Archives

We refer to your two articles which have been given prominence in the front page of your publication of 7th July 2004 and would request you to kindly extend the National Police Commission (NPC) the courtesy of publicity to the following statement in full, in fairness to the public who deserve to know the answers of the National Police Commission to allegations that have been made in the two articles the contents of which, to say the least, leave much to be desired to improve the image and standing of this Commission.

The recent promotions made by the National Police Commission were the culmination of the 'one off' Provisional Promotion Scheme formulated last year on the initiative of the then IGP and approved by the NPC as well as the Supreme Court in the year 2003 and further confirmed by the Supreme Court on 31.05.2004.

The scheme was designed to eliminate the frustration and demotivation amongst police officers as a result of the wide spread stagnation, particularly in the lower ranks that existed for long period.

However, in respect of higher ranks such as the Chief Inspector of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police Gr. II, 50 per cent of the vacancies were set apart for a seniority stream wherein, officers without blemishes during the last 5 preceding years will be promoted on the basis of information provided by the IGP.

The remaining 50 per cent of the vacancies were allocated for seniority + merit stream (90 per cent seniority, 10 per cent merit).

Promotees in this stream had to appear before an interview board consisting of five members, of whom the Chairman who was a Secretary of a Ministry and two others who were senior public servants outside the Police Service and two DIGG from the Police Service.

Accordingly, 114 vacancies of SP Gr. II, 134 ASPP and 326 CII were promoted. Although the promotions under the seniority + merit stream results were released on 27.12.2003, results under the seniority stream could not be released as there were alternative proposals from the present IGP, plus the outcome of further representations made to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

The Supreme Court on May 31, 2004 directed the NPC to implement the original proposal as concluded for senior officers, and the promotions under seniority stream to be implemented strictly on the basis of seniority without blemishes and in accordance with the guidelines in the Establishments Code in the same way as proposed by the IGP.

However, promotions of 1,200 Sub Inspectors and 1,372 Sergeants were made by the Committee of three retired senior officers headed by a Retired High Court Judge appointed in terms of Article 155 H 1, according to the seniority lists, the blemish records and other relevant information provided by the IGP.

Pursuant to the above Supreme Court directive and considering the proposal of the IGP who furnished information in relation to blemishes, pending inquiries and court cases along with the seniority lists of all grades of police officers, the National Police Commission confirmed the promotions and intimated same to the IGP for implementation with effect from January 1, 2003.

We will now deal with each allegation in your other article as follows:

1. "UPFA Government has formulated a systematic procedure for effecting police promotions which was implemented from July 1" - This Commission is not aware of any such proposal of the Government. The provisions of the 17th amendment of the Constitution clearly state that the sole responsibility for formulating systems, schemes for promotions, transfers, etc., are the total prerogative of this Commission.

2. "Complaint from the President regarding five officers" - It is true that this Commission has received a communication from the Presidential Secretariat taking up the case of five officers. We are glad that the Presidential Secretariat has extended us the courtesy of seeking clarification from this Commission first before pronouncing any judgement. The case of the five officers referred to have been carefully examined and we have promptly sent a reply to the Presidential Secretariat.

3. "Police promotions for robbers, and murderers, including prisoners and expatriates" - The absence of reference to any particular individual in this generalised statement by itself renders it unaccountable.

We categorically declare that there have been no such promotions to the rank of Chief Inspector as you claim. It appears that you have been totally misled.

We confirm that of the total 544 senior officers considered for promotions, the names of 141 officers were put into a "Reserve List" purely on account of the fact that there are court cases or Departmental inquiries pending the finalisation of charges involving fundamental rights and other alleged misdemeanours. It must be appreciated that the Commission can only withhold promotions, provided there is evidence of a departmental inquiry or indictment in a court of law.

In the absence of an inquiry or a court case the mere allegations, suspicion, and accusations against police officers do not permit the Commission to withhold promotions, on hearsay.

Up to now the Commission has not received complaints or appeals regarding 'discontent' or 'disapproval' of any decision of the Commission except where a few senior officers have appealed to the IGP offering grounds for review of their individual cases.

In consultation with the IGP their appeals are being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Indeed in any normal system of promotions there is room for appeal, review and revision, which invariably follows the promotions.

4. "Recommendations for promotions during the tenure of Mr. John Amaratunga as the Minister in Charge of the Police" - Your reference to "the President plays no role in the selection of those eligible for promotions" is absolutely correct.

But the reference to "the Commission instituted under the 17th Amendment to the Constitution recommends these promotions for ratification by the President" is absolutely incorrect as the 17th amendment to the Constitution under which the NPC was created does not provide permission for any presidential ratification of the decisions of the Commission. There were no recommendations sent to this Commission by the former Minister of Interior Affairs or any other party.

At different times list of police officers eligible for promotions and subsequent revisions of such lists were referred to the Commission for its consideration by police headquarters.

With reference to the article titled "Confusion more confounded in Police Commission" we would state as follows:

1. "NPC allegedly encroaching even on the simplest of functions efficiently handled by the Police Service" is an uncharitable remark unsupported by facts and completely false, and indeed does not deserve any more waste of words on such baseless allegations.

2. "Instructions to IGP to dispatch two police constables to Wijerama junction for night patrol" - Here is another totally false statement made somewhat irresponsibly. This is completely 'news' to us.

The procedure adopted by this Commission from the inception is to have a regular one to one meeting with the IGP and his senior officers on matters to promotions, transfers, training, discipline, etc.

Any public appeals regarding operational matters received from the public for police intervention are referred by the Commission to the IGP with a request that he "takes whatever action he deems fit".

The NPC considers promotions, transfers, etc. in consultation with the IGP and that is exactly what has taken place in the case of every single promotion of senior and junior ranks.

3. "Seniority based criteria in police promotions" - This is a subject that has been discussed by the NPC at length with the IGP and the recent promotions were based as mentioned in the second paragraph of this release.

4. "Composition of Police Commission" - On this subject there are two schools of thought. One says, as in your article "that the NPC should be manned by at least a few Commissioners who have a police background to function efficiently". The Retired Police Officers Association who no doubt have a vested interest in the affairs of the police have openly expressed similar view.

The other school of thought says that in order to maintain a strict and total independence of the NPC, especially in the context of the reasons for creating such a Commission in the selection of members of the Commission should be free of those who continue to have connections with the police force.

The members of the Constitutional Council in their wisdom have decided to favour the second school of thought also for the distinct reason that the newly created Commission should be rendered as independent as possible.

The experience of the members of this Commission so far is that whereas the day to day operational activities of the police force which do not come within the purview of the currently constituted NPC, requires police experience and background, whereas the background and expertise required to deal with matters relating to promotions, transfers, disciplinary inquiry, training etc. of public officers, whether in the police force or other public service has distinct advantages by having persons with a free and fairly open mind.

Having written the above, the National Police Commission wish to add that the members of this Commission have resolved as a body to discharge the important duties and responsibilities outlines in the 17th Amendment which created the NPC, in a strictly impartial, non partisan, fair and systematic manner. The Commissioners will continue to safeguard the independence and integrity of the Commission as they have done so far.

- Ranjit Abeysuriya PC National Police Commission

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager