A man, who alleged that he was severely beaten up by the police after he refused to pay a bribe of three valuable gems, was granted leave to proceed in a fundamental rights application by the Supreme Court. He complained that his rights guaranteed under the Constitution to be protected from illegal arrest, illegal detention and torture was violated by the police. Within the last few months the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has made three decisions against police officers for similar violations of abuse of arrest and torturing of persons purely for the purpose of obtaining bribes.
In one case the Petitioner complained that while he was lawfully transporting some furniture from Colombo to his permanent residence in Kalmunai, when he stopped his lorry for the night, since it was dangerous to proceed further in an elephant infested area, a police officer came and searched the lorry and asked for a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- (US$ 50) under the threat that otherwise he would be prosecuted for illegally transporting furniture. Despite of the mans protestations of innocence and showing the officer a permit to transport the furniture (which in fact was not a legal requirement but which he had obtained in an abundance of caution) the police officer arrested him and took him and the lorry to the police station. There he was illegally detained and also hit with a wire which caused him injuries and severe pain. The Supreme Court gave the order in favour of this petitioner and made lengthy directions to the Inspector General of Police to take action to prevent similar occurrences which the court stated were happening everywhere.
In another case a husband and wife came before the Supreme Court claiming that they too were illegally arrested, illegally detained and severely tortured due to their refusal to pay the bribes demanded. On this occasion the bribe demanded was Rs. 2000/- (US$ 20). This husband and wife were very poor as the husband having suffered a head injury had been paralysed for several years and their means of livelihood was to sell illicit liquor in their small village shop. The police officers in the area had a habit of obtaining bribes from them regularly and to file, from time to time, charges for selling illicit liquor against these two persons alternatively where they had to pay small fines. This particular incident has happened on one occasion when they were unable to pay the bribe demanded. The Petitioners pleaded in court that one of the officers demanded sexual favours from the wife and in fact tried to forcibly enter her bedroom at midnight through a window. As the neighbours awoke due to the ladys cries they were able to catch hold of this police officer. However, soon a large number of police officers arrived in a jeep and took the husband and wife who were assaulted at the police station and then fabricated charges were filed against them. The court held in favour of the Petitioners declaring that their rights guaranteed by the Constitution had been violated and ordered that compensation be paid to them.
A third case was decided in favour of another man who complained to the Supreme Court that while he was driving his car he was stopped at a check point and asked for his driving license. He handed over a duly authenticated duplicate license as the original had been lost. The police officer threatened to prosecute this driver for possession of a forged document unless he gave the officer a bottle of perfume which was found in his car. This Petitioner declared his innocence and the legal validity of his license and refused to comply with the demanded bribe. The officer retained the license and asked this person to leave the scene. As a measure of caution he went to the nearest police station to make a complaint about this incident. Instead of recording the complaint the police sent him back to the same check point where he had had the incident and on his arrival the officers reacted furiously. The went back in his car to the police station and handed him over to the Fraud Bureau which detained him overnight and charged him for possessing a forged document. The magistrate remanded him pending further inquiries and released him only when a report was filed from the registrar of the Motor Traffic Branch stating that the license was genuine.
On all these three occasions the Supreme Court has given very lengthy directives to the Inspector General of Police and the secretary of the Ministry of Defense on the measures to be taken to prevent the abuse of power by police and military authorities, particularly with regard to the searches and arrests at check points which have sprouted up all over the city of Colombo and elsewhere. While the purpose of these check points was to prevent security breaches in fact they are being used as places for the collection of bribes.
The latest case that came before the Supreme Court this week only proves that the directives given by the court have in no way been able to alter the practice of using the national security law for the personal benefit of the officers. While these four incidents are related to petty bribes it has also been acknowledged that the kidnappings that have been taking place in Colombo and elsewhere have also been for the most part for the purpose of extracting money. If the situation around Colombo is like this, it is not possible to even imagine the extent to which such abuse of authority is taking place in the north and east where the conflict situation is much more acute.
While the authorities ignore the despite of repeated reissuing of such directives, the government takes an attitude of encouragement of such illegal behaviour not only among the law enforcement officers but also among the members of the government itself. The notorious incident regarding the minister, Mervyn Silvas conflict with the SLBC and the subsequent attacks on journalists did not provoke any responsible action on the part of the government. In fact, the governments reaction has created a public perception that it is part of the present day ruling strategy to allow such a state of lawlessness.
What could even the highest court in the country do if the law enforcement agencies ignore its directives and the executive tolerates this illegal behaviour of these agencies? In such circumstances the mere re-issue of the directives may not suffice. The relating to law enforcement agencies can work only to the extent that these authorities cooperate with the courts. Serious lapses in such cooperation have been seen for a long time now. For example, a committee appointed by the Ministry of Justice to inquire into the delays in adjudication noted that one of the causes for such delays was the failure of the police to report to court and even recommended taking penal action against such failures. The very fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly made recommendations for the improvement of discipline within the law enforcement agencies is itself an indication of the extent to which the court orders are being ignored by these agencies. Such non-compliance is a serious breach of the system of justice itself. It is this that the court must now examine and the court must adopt a more comprehensive strategy to ensure that their orders are complied with. Given the extent to which the lawlessness has spread within the law enforcement agencies this will not prove to be an easy task. However, the development of such a comprehensive strategy is unavoidable if the court is to be able to intervene to protect the rights of the people and also to safeguard its own authority.
