Sunday Times 2
Police: The panacea for all ills
View(s):Recently newspapers highlighted a photograph of policemen carrying ballot boxes after the close of polls in the August 5 general election. According to the news item, these were police officers who were detailed for security duty at polling booths, and it was not part of their duty to carry ballot boxes, but they were giving a helping hand to the staff deployed for that purpose. This news item must be highly appreciated by the police fraternity because it is more often brickbats that the police receive from the media.
In a previous article of mine I had revealed that the Police Service was the most wanted, yet most despised Service: Wanted, because policemen are always available at beck and call in any emergency; Despised, for the sins of politicians and the rich and mighty who misuse them, often at the expense of the poor and helpless.
A case in point to show how police officers by and large have responded to the call of duty to uphold the law of the land is the attempted coup dRétat of 1962, to overthrow the lawfully elected government. Although top rung officers of the Police and Armed Services were involved in the coup attempt, junior officers carried out lawful orders to arrest the suspects without any let or hindrance.
I remember vividly the arrest of the legendary Sydney de Zoysa by Sub-Inspector Percy Ekanayake. When shown the detention order, Zoysa had perused the detention order and stated that it was not against him as the spelling was different. Ekanayake just told him he was satisfied that “you are the person referred to”, and that he would use all the force at his command if he did not submit to arrest. Zoysa submitted himself like a lamb and was taken to Temple Trees from where Deputy Defence Minister Felix Dias Bandaranaike, with Prime Minister and Defence Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike presiding, was conducting the preliminaries.
Another courageous and tricky arrest that had legal and political ramifications is the arrest of the firebrand lawyer cum parliamentarian Prince Gunasekera in connection with the 1971 JVP insurrection. He was arrested by Inspector Anton Jeyanathan. An earlier arrest of Gunasekera on a detention order (DO) was challenged by Gunasekera on the basis that the offence for which he had been arrested was not explained to him. At the court inquiry, the SP who arrested Gunasekera stated he showed the DO to Gunasekera (the DO contained the offence) and on convoluted cross-examination, got it out from him that he did not ‘explain the offence’. Upholding that as a point of law, the court ordered his release. By this time, the police were ready with another DO and it fell on Inspector Anton Jeyanathan to execute the DO. On being released, Gunasekera accompanied by his lawyers led by Senior Counsel Bala Thampoe entered the lawyers’ chambers and would not come out.
There was much excitement and everybody was converging on the court house. I was then attached to the Bribery Commissioner’s Department which was housed in the middle of the courts complex, and I too went to see what was happening.
Inspector Jeyanathan, followed by several police officers in mufti, cordially entered the lawyers’ chambers, and made polite conversation with Gunasekera and his lawyers. Having softened their hostile attitude towards the police, he showed the new DO to Gunasekera and clarified all questions, even reading out the gazette. The lawyers kept raising ‘points of law’ to which Jeyanathan gave a patient hearing.
Jeyanathan, who had anticipated this turn of events, had planned his move with his assistants. Using brain and brawn, he suddenly grabbed Gunasekera, with his assistants, like in a loose scrum in rugby, supporting him. They whisked Gunasekera out of the chambers, while Thampoe and other lawyers kept yelling in protest.
These instances make it clear that Police are often compelled to act thus in awkward situations that are created for the Police — state of affairs where abstruse points of law are invoked against the force of common sense, which appears to be a rare commodity in the authorities. Such situations are plainly the result of clumsy dealings by the authorities. This has been the case over a period of time, when spelling mistakes etc. are good enough to advance as law points. Such ungainly conduct on the part of defence lawyers, as seen in these instances, is possible only because they have some appeal based on experience in the existing system. In fact, such abstruse points apparently commend themselves to the law, to the courts, to the judiciary, and even to the Legislature.
Instances are many. It is worth mentioning the case of Vivienne Gunawardena. In that case Sub-Inspector Ganeshanathan was found guilty of violating the rights of Gunawardene, despite she firmly asserting that the sub inspector did not violate her rights. She insisted that her rights were violated by some other police officer. Courts ignored this evidence! So much for law and order!
Significantly, none of these authorities is embarrassed by such abstruse points being made on the field, and in courts. Else such awkward behaviour of lawyers would not be tolerated, not before authorities who preside over justice for common good, for morality and good order. Police are instead compelled to act in this manner when governance has failed – governance in the above organs of government. This point will be made clearer when you note that such argument by defence lawyers is not observed in courts in other countries such as the United Kingdom, as told me by Dr. Frank de Silva, who has written extensively on crime and justice.
(The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at
seneviratnetz@gmail.com)