COLOMBO, Saturday – The landmark convictions of former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundera have prompted differing views among commentators over whether both officials should have received the same sentence.
President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne said the conviction of the former Inspector General of Police was, to a considerable extent, understandable in light of the Court’s findings regarding the discharge of his responsibilities before the Easter Sunday attacks.
“I think the action against the then IGP is, to a great extent, understandable,” Gunaratne said. “Although I personally have a certain reservation as to whether the Defence Secretary deserved the same equivalent sentence as the IGP.”
Gunaratne did not elaborate further on the legal basis for his reservation, but suggested that the respective duties and responsibilities attached to the two offices may justify different considerations when assessing criminal culpability and sentence.
A contrasting view was expressed by civil activist Rusiripala Tennekoon, who argued that the greater burden of responsibility rested with the then Defence Secretary.
Tennekoon said the Defence Secretary occupied the central position within the national security framework and would have had what he described as a “comprehensive overview” of intelligence received from all security and intelligence agencies.
“In my view, the greater responsibility should have rested with the Defence Secretary,” Tennekoon said. “He would have had a comprehensive overview of all the intelligence available and was therefore in the best position to ensure that appropriate action was taken.”
Tennekoon further observed that history had repeatedly demonstrated the importance of timely intervention by those occupying the highest offices of the State. He pointed to the 1971 JVP insurrection as an example where decisive action at senior levels of government played a critical role in preventing an even greater national disaster.
“History has proven that due interventions at the higher positions, taken at the appropriate time, have prevented disasters,” he said.
“That is precisely why those entrusted with the highest responsibilities must act decisively when credible intelligence reaches them.”
The differing opinions reflect what is likely to become a wider legal and public debate over the respective responsibilities of senior public officials within Sri Lanka’s national security structure and whether the Defence Secretary or the Inspector General of Police ultimately bears the greater legal duty when faced with intelligence of an imminent threat.
The convictions are expected to be challenged before the appellate courts, where the extent of the legal duties owed by each office and the appropriate standard of criminal responsibility are likely to receive further judicial consideration.
