There is media uproar over senior-most police officers visiting Kandy and Anuradhapura to meet the Mahanayakes. The purpose of the visits has been to beg of the prelates to save them from court action recommended against them over the Easter Sunday attacks in April 2019. The conduct of these police officers has given rise to [...]

Sunday Times 2

Senior Police Officers’ plea to Mahanayakes: A breach of EC

View(s):

There is media uproar over senior-most police officers visiting Kandy and Anuradhapura to meet the Mahanayakes. The purpose of the visits has been to beg of the prelates to save them from court action recommended against them over the Easter Sunday attacks in April 2019.

The conduct of these police officers has given rise to public condemnations because they betrayed the public trust reposed in the police for more than 150 years.

There has been only one such instance in the long history of the police. It was when a senior police officer sought outside assistance to clear his name. In that instance, DIG Sydney de Zoysa (SdZ) transgressed the Establishment Code (EC) by holding a press briefing without Defence Ministry approval. Following the assassination of Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike in 1959, there were rumours implicating various people, including SdZ. Being impatient and over-zealous to preserve his dignity, he called a press conference and briefed the media on what he termed ‘the facts’ as against the ‘rumours’ that he had listed. However well-intentioned this was, and factually correct as later established, he had transgressed the EC, and was sent on compulsory retirement.

In the case of these senior police officers under review, there has been a violation of the EC, which is meant to secure the Police Service and thus serve the people. The breach of the regulations was not merely an administrative lapse but a failure to duly serve the people as required by the EC.

These officers are liable under the Police Departmental Orders A 7 Appendix B. Excerpts:

Discreditable conduct: That is to say that they acted in a manner prejudicial to discipline, or likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Police Service.

4.)  Neglect of Duty:  (a) That is to say that they neglected or omitted promptly and diligently to attend or carry out anything which was their duty as police officers; or (e) failed to report any matter which was their duty to report.

6.)  Breach of confidence: (b) That is to say that they, without proper authority, communicated to the public press or to any unauthorised person any matter connected with the Service.

7.)  Corrupt practice: (e) That is to say that they improperly used their character and position as Police Officers for their private advantage.

16.) The Inspector General of Police is liable for being an accessory to a breach of discipline under this section; that is to say that he has connived at or knowingly abetted any offence or breach of discipline under this code.

The EC raises the important issue of loyalty of police officers and insists on their steadfast allegiance to the task entrusted. This arrangement cannot allow for other loyalties and other influences to weigh down on the work of these police officers acting in this manner, in the public glare. In this instance, the police officers have violated their oath of office. The net result is that there can be no trust reposed in these officers. Apart from breach of rules, these police officers have effectively surrendered their moral worth as senior police officers.

This violation fails not only the public, but also other police officers who have upheld their values and not compromised their personalities in their public office. This misdemeanor on the part of these particular police officers reflects a weakness and incapacity in their character to hold office any longer. In the larger interest of the police service, it is imperative that appropriate charges should be framed against them and dealt with accordingly.

These officers believed that they could easily inveigle the prelates to do something unacceptable.

The magnitude of the offences must be viewed in the light of the massive public furore that has been raised against the conduct of these senior-most police officers trying to thwart the course of justice — the very thing they are duty bound to uphold! Details unfortunately cannot be discussed due to space restrictions.

(The writer is a Retired
Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at seneviratnetz@gmail.com -
TP 077 44 751 44)

 

Share This Post

WhatsappDeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.