The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, at this decisive moment, for the first time in history, under the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, we are debating the removal of the IGP.

¶ 02 We must remember the Police are different from other public services—an arm’s-length, quasi-disciplinary institution that must set an example for all other public servants in implementing law and order.

¶ 03 Having examined the background and profile of Deshbandu Tennakoon, there is ample reason to say he is no model IGP. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Yasanta Kodagoda, in the Express Pearl case, set out guidance on how public officers should act—both in respect of duties imposed by law and in exercising discretionary power. He stressed that when exercising discretion, officers must be prudent and record reasons—because that is the best evidence of propriety.

¶ 04 A recent controversy arose regarding the Western Provincial Commissioner of Local Government. I openly challenged Hon. Chithral Ranawaka on his claim of “open ballot”—he produced an expired document, whereas the valid document had removed the word “open”. The Court of Appeal said: act according to the statute; even courts cannot question subjective satisfaction. Yet in Parliament they questioned “satisfaction.” If you question satisfaction, it ceases to be satisfaction—so held the Court. This is the nature of public administration.

¶ 05 In the Express Pearl matter, the Attorney-General—also a public officer—was faulted on three occasions for dereliction: filing in the Singapore Commercial Court when Sri Lanka had jurisdiction; appointing a so-called tripartite committee on maritime law; and MEPA’s Chair’s decisions being egregiously wrong. Even failing to prosecute the shipowner in the criminal case was a dereliction. Senior police officers, including the Acting IGP, are listening now: follow Supreme Court guidance—interpretation fills gaps in law, and public officers must follow it.

¶ 06 Now, Hon. Namal Rajapaksa came here and lectured us on Standing Order 91(1) and sub judice. That was taken up in Committee and overruled—this is not an impediment to parliamentary business. Moreover, SO 91 applies to Members speaking in the House; Committee members are not Members of Parliament in that sense—this is a disciplinary process. And, Hon. Namal—when you speak on Standing Orders—what did you do to Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake? You dragged her here and held a trial. You did not bring the motion then as we have today; the procedure was wrong, which is why she was reinstated. The legal fraternity said so then. Today you lecture us on SO 91(1)? First learn the law.

¶ 07 As for the Human Rights Commission’s rule on sub judice, we have long argued that only the human rights aspect is pursued there while cases are pending elsewhere. I have argued in Aluthkade for 26 years. Show me a case you argued.

¶ 08 The Leader of the Opposition said the NPP did not support this earlier. In fact, we instructed our lawyers; Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara was a petitioner; case No. 319. Our party lawyers also organized mass public protests to inform the people. That is how we work.

¶ 09 Hon. Harshana asked whether we saw the “Siddhalepa” case: in SC (FR) 107/2011, the Supreme Court ordered a Rs. 5 million fine against Deshbandu Tennakoon. That is how the “Siddhalepa” story arose—“a doctor in every police station—Siddhalepa.”