In reference to the interdiction of 106 policemen who have been charged for serious criminal offenses before Sri Lanka’s high courts, a daily newspaper Divayina reported the country’s Inspector General of Police (IGP) as saying that the officers should be allowed to continue at their posts until they are proven guilty. This statement in fact amounts to an obstruction of the legal process; under Sri Lankan law, all civil servants charged with criminal offenses should be interdicted until their criminal trials are completed. By expressing an opinion to the contrary, the IGP expects police officers to be treated differently from other civil servants.
The IGP further accused the National Police Commission (NPC)–a constitutional authority under which the police department functions–of attempting to help criminal elements in the country by taking steps to interdict these officers. He was quoted as saying, “Some human rights organizations have a very sophisticated plan to fight against control of crime, and interdicting these officers is part of such a plan. The National Police Commission has also encouraged this.” The IGP was also of the opinion that the police force may become ineffective due to the interdictions of these officers.
These comments are made in response to the criminal cases filed by the Attorney General against police officers on charges of torture under the Convention Against Torture Act. These charges are filed only after an investigation is conducted by a Special Investigating Unit of the police into complaints of torture referred to them. After a thorough investigation is made, the reports are submitted to the Attorney Generals department and that department, after proper scrutiny, makes the decision to file charges.
It is after such an indictment is filed by the Attorney Generals department that the officers charged are expected to be interdicted. However, there has been a practice in recent years to allow the officers to remain at their posts even after such indictments have been filed. The charged officers then use their authority to intimidate the complainants. One such complainant, Gerald Perera, who was to give evidence in court against the officers who allegedly tortured him, was assassinated. In other instances, victims are tortured for a second or even third time by the alleged perpetrators, in order to force them to withdraw their complaints or to change their testimony in court. Witnesses of such crimes are also intimidated. In a recent instance, a witness who had been present at the time his friend was being tortured and had given an affidavit to this effect before the Supreme Court, denied his statement during trial stating that he was afraid for his life as well as that of his family.
The IGPs opinion that it is not possible for the police department to function effectively without these officers charged with torture condemns the policing system in Sri Lanka. In an interview given to the London based REDRESS in May 2005, Dr. Radhika Coomaraswarmy, chairperson of Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission, made the following remarks:
Furthermore, our discussions with the police and other individuals and agencies have revealed that the police had not really been trained in basic investigative skills. For some reason, the training was more of a paramilitary nature. Torture is often a shortcut to getting information, and as a result it is systematic and widespread.
We are not talking about isolated cases of rogue policemen: we are talking about the routine use of torture as a method of investigation. It requires fundamental structural changes to the police force to eradicate these practices.
We also don’t have a clear policy on protection and that is something that has been raised, but again we don’t have enough resources. We intervene to make the police provide protection. At the end, the NHRC as an informal body makes recommendations.
Under these circumstances, the IGP’s vocal support of those alleged to have committed the crime of torture is unprecedented in any civilised society. As well as its constitution prohibiting torture and cruel, and inhuman punishment, Sri Lanka is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, for which its periodic report is now due. Earlier this year, the Sri Lankan government stated to the UN Commission on Human Rights at its 61st session that it condemns torture without reservation. However, the head of the country’s police force is openly defying these commitments.
The open revolt being conducted against the NPC is another facet of the IGP’s defiance of domestic law and international commitments. The IGP has for several months now acted in a way to prevent the NPC from performing its basic functions.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) calls upon the government, the media, civil society, and in particular, human rights organizations, to take this matter up as a issue of enormous public interest. We will also urge the UN Committee against Torture to specifically look into this matter while examining Sri Lanka’s periodic report.
