The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 There is a responsibility to keep Parliament informed. It is not appropriate for a Government Minister to publicly criticize in this House that “the independence of Independent Commissions is excessive, inefficient, and problematic.” Hon. Minister, this is not a personal criticism of you. This critique is made constantly. Even the Hon. President publicly criticized the National Police Commission. After such criticism, the Police Commission was, in a sense, subdued; its independence was curtailed; and certain powers were reallocated back to officials. These Independent Commissions were created to ensure checks, balances, and constrained movement upon the powers of the President. If today we speak of reducing the powers of the Independent Commissions, or if we challenge their independence, that is not only wrong; this Parliament must also act in accordance with its oversight powers regarding Independent Commissions and inquire into them.

¶ 02 If Parliament allocates funds, then through Standing Orders 126(1), 126(2), and 126(3), Parliament must exercise its powers to ensure proper oversight over the powers and functioning of the Independent Commissions. Mere criticism without such action is wrong. Those appointed to these bodies are professionals from diverse fields in this country—responsible people—and we must respect them and the service they render, and protect their independence, because that is our duty as Parliament.

¶ 03 Therefore, I will not specifically critique each Commission here. Many views exist and Members will evaluate them based on their knowledge and information. I will refrain from doing so especially as I am a member of the Constitutional Council. However, I wish to discuss one office today: the office of the Ombudsman established by Article 156 of the Constitution. We learned from school, university and Law College about the Scandinavian concept of the Ombudsman—what we call “Duggannarala” in Sinhala—a structure designed to provide relief to innocent people who cannot obtain remedies through ordinary judicial and administrative processes. It was President J.R. Jayewardene who initiated the Ombudsman’s office to secure such relief, and later it was entrenched in the Constitution.

¶ 04 Statistics show that very few complaints reach the Ombudsman annually. This is not a new trend; it has persisted for some time. A view has taken hold in society that the Ombudsman lacks power, is not useful, merely hears grievances, and does not issue impactful decisions. Some matters cannot be brought easily before courts; some are delayed; and litigation—particularly in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—can be difficult and expensive. The Ombudsman was meant to be a simple mechanism enabling citizens to seek relief without going to court. Therefore, the Government has a responsibility to examine the effectiveness of the Ombudsman, raise public awareness of its mandate, and accept the binding effect—at least in spirit—of its determinations. Why is recourse to the Ombudsman weakening? Because of non-compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. On the one hand, delays in promptly inquiring into complaints; on the other, non-compliance by government institutions with the recommendations issued. Due to these, the Ombudsman has become nominal. This is not a personal issue with the current Ombudsman. Look at data over the past decade. Our Hon. Sunil Watagala is here; he knows these matters, having long served in politics and the legal profession. Hon. Watagala, the value of the Ombudsman must be restored. We should enable relief without litigation. We must also re-examine the effective force of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. If facilities are required, provide them, and strengthen the office.

¶ 05 Next, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is also of particular concern. It is an independent commission, separately established by an Act of Parliament. Only the Supreme Court presently has jurisdiction over fundamental rights violations. But going to the Supreme Court is expensive. Though legal aid exists, whether a case is undertaken free depends on each legal aid institution’s criteria and capacity. Preparing pleadings for a Supreme Court case alone can cost hundreds of thousands of rupees. Thus, seeking fundamental rights relief before the Supreme Court is costly, counsel fees are high, and there are delays. Therefore, before going to the Supreme Court, there must be an institution through which ordinary citizens can obtain immediate relief for human rights violations.

¶ 06 Likewise, when a fundamental right is on the verge of being violated—if there is physical harassment, violence, or an illegal order from the police, armed forces or any other institution—there must be a body to which one can promptly appeal for relief. That is why the Human Rights Commission was set up. Hon. Deputy Chairperson, therefore the HRC requires a special review. Some inquiries have dragged on 10–12 years without solutions. Efficiency has ultimately collapsed. Administrative management has been weak. I am not speaking only about the present Commissioners; this has persisted for a period. Independence has been treated as a reason to leave it alone, as if independence is only about appointments. However, we must also provide facilities, and examine performance. As I said, if our Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs looks into their progress, we can address these matters. In addition, the Hon. Minister of Justice should be keen to review—not to exert pressure, but to assess—how many inquiries are pending, how long they have delayed, how many are disposed monthly, and what outcomes result. There are also serious issues concerning urgent interventions.

¶ 07 While recognizing the HRC’s role in protecting human rights and respecting its independence, we must remember that its funds are provided by the people and approved by Parliament. Parliament therefore has a special responsibility to review the HRC’s administration at all levels, and the quality of its decisions. Do not abdicate that responsibility. Some within the HRC may think, “We are independent; no one can point a finger; we only send annual reports to Parliament.” No—Government too bears responsibility. This is not only for the Opposition. When petitioners seek help, there appears to be a trend to reduce the intake by prematurely rejecting complaints as having no jurisdiction or being premature, often without urgent preliminary inquiries, especially when complaints concern the Government or powerful state actors. Over 10 years ago, on one matter I wrote in my name asking that it be expedited. I did not even receive an acknowledgment. I wrote not as an MP but as an Attorney-at-Law. The institution has been weakened by itself—Commissioners may come and go, but the institution remains—and yet its performance has declined. If problems persist and our Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs cannot convene, then please write to the Constitutional Council. I do not have the right to speak privately to Commissioners to probe issues, but we will intervene institutionally. Rather than lament that no one reviews independent commissions, let us ensure effective performance. As a practicing lawyer who daily hears people’s grievances and who regularly guides complainants to the HRC, I say the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission has fallen very low in effectiveness and efficiency. Not only by the numbers; we need a deeper inquiry.

¶ 08 Finally, on the President’s budget Head, it was said there are advisors who draw no salaries, allowances, or perks. A President requires advisors because no President is a specialist in all fields; they advise the Government on critical policy, not the President personally. This group helps drive heavy and decisive policy. Much is made that our advisors do not take pay or perks. Presidents do need advisors—those with international-level experience in the relevant domains. Under our Constitution, the President may appoint any number of advisors with Cabinet approval. There is nothing wrong with that.

¶ 09 However, what outcomes do these “independent” advisors deliver? I will not name individuals. Some may be working voluntarily, at times from abroad, coming when convenient, then leaving to attend to their own careers or businesses. A country cannot achieve the required transformation—especially in science and technology—through such part-time, volunteer advisors. We need full-time, salaried, internationally credentialed experts with proven experience who can deliver sustained, high-standard guidance.

¶ 10 Hon. Deputy Chairperson

¶ 11 Hon. Member, your time is up.

¶ 12 The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 13 I will conclude, Hon. Deputy Chairperson. Being a university professor or having a single patent to one’s name is not itself a sufficient qualification. There are globally recognized scholars and experts in many domains. My request to the President is to appoint full-time, salaried, skilled specialists as advisors who devote all their time to the President and the country, to work more effectively than at present—especially to steer the sectors of science and technology, power and energy, manufacturing, and information technology. Volunteer, unpaid arrangements are not good for the country. What we need are competent people working full time for remuneration. Thank you for the time.