By Udaya P. Gammanpila

“We shoot to kill. Contrary to the common belief that we can only shoot at legs, we can also shoot at heads”.

This is not a statement made by a thug such as Choppe from Maradana, Soththi Upali from Gothami Road or Thatta Some from Wanathamulla. This was the Police Spokesperson of the Good Governance Government in this Maithri Era.

He made this statement to justify the brutal police attack on students studying for the Higher National Diploma in Accountancy (HNDA).

Students came to the University Grants Commission (UGC) premises in a protest march demanding degree level recognition for their four-year diploma. When they reached the UGC, there were police officers who were equipped with batons to welcome them. They had blocked the entrance to the UGC with mobile iron barriers. No senior officer of the UGC came out to discuss the grievances of the students. Nor was a delegation of students invited inside to discuss the issues. The well organized protest march was rendered futile because of the lukewarm treatment by the authorities. When the students realized that the authorities were not responding positively to their protest, they became emotional. Although the police ordered them to disperse, they refused since they did not want to go back with empty hands.

Higher education students are very emotional in any country as they are in the early stages of their youth. That is their nature. Hence, the elders should deal with them in a mature manner. The students in France carry beer cans and smoke bombs in processions to attack police officers. The students in Latin America went on protest marches with poles in their hands. When they attack police officers with those poles, they do not react in the same manner. Instead, they demonstrate an extremely high level of patience because children can be conquered not with hatred, but with patience and compassion.

In the light of the above, let us now shift our attention to the incident which took place at Ward Place, on 29th October. Although the police ordered the students to disperse, they did not. Thereafter, the police used water canon blasts to attack students with water. Although the students moved back, they did not disperse. Police then attacked the students with tear gas. It is true that several students used traffic cones to attack the police because they were angered by the police using tear gas on them. Nevertheless, students did not carry poles or stones as they had not intended to attack the police officers.

The students who faced the tear gas attack began looking for water. Police officers chased the students who were running away to baton charge them, as vividly recorded in cameras. The police brutally attacked some students who had fallen down.

According to the Police Media Spokesperson, the police can apply necessary force. The police needs to apply such force to maintain law and order. Hence, the police can use force to arrest a suspect. But after his surrender the police have no right to assault him in any manner. Similarly, the police can disperse a protesting crowd to maintain order. The police have no authority however, to chase and assault a dispersing crowd.

The Police Spokesman has said that the police shoot to kill. However, the law has not authorized the police to kill anybody. Police arrest suspects instead of convicts. The Judiciary has the exclusive right to turn a suspect into a convict. If the police shoot to kill, there will only be a dead body to produce before Court to decide whether he was guilty or not. Hence, the police have no authority to kill persons as claimed by the spokesperson.

Police can of course kill a person in self-defence as it is a right enjoyed by any person. In other words, when a suspect is attempting to kill a police officer, that officer can kill the suspect to defend his life. This right is enjoyed not only by police officers, but by any person. When somebody is killing people who are in a peaceful crowd, the police can kill the killer to protect the innocent.

The police can claim that they used water cannon and tear gas to disperse an unlawful assembly. The students were dispersed by the tear gas attack. Accordingly, the ‘necessary force’ explained by the spokesman had been applied by then. The police baton charged the students when they were dispersing. When they fell, the police exploited the opportunity to beat them brutally. Another group of students were attacked when they were washing the tear gas away from their eyes. There was no threat or harassment from them to either the police or the general public.

Unlike in other countries, the students had not pre-arranged an attack on the police. They did not possess stones, poles or anything else with which they could have attacked the police. That is why several students had to use cones on the road to respond to the police attack. The worst feature of the attack was that most of the victims were innocent girls. Please look at the face of Sasini Sandeepani, who was the main focus of this brutal attack. Was she a threat to law and order? Could she behave violently?

There are fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Freedom from torture and arbitrary arrest, right to assemble peacefully and freedom of expression are among such fundamental rights. Hence, it is obvious that police is in violation of the fundamental rights of the students.

The government’s response for the attack was amusing. Since there is a Police Commission, the government has no responsibility in respect of the police. Firstly, Police Commission has been vested with the power only in respect of appointments, transfers, promotions and disciplinary control. It does not involve in daily administrative issues such as giving orders to brutally attack students. Secondly, there is no independent Police Commission in Sri Lanka.

The standard practice was to make key appointments including members of Police Commission by the President.

There was an allegation that such appointees were partial towards the President and his political party in discharging official functions. As a solution, the Constitutional Council (CC) was reintroduced through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Since representatives of both the Government and the Opposition are in the CC, all appointments to key institutes such as Police Commission must be made with consensus of both sides. Hence, such appointees are expected to act independently without any political favour.

Unfortunately, this principle was not followed in appointing the CC. All politicians in the CC are President’s loyalists who supported him at the last presidential election. Although there is one member from the UPFA, he has already joined the President accepting a ministerial portfolio offered by him. In this backdrop, there is no difference between direct appointments by the President and appointments made on the recommendation of President’s loyalists.

This political loyalty can be established by examining the backgrounds of appointees. There are members of the commissions who openly supported the incumbent President during the election. There is a retired police officer as a member of the Police Commission who found guilty for violation of fundamental rights of his subordinates and being under investigation for corruption.

The worst condition is that the persons under police investigation are in the CC which appoints the Police Commission. The classic example is Minister P.C. Ranawaka. There are two complaints lodged to police against him for preparing a fraudulent document by replacing the face of Dr James Peiris with a former terrorist leader called Kumaran Pathmanathan, better known as KP. In the same week, Opposition Member Tissa Attanayake was accused of preparing a fraudulent document. He was arrested and remanded for 11 days. However, nothing happened to Minister Ranawaka because probably he abused his ministerial powers to influence the police to suppress the investigations. It may be noteworthy that he admitted in an interview with a newspaper on 2.11.2015 that he was accused for disappearing Prageeth Ekneligoda. He is now involved in the selection of Police Commission in his capacity as a member of the CC.

In this backdrop, it is a mockery to expect an independent police service under this government. Hence, the Police Department is politically partial in an unprecedented manner. That is why Police Media Spokesperson behaves like a thug in the underworld. Hence, the government is responsible for every dot of blood shaded by innocent students at Ward Place on 29th October.

Courtesy:Ceylon Today