SIS, etc., must be made statutorily accountable to Parliament – Zuhair

Former MP and President’s Counsel M. M. Zuhair, has said that the National Security Council, and related institutions such as the State Intelligence Service (SIS), which often depend on foreign inputs as well must be made statutorily accountable to Parliament.

The following is the text of a statement issued by the former senior State Counsel, who also served as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Iran, on the Easter Sunday attacks Fundamental Rights’ Judgment: “In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court, in what has already been widely welcomed as a historical judgment, has said “…we must express our shock and dismay at the deplorable want of oversight and inaction that we have seen in the conduct of affairs, pertaining to Security, Law and Order and Intelligence”, in words clear and penetrating!

The seven-judge divisional bench of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, having dispassionately analysed the evidentiary material placed by all parties, before the Court, had laid bare before the nation the ‘deplorable’ state of affairs, within these vital institutions.

The Supreme Court called for ‘legislative’, ‘structural’ and ‘administrative’ changes in these institutions, having found that there were glaring examples of a lack of ‘strategic co-ordination’, ‘expertise’ and ‘preparedness’ which had cost the country avoidable ‘deaths and devastation’. The country’s highest Court bemoaned that the failures “have left an indelible blot on the security apparatus of the country, which is blessed by a multi-cultural and multi religious polity…” (Page 120).

The Court called for the country’s National Security Council (NSC) to be placed on a statutory footing. Apart from adverting to several constitutional provisions, the highest Court had quoted verbatim section 56 of the Police Ordinance of 1865 on the “duties and liabilities” of Police Officers, requiring every police officer “to use his best endeavours and ability to ‘prevent’ all crimes, offences and public nuisances” and “to obey and execute all orders and warrants ‘lawfully’ issued…” (Page 99). These findings of the Supreme Court call for urgent remedial actions by the State to prevent possible future human disasters.

Security-related matters, which are at times discretely labelled ‘secret’ and shut out from public discourse and from even Courts of Law would not have come up for public evaluation, if not for the fundamental rights petitions filed by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the Church and several others. The Supreme Court had thereby got the opportunity to warn the concerned authorities and hopefully help prevent future massacres.

Indeed, the NSC, and related institutions, such as the State Intelligence Service (SIS), which often depend on foreign inputs, as well, must be made statutorily accountable to Parliament. There have been many instances of false and deceptive intelligence fed in both by external and internal agencies and persons. Some false reports planted through foreign conduits and published in the media in the recent past have been refuted from time to time by the Defence Ministry. Sadly, however, accurate reports have not been acted upon!

There had been reports of payments allegedly made to 21/4 suicide bomber Zahran Hashim by security agencies, which may be totally false but, if true, may expose a more terrible state of affairs. The phone communications of the eight suicide bombers, except one, prior to the 21/4 attacks, were mysteriously not forthcoming! No efforts were being made to investigate and seek the extradition, from India, of Pulasthini Rajendran, alias Sarah, wife of the Katuwapitiya Church suicide bomber, who, according to the evidence of a Chief Inspector before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, on the Easter attacks, had fled to India, by sea, in September 2019. Accountability and transparency are necessary to prevent an unaccountable ‘Deep State’ functioning within the State, abused sometimes for political and other purposes.

The Attorney General acts in good faith on versions given by investigators, which have turned out, at times, to be incorrect. Many are the instances when Courts have rejected such versions. The Supreme Court has once again called to attention that the ‘Rule of Law’ is always supreme.”