SC prevents Deshabandu from functioning as IGP

• Unanimously held petitioners established prima facie case

The Supreme Court yesterday issued an interim order restraining Deshabandu Tennakoon from exercising the powers, functions and responsibilities of the office of Inspector General of Police (IGP).   

The order was issued by a three-judge-bench which comprised Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, Justice Achala Wengappuli and Justice Mahinda Samayawardena following nine Fundamental Rights petitions filed challenging the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as the Inspector General of Police was taken up for order. The three-judge-bench unanimously held that the petitioners had made out a strong prima facie case suggesting that the said appointment was contrary to the applicable provisions of the Constitution. This order will be effective until the final determination of nine Fundamental Rights Applications filed challenging his appointment as IGP.  

Pronouncing the order pertaining to these Fundamental Rights petitions, which examined the constitutionality of the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP, Justice Yasantha Kodagoda held that the President should consider appointing a suitable person as the IGP in accordance with the law during the period of the interim order.  

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed with the nine Fundamental Rights petitions against the Attorney General who represented the President, the Speaker, Deshabandu Tennakoon in terms of Article 12(1) of the constitution. 

The petitions were fixed for argument on November 11, 2024. Six weeks were granted to the respondents to file objections from yesterday, while the petitioners were directed to file counter objections if necessary.  

Prof.Savithri Goonasekara, Niroshan Padukka, Dr.Pakiasothy Saravanamuththu, Malcom Cardinal Ranjith, Tharindu Iranga Jayawardana, Hirunika Premachandra, Atham Lebbe Aazath, S.K Priyanga and A.N.S Soysa filed these petitions naming Attorney General representing the President, Chairman of the Constitutional Council Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana, members of the Constitutional Council, the Attorney General and several others as respondents.  

The petitioners maintained that this 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.   

The petitioners state that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, the Constitutional Council has not in terms of the requirements of the Constitution approved the recommendation of the President to appoint Tennakoon as IGP.  

The petitioners stated that the requirement of approval by the Council connotes that the Council shall not act as a rubber stamp to the President but shall be a body that approves the appointment after an objective assessment of suitability.   

The petitioners stated that the Attorney General had made a communication to name Tennakoon as a suspect in a matter before the Magistrate’s Court of Fort pertaining to the attack on peaceful protesters at Galle Face on May 09, 2022.