The decision of the Government to repeal the Law was announced by its Cabinet spokesman, Minister G.L. Peiris early this month in a particularly welcome context. Acknowledging that mistakes have been made in the past, Minister Peiris pointed out that inquiries of the kind mandated under the SPCI Law should be carried out judicially, adding in this context that "the laws of the land, the laws of evidence and the laws of natural justice should apply." The repeal of the SPCI Law was announced as part of a broad constitutional reform package including allowing a conscience vote to MPs, restraining the President from dissolving Parliament without consulting the Prime Minister and Speaker, establishing the executive committee system, scrutinizing public finances by Parliament and strengthening media freedom.

The Law had been dogged with controversy from the point of its inception due to particular reasons. It gives Commissions appointed under it, considerable powers of investigation and summoning witnesses. The recommendations can include whether such person should be made subject to civic disability (Section 9 (1), which would result in Parliament taking steps to impose civic disability or expel that person from Parliament if he is a MP. (Article 81 of the Constitution) Problematically however, Commissions can also disregard cautionary rules of evidence in their inquiries, including permitting third party statements to be admitted as evidence, without the makers of those statements themselves coming before the tribunal. (Section 7 (d)) This section gives Commissions the power to admit evidence which might be inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceedings.

It was first used by then President J.R. Jayewardene in 1978 to deprive several front-rankers of the previous United Front Government, including former premier Sirimavo Bandaranaike of their civic rights in a manner that is well documented. Paradoxically however, it was after 1994, that the appointing of Commissions under the SPCI Law by President Kumaratunga to investigate several assassinations during the previous regimes, including that of her husband, again invoked widespread protest. While some Reports were transparently emotive and highly challenging, others appeared to follow procedures bringing into effect a standard lower than the norms of established criminal law in deciding the culpability of persons. Before long therefore, the findings of these Commissions were thoroughly discredited in one case after another brought by individuals affected before the Supreme Court.

It was, in this context, profound irony that a large number of those affected and who were able to obtain judgements in their favour were police officers. The precise manner of their grievances was effectively summed up in one case, in particular, where the findings of the Tissa Bandaranayake Commission investigating the assassination of Lalith Athulathmudali, was quashed by the Supreme Court in early July 1999. In the application brought by DIG A.S. Seneviratne, a Supreme Court Bench consisting Justices Amerasinghe, Dheeraratne and Wijetunge remarked severely that;
"(Seneviratne) was condemned by the Commission without being given an opportunity of refuting what was being urged against him ……….. without hearing what he had to say, (the Commission) nevertheless came to the conclusion that (Seneviratne) was 'beyond all reasonable doubt' guilty of criminal and official misconduct" (per A.R.B. Amerasinghe J.)

The July decision had been preceded by an earlier judgement of the Court where the Lalith Commission Report was first successfully challenged by Sirisena Cooray a former UNP Minister. A Bench consisting Justices Dheeraratne, Gunesekera and Weerasekera ruled that the findings against the former UNP Minister were "flawed and unreasonable" and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed Commission findings that Cooray had committed contempt of the Commission and that he was directly concerned and was a member of the conspiracy to assassinate Athulathmudali.

One comment by the Supreme Court in this case in particular, reflects all that is wrong with the SPCI Law. This was in response to arguments that one need not prove offences such as "abetment" and "conspiracy" under the Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Act as rigorously as under the normal penal law (because a finding of a Commission does not entail penal consequences but 'only' civic disability on the individual). Quoting international human rights law, the Court found this "dangerous heresy" to be unacceptable for two reasons.

" Firstly, norms of criminal culpability should be certain and they cannot take different shades depending on who applies them. Secondly, learned counsel's submission is based on the belief, (like the scant respect the commissioners had to the right of representation by lawyers) that the right to vote is an inferior kind of right of no consequence and therefore that a person could be deprived of that right less seriously".
What these cases (and others following them) did was to conclusively debunk the notion that the SPCI Law gives leave to observe a more lax justice in the deliberations of Commissions appointed under it. Regardless however, the horrific possibility of yet another Commission being appointed by yet another obdurant executive to probe ills of a predecessor regime continued to be present while the Law remained on our statute books. It is for this reason that the decision to repeal the Law once and for all was welcome.

It is in this context that the statement issued by the SLFP is highly puzzling and should not be repeated in any manner whatsoever. Citizens in this country look to the Opposition to recognise the errors of the past and to formulate responsible strategy that would critique actions of the Government and its Ministers when necessary, to the greater good of the country. Undoubtedly, it does not look to the Opposition to rush pell-mell into continuing self-immolation.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster