Curfew quandaries 

With news that vehicles confiscated from curfew violators are to be returned to their respective owners, the questions this raises over the legality of the curfew itself are certainly worth taking a closer look at.

While a look around the world, and more specifically the plight of countries such as the US, the UK and even Sweden, that delayed lockdown protocols, is more than enough to justify Sri Lanka’s expedient and stringent curfew measures, there are still many grey areas surrounding the actual legal footing the Government of Sri Lanka is presently standing on.

This fact was most recently brought to light by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), which made clear that as things stand, there is no law under which the curfew was set up. Indeed, if it struck you as odd that the President would sanction the return of confiscated vehicles, it might help your understanding further to note that there really was nothing else that could have been done.

This being the case, it now makes all those cases against the thousands of detained curfew violators all that more complicated. Will the Police proceed with prosecuting them? Will there be a spate of presidential pardons? It really is anyone’s guess. The HRCSL for its part has offered two recommendations so as to regularise the imposition of curfew measures. 

The first is through an Order made by the President and gazetted under the Public Security Ordinance. This would also serve to strengthen the Government’s hand in terms of the extent to which the rights of the public were impacted by the curfew.

The second is by a Regulation made by the Minister under the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance. While this allows for powers to restrict movement over ‘diseased localities’, such powers do not confer wide enough authority to impose a countrywide curfew as a precautionary measure. 

However, regardless of which of these options is taken up – or if neither of them are – the point still stands that this is a problem of the Government’s very own making. Despite the unprecedented nature of a pandemic, it is still unacceptable for there to be so many legal grey areas. When such action is taken, it has to stem from a point of legality, if not, as illustrated so clearly in this instance, there will be several legal issues cropping up that will need to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Further to this, in a functioning democracy, such oversight can also have the secondary effect of gradually eroding the public’s trust and respect in the law. The recent protests against Police brutality stemming from the murder of George Floyd by Police in the US serve to highlight the dangers of a society losing faith in those assigned to protect them. 

As a Government you can neither flout the law, nor deal with legal matters in as flippant a manner as has been done in recent months. And at all times you must ensure the fundamental rights of people are protected. Simply put, the Government needs to lead from example; if the Government does not act within the remits of the law, how can it possibly expect its citizens to?