Sunday Times 2
Police handicapped by interference with law and order
View(s):Law and order can suffer due to various factors bearing on the process of law and order. Law and order is for public good, common to all society at large, which idea therefore engages the total meaning and purpose of its prescription for good governance. So it has been and yet intended to be.
But that cherished ideal has been changed and brought down to a technical and bureaucratic practice in the general reckoning in the current state of affairs in Sri Lanka. In effect, law and order is now a police task separate from tasks of others for good governance. Others in the process stand removed a distance away from the function of law and order—others being the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. These others are not identified with, nor do they involve themselves in the task of law and order in any effective way, nor do they strive to bear any responsibility for the discharge of the function of law and order. Courts delay, uncalled for interference by the Executive, and the Legislature holding back necessary law, undermine law and order. That duty is thereby left to the police to go it alone.
Standing by themselves alone is no easy task for the police to serve law and order. Various influences weigh heavily on the police along the way. These influences have a bearing on the police task in so many devious ways. The intention in this article is limited to only identifying just some of the problems that the police encounter in the legal process. Here again, only a few instances are cited due to space constraints.
Investigation by Police is not assured of achieving its purpose for law and order, once the investigation has been handed over to the other agencies in the existing system. When delay and expense is heavily incurred in the subsequent process, maintaining effective law and order is gravely prejudiced to the police task for law and order. Crime cases postponed in courts for months and years ending with a desultory decision imposing crown costs etc., plainly undermine the process for law and order. Procrastination as a regular practice does not help law and order. Worse still, is the situation in which such easy postponements are contrived with incentives that smack of corruption. There is much incentive for delay and repeated postponement, but little disincentive for such practices. Deterrence to crime, by way of law and order, have to wait while other interests work through, interests other than for effective law and order.
The other instance is where police action for law and order is stymied by the law itself. Thus the law of compounding of minor cases at police stations that stood for over 150 years was changed to reduce it of its end effect for law and order, by reducing its acquittal to one of discharge in 1983, a change made at the instance of law professionals, not at the urgings of the community, nor at the request of the Police. Victims and their witnesses to crime understand only too well their lot in the peace process, that their place is relegated to little relevance in favour of the more important others in the courts. Significantly, the parallel law in India remains unchanged to date.
There are yet many other instances of law changes which inhibit or do not promote law and order. If volume of work is the problem the enlistment of means outside the courts offers a prospect. But monopoly considerations hamper the thought for such initiatives for collective and contributory justice. These are not itemised further due to space constraints.
It is easy to see that law and order, relegated to the Police only, has now to face complications in trying to serve the common good of law and order. Unfortunately these impediments are brought in the wake of other motivations. And that too, as experienced in the last three/four decades, was not seen through the 150 years since inception. The problem is that other considerations, considerations less than the public common good and the public interest, have loomed larger over the justice arena. Militarisation of Police duties more recently, has added to the vicissitudes of police action for law and order.
The obstacle to Economic Development when law and order fail is aptly explained by Dr Nimal Sandaratne in his column in the Sunday Times of August 30, 2020. He says: “Ensuring law and order and the rule of law is one of the most important preconditions for economic development. The rule of law means not only the enforcement of law to ensure peace and orderly life of the community, but also equal justice for all. Without these the economy will not take-off as the investment climate will not be conducive for foreign and domestic investment”. In the same column is a very telling cartoon: “Isn’t this what President said in his speech to Parliament?” Reply-“The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it”.
Yes, the President has now to walk his talk. The above outlined ‘interferences with law and order’, should help him stem the tide.
(The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can becontacted at seneviratnetz@gmail.com)