussing the principles of separation of powers inherent in Sri Lanka’s democratic framework, Premadasa emphasised the importance of checks and balances among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. He cautioned against selectively adhering to constitutional principles based on personal or political preferences, urging consistency in upholding the Constitution regardless of the outcomes.
“Our decisions today will shape the future of our country,” Premadasa stressed, warning against the consequences of disregarding constitutional provisions. He called for a steadfast commitment to constitutional governance, underscoring that adherence to legal principles is crucial for the stability and integrity of Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions.
Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Harsha de Silva taking to X said the Government’s stance is a huge blow to democracy in Sri Lanka with 57 days to the Presidential election.
MP Dayasiri Jayasekara noted that in 2018 the Supreme Court when it issued an order against the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and his cabinet, Former President Maithripala Sirisena accepted the decision.
“We did not state in Parliament that we do not accept it. Ranil Wickremesinghe, when in the Opposition, also did not say he does not accept it. At that time, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet resigned, and Ranil Wickremesinghe assumed the premiership again. President Maithripala Sirisena did not reject the order either, and he could have done so if he chose to. Do not create a constitutional crisis in this country,” he urged.
Jayasekara also called on the Speaker to prompt President Ranil Wickremesinghe to fulfil his constitutional duties. He warned that if Wickremesinghe fails to act, he may face legal consequences after stepping down from his position. He also called on the President to step down if he is unable to carry out his duties.
Commenting on the matter, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena denied all accusations against him for violating Article 41 (e) of the Constitution.
Abeywardena stated that the decision to appoint the IGP was correct, legal, constitutional, and made in good faith. He further mentioned that the situation regarding the IGP cannot be resolved even by the President and that the matter must be addressed in court if necessary.
