Election Commission in dilemma over absence of IGP to conduct polls

• Empathizes need to have a police chief either in acting or permanent capacity to provide security during polling and transporting of ballot boxes
• President to refer Supreme Court’s ruling on Deshabandu to Parliamentary Select Committee   
• AG’s advice to be sought  
• The President is reported to have said that he only endorsed the decision made by the Constitutional Council

Hot on the heels of the Supreme Court issuing an interim order restraining Deshabandu Tennakoon from functioning as the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Election Commission is in a dilemma in the conduct of the presidential election after its declaration on Friday in the absence of a police chief.  

The Police Department is a key government organization required in the conduct of elections, and the Commission orders the police chief to carry out its orders related to the election including the deployment of personnel.   

Asked about it, a top official of the Election Commission told Daily Mirror his office should communicate with the Inspector General of Police or the acting Inspector General of Police. He emphasized the need to have someone as the police chief either in permanent or acting capacity once the election is declared.   

“Otherwise, we are at a loss to decide whom to be contacted,” he said.  

Meanwhile, President Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have told a special Cabinet meeting that he would refer the Supreme Court’s ruling to a special parliamentary select committee to study the court ruling and decide on the next step for the government.  

He also said it would be referred to the Attorney General for advice, according to a top source familiar with the Cabinet proceedings.  

The Cabinet meeting had been pre-scheduled to clear some papers since it ran out of time to approve all the papers pending last Monday. However, the President made some remarks about the matter involving the IGP.   

The President is reported to have said that he only endorsed the decision made by the Constitutional Council, and therefore Parliament only should decide next action.  

The petitioners who moved the Supreme Court maintained that Mr.Tennakoon’s appointment would result in a direct attack on the Rule of Law, and a consequent denial to the Petitioners and the citizens’ rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution and ignoring clear constitutional provisions in particular article 41(E) 4, concerning manner of voting in the constitutional council when only four members have voted in favor of such appointment.