The Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Madam Deputy Chairperson of Committees, thank you for the opportunity. It is a privilege to speak today on the motion to remove IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon and on the related report presented to this Hon. House. It is also a historic duty.

¶ 02 Madam Deputy Chairperson, we must consider the Opposition’s responses to this motion. From those reactions, the nature of their politics, what they are trying to do, and their internal crisis become clear.

¶ 03 Hon. Namal Rajapaksa rose early today and said we should not discuss this as it is sub judice. That was the primary objection raised by counsel for Deshabandu Tennakoon before the Committee of Inquiry. Today, as Tennakoon’s personal attorney, Hon. Namal Rajapaksa came here and repeated the same objection, saying, “This is sub judice; do not discuss it here.” The Committee gave a clear answer to that preliminary objection, and it is set out in the report. I do not know whether he read it, but he sought to stall this debate knowingly, to signal his partisanship and whom he is protecting. That is his politics—the same old politics we defeated.

¶ 04 This IGP is no longer in that office after today. The charges investigated by the Committee were serious—abetting the commission of crimes, conspiring, providing facilities; and another charge was that he hid from the courts for about a month while serving as a senior police officer. These are the kinds of people they are trying to protect. Then, they flippantly ask about Siddhalepa and other such stories.

¶ 05 What is this Siddhalepa matter? It relates to charges concerning the torture of Weheragedara Ranjith Sumangala and two others between 15 December 2010 and days thereafter, in a case filed in 2011. In its judgment of 14 December 2023, the Supreme Court found that the 5th Respondent, Deshabandu Tennakoon, had, inter alia, personally beaten the petitioner with a three-wheel rubber band after stripping him naked and ordering him to rub Siddhalepa on his genitalia. The petitioner identified him by name and rank; the Supreme Court considered that. The Court further observed that while findings of fundamental rights violations are ample, the wrongdoers—especially the big fish in the pond—are seldom held duly accountable; that senior officers have a special duty to ensure their subordinates do not abuse authority or exceed direction. The Supreme Court itself made these observations. That is why this motion and debate are important. That is why Members like Namal Rajapaksa try to halt it—because we are talking about torture inflicted on the people by those in power.

¶ 06 Despite the Supreme Court’s order on 14 December 2023, in February 2024 this individual was appointed as IGP by the President whom Members like Namal Rajapaksa had helped elevate. That is why he spoke as he did—to mark his partisanship. Remember it well. They came here to protect rotten politics.

¶ 07 There is another Opposition—the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, the main group representing the Opposition. What do they say? They must accept that this motion, and the inquiry, and the removal of the IGP, are happening under a National People’s Power government. This is a public adjudication—by a Committee appointed by Parliament. Accordingly the IGP is being removed. This “sly” Opposition was the principal Opposition in 2023–2024. Their responsibility then was to speak about the charges against the IGP and to oppose such an appointment in the Constitutional Council. They did that, fine. But today they cannot accept that we have brought this motion and that we will conclude it.

¶ 08 You must accept that this motion comes from a National People’s Power government committed to ending decades of impunity in the Police and elsewhere. Back then we were three; today we are 159. All of us will raise our hands to pass this motion. If the SJB had any decency, they would support ending this impunity instead of peddling petty narratives and delusions.

¶ 09 Madam Deputy Chairperson, time please?

¶ 10 (Interruption)

¶ 11 To anyone listening: do not misconstrue this. Our government brings this motion; the people gave us the mandate for this. As the Supreme Court said, we will punish the big fish. We are doing that duty. Those big fish are howling here seeing what awaits them.

¶ 12 Okay, Madam, I will conclude. To both the old Opposition and the sly Opposition—this is our people’s mandate: to fix the Police and establish the rule of law. If you cannot support it, continue your squabble for the Opposition Leadership. Both of you shout against the Government, but we will fulfill our public mandate.

¶ 13 Thank you.