The Hon. Ananda Wijepala

¶ 01 From the time of the 19th Amendment through to the 21st, there were Members who raised their hands both to entrust powers to Independent Commissions and later to take them back—sometimes the very same people now speaking in this debate. Some even left the Chamber when the 19th Amendment needed protection. The National People’s Power and the JVP consistently stood for the Independent Commissions. Those who nullified that independence with the 19th’s rollback and then brought the 20th are here now lecturing us.

¶ 02 Similarly, when the 20th Amendment came to curb the powers of the Independent Commissions, there were also Members who voted in favour and still sit in this House today. Those are the ones now accusing the National People’s Power Government of removing or reclaiming powers of the Independent Commissions and bringing this issue before the House with the 21st Amendment.

¶ 03 Let me be clear: we have no intention whatsoever of abolishing the powers of the Independent Commissions or reclaiming them. Looking at the proposals before us, I wish to clarify the constitutional framework, particularly Article 155A (and its related provisions) concerning the National Police Commission (NPC). It is provided that, except for the IGP, appointments, promotions, transfers, disciplinary control, etc., of police officers are vested in the Police Commission.

¶ 04 As our Deputy Minister Watagala also noted, under the Constitution—pursuant to Article 155G—the NPC may, subject to conditions it determines, assign certain powers regarding specific classes of officers to the IGP or delegate to appropriate authorities. This is a lawful, constitutionally provided mechanism. It is not illegal; it is a constitutionally sanctioned practice. It has occurred repeatedly when caseloads rise and for efficiency in an 85,000-strong police service. The Commission retains the power; the Minister or President cannot assume it by Gazette. Only the NPC can, by Gazette, delegate under the Constitution.

¶ 05 On the current proposal, decisions about any conferral of powers must be taken by the NPC, according to its judgment, and the Constitution provides the space. There is nothing illegal happening, nor any room for illegality. There are ample precedents. For example: - Gazette of 2011-11-25 (No. 1733/52) by the Public Service Commission delegating powers relating to certain services (Sri Lanka Administrative Service, Planning Service, Scientific Service) under constitutional delegation provisions. - Gazette of 2016-05-06 (No. 1965/37) where powers of a Commission were delegated to the IGP. - Gazette of 2020-02-06 (No. 2161/32) where the Police Commission delegated certain powers to the IGP.

¶ 06 I table the Special Gazettes No. 1733/52 of 25.11.2011 and No. 2161/32 of 06.02.2020.

¶ 07 Even where powers are delegated, the IGP or any authority cannot use them arbitrarily; they must act per the criteria determined by the NPC. The current discussion is not about appointments and promotions. The motion refers to “appointment of OICs,” but at present no OIC appointments are being made; what is being done are transfers of OICs, not appointments.

¶ 08 An OIC post is filled from among SI, IP, or CI ranks, and stations are categorized (A, B, C, D). Movements are transfers based on rank eligibility and performance, not new appointments. The controversy now concerns powers for OIC transfers, and there are numerous Gazette precedents for delegating transfer powers.

¶ 09 Who exerted pressure on the Police Commission? In your time, when 184 OICs were appointed, 182 were said—by then IGP C.D. Wickramaratne himself—to have been appointed on organizers’ recommendations. The public know what befell the Police then. The Constitution already allows the NPC to delegate powers as per its judgment; the President need not “ask” for it. Delegation does not enable arbitrary action because the Commission’s criteria govern use: performance reports from Range Officers, DIGs, SDIGs, any pending charge sheets, FR cases, etc. Upon such criteria, the IGP recommends; the NPC has laid them down. There is no politicization by proper delegation. Any aggrieved OIC can appeal to the NPC. Other Commissions, like the PSC, also delegate. This is routine, lawful, and constitutional—and it is for the NPC, not the Minister or Ministry, to decide by Gazette whether to delegate.

¶ 10 We are establishing the rule of law and will not allow politicization of the Police. Earlier, most of the Department and divisions were politicized; witness the 184 OICs, of whom 182 were selected on political organizers’ say-so. We have ended that. Claims that we are politicizing now are false propaganda. Today the Police are active, impartial, enforcing the law against offenders without fear or favour. Those who fear that are spreading rumors. We will not allow politicization. We stood for Independent Commissions and for institutional independence—and not only independence but efficiency: proper resourcing, promotions, and human capital to make institutions effective. That is my responsibility as Minister.

¶ 11 We are making institutions efficient and enabling them to use their powers properly. We will not politicize. If any officer, including an OIC, commits an offence, the Police will act; nearly 400 have been interdicted so far this year, regardless of rank or service. We are creating conditions for the law to be enforced against all offenders. The Police are acting freely, independently, efficiently, and we assure the public of that. The Department is moving in a sound direction, focusing actively on organized crime suppression.

¶ 12 As to the claim of “80 incidents in five months,” those figures are inaccurate. Recently apprehended organized criminals repatriated from Indonesia have made statements; in due course we will brief Parliament on who turned this into a country of criminals, how they were protected, and their links to the narcotics trade. We will take all steps to make this country safer and free from organized crime. Thank you.