Gerrymandering

President Ranil Wickremesinghe never tires of appealing to the opposition to support the government’s efforts to revive the economy shattered by the Covid pandemic followed by the aragalaya in 2022. Yet he continues to ride roughshod over the opposition most of the time and expects the cooperation of those affected by his style and acts of governance to assist him in the task of nation building and stabilizing the economy. Successfully doing so may, of course, help him to realize his dream of being elected president of this country later this year. But that would be the last thing his opponents would want to do and they cannot be expected to help him along his way.

The most recent example of the president’s preposterous acts is the appointment last week of Mr. Deshabandu Tennekoon as the country’s 36th Inspector General of Police (IGP). Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema, an eminent legal academic who served as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and briefly as Attorney General in Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike’s 1970 government has contributed a short article on the new IGP’s appointment to this issue of our newspaper. Here he lucidly and cogently argues that there had clearly been an act of blatant gerrymandering in claiming that the Constitutional Council has approved Tennekoon’s appointment.

Certainly the ‘ayes’ outnumbered the ‘nays’ in the 10-member Constitutional Council which is minus one member due to the lack of consensus among minority parties on a nominee when Tennekoon’s nomination came up for approval. Four votes were cast in favour and two against. But although no official declaration to that effect has been made, it appears that Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene, who ex officio chairs the Constitutional Council had chosen to count the two abstentions as votes against the appointment and decided that the result was a tie with four votes for and four against. He had used his own casting vote to decide the matter in favour of the government. Jayawickrema has pointed out that this was totally unconstitutional, saying that while the Constitution does say that the Council should endeavour to make a unanimous decision, no decision of the Council would be valid unless it is supported by no less than five members present at the meeting.

As Jayawickrema has explained, the Speaker has no original vote in the Constitutional Council and may only use his casting vote to break a deadlock in the event of a tie. He has quoted Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa making a public declaration that four members of the Council, one less than the required five, voted for the president’s recommendation while two others, including himself, voted against. Jayawickrema has asked: “In what capacity did the Speaker vote? He did not have an original vote but only a casting vote in the event of a tie.”

There has been no formal statement on the Constitutional Council meeting that endorsed the president’s nominee for the post of IGP and the media has depended largely on hearsay for what has been reported. Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has been outspoken on the subject and said in a post on social media platform ‘X’ on Monday: “Constitution is being blatantly violated for the second time. Shame on you speaker!” He was referring to the appointment of Tennakoon as IGP as well as the previously enacted Online Safety legislation.

Given that the opposition is a minority in the Constitutional Council, there is speculation that the two abstentions were a strategy adopted to ensure that the vote did not end in a tie giving Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene the opportunity to legitimately to break the deadlock with his casting vote. Abeywardene was quoted in The Hindu last week saying Premadasa’s accusation was “totally baseless.” He has said: “If they [opposition] think there is a violation, they have to go to the courts, not come to parliament.” Abeywardene was elected to parliament on the ticket of the Rajapaksas’ SLPP which elected RW to the presidency and continues to back his government. Traditionally the Speaker is expected to divest himself of party loyalties when assuming parliamentary office.

It must be said in fairness to President Wickremesinghe that he originally did not appear to favour Tennekoon’s appointment. The previous IGP, Chandana Wickramaratne, was granted several short extensions from his original date of retirement on March 26 last year when he reached his mandatory retirement age of 60 years presumably to forestall Tennekoon’s appointment. The general perception was that Tennekoon who was eventually made acting IGP in November 2023, was Law and Order Minister Tiran Alles’ choice for permanent IGP. The minister eventually had his way even though Tennekoon was held guilty of a fundamental rights violation in a torture case by the Supreme Court and ordered along with three other police officers to pay half a million rupees each to the victim. Several other fundamental rights violation cases against him are to be taken up by the Supreme Court in April.

Tennekoon has also been accused of being responsible for the law and order failure, as Senior DIG for the Western Province, when a mob from Temple Trees attacked the aragalaya protesters on Galle Face green. Upon formally assuming office he went on record saying that he was the most reviled officer in the history of the police force.

Meanwhile, the SJB has initiated a motion of no confidence against the Speaker for approving the Online Safety Bill, allegedly without incorporating all the recommendations made by the Supreme Court, which heard nearly 50 petitions challenging it. Government critics and rights groups have fiercely opposed the new legislation that, they fear, will be used to stifle dissent and undermine freedom of expression. Collection of signatures for this motion had begun before the new IGP issue became a hot ticket and this too is likely to be part of that motion.