|
The
Supreme Court in a recent judgement on a fundamental
rights violation case found three police officers of the
Homagama Police guilty of several charges. FR
application 224/2006 was heard before a bench comprising
Chief Justice Sarath N.Silva, Justice P.A.Ratnayake, and
Justice Shirani Tilakawardane, delivering the verdict.
In
this matter PS (R) 11834 Sunil, PC 40156 Kumara Rathna,
PS 20912 Kumara Rajabandara, Officer-in-Charge of
Homagama Police and the Inspector General of Police were
made respondents by Petitioner M.D. Nandapala of
Panadura. The Court ordered the first respondent to pay
Rs. 75,000 and the second and third respondents to pay a
cumulative sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
The
petitioner alleged that he and some other occupants were
stopped by the three police officers at Godagama
Junction at about 10 p.m on May 24, 2006, and taken into
custody and brought to the Homagama Police Station. He
had been brutally assaulted by the first and second
respondents with a hose pipe and club, accusing him of
robbery as he had a knife and Rs. 25,000 in his
possession. His driving licence was taken away as was a
3.5 inch knife which was said to be in his waist but
later proved to have been in the cubby of the van as
part of his tools of his trade.
Having
obtained bail from the Officer-in-Charge, he met the
first respondent to secure his driving licence whereupon
he was asked to make a false complaint that he had lost
it. Having refused to do so, the petitioner complained
to the SSP Nugegoda K. Udayapala who in turn referred it
to the then SP Homagama Wickreme Perera who had acted
promptly by holding an impartial inquiry.
Recomendation was made for disciplinary action against
the senior officers. Neither SSP. Udayapala nor, after
his retirement, SP Deshabandu Tennekoon followed up the
case by the issue of a charge sheet to the relevant
officers.
It was
proved in Court that the arrest was illegal according to
the procedure laid down. The Court called for and
perused the personal file of the first respondent. It
was revealed that the first respondent had his
enlistment cancelled within two years for
insubordination but had been reinstated after an inquiry
by DIG A.C.A Gafoor who had been written to by the then
Chief Minister of the Sabaragamuwa Province Abeyratne
Pilapitiya.
In
1997 the respondent received a letter of recomendation
from Upali Kodikara to be promoted to the rank of
reserve police sergeant and another recommendation
shortly after by Asoka Jayawardene, another politician.
The respondent was promoted to the rank of Police
Reserve Sergeant on March 3, 2004.
Prior
to the promotion the respondent was transferred to
Batticaloa Police but made an appeal to Minister John
Amaratunge and the transfer was deferred. He was
absorbed into the regular service in 2006 by a cabinet
decision when all reservists with the required
qualifications were enlisted.
The
Court noted with dismay that the respondent had utilised
seven months leave in five years but had continued in
service and was also promoted.
Delivering the judgement Justice Shirani Tilakawardane
made strong strictures against police officers who did
not follow the rule of law and we quote from the
judgement..
“On a
direct level we see a staggering loss to the government
in the form of compensation payments to those who’ve
been illtreated by police officers, with statistics
revealing the payment of approximately Rs. 6,017,331 in
compensation for the years 2004/2008.....” and,
“On
an indirect level we see the growing loss of faith by
the public in a force that has come to be seen as an
organisation to be feared — due to the aberrant
behaviour of a small minority of police officers —
rather than a supportive service to which they can look
for protection and help. We see the growing feeling of
impunity inculcated by those officers such as the first
respondent in this case, that repeatedly get away with
inappropriate behaviour recognising that their actions
will be protected due to political patronage and favour
and are likely to receive no disciplinary repercussions
at all.”
The
Court made the following further orders and
declarations:
1. An
inquiry is to be held by an independent inquiring
officer of the National Police Commission as to why both
K. Udayapala and Deshabandu Tennakoon failed to take any
action regarding the recommendations of the SP of
Homagama in accordance with the Departmental Police
Orders binding upon them. This Court notes that such an
inquiry is as important in establishing the culpability
of the offenders as it is in exonerating superior
officers who may currently be clouded by perceptions of
impropriety regarding this matter.
2. The
Second Respondent, who filed a copy of the Inquiry
Report from which the findings of the SP Homagama had
been deliberately removed, is to report to Court within
two months of the delivery of this judgment to explain
why he chose to submit a fraudulent document and why he
should not be dealt with for contempt of court. The case
is to be mentioned for hearing one month from the
delivery of this judgment and the Second Respondent is
to be noticed accordingly.
3. The
Attorney General will consider pursuing an indictment of
the Thirrd Respondent for knowingly and voluntarily
recording a fabricated statement of the Petitioner
regarding his driver’s licence.
4. In
recognition of the lack of effective self-governance
with respect to superior officers as evidenced by the
present case, the National Police Commission is to
publicly set forth effective, practical procedures that
provide for supervision of police officers of all ranks.
Attention should be sought to enlist retired officers or
other persons who have no personal benefit to gain
through patronage of those with financial and political
power to enforce such procedures.
Further, the National Police Commission is to amend the
existing scheme for promotions to explicitly counter
political and financial influence, through the issuance
of a set of specific, determined, pre-specified rules
which specifically disallow the consideration of
“recommendations” given by those not within the police
force, or which have not been earned through specific
duties of excellence as assessed by their superiors in
the police force and with a provision to appeal against
any partiality of superior officers.
The
issuance of such objective criteria and the resulting
transparency in the promotion process, this Court
believes, will legitimise the process in the eyes of
police officers and will no doubt reduce the desire to
deviate from a path of integrity and honour.
5. The
National Police Commission is to create awareness and
training programmes that will sensitise officers to the
importance of their duties. In light of the currently
centralised nature of police training, special focus is
to be made to conduct such training programmes in
outstation posts.
6. It
is strongly suggested to the National Police Commission
that a division within the police force — known in other
jurisdictions as a division of “internal affairs” — be
created to solely investigate and speedily review
suspicions of professional misconduct by members of any
rank of the police force.
 |
