Emergency is for emergencies

For the second time in a matter of weeks, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has declared a state of emergency. He did so in early April when a spontaneous protest by disgruntled citizens broke out near his private residence in Mirihana. On that occasion, he withdrew the Gazette declaration on the declaration when it was apparent that he did not have the numbers in Parliament for approval of the provision.

In Sri Lanka, the President has the sole discretion to declare a state of emergency under the Public Security Ordinance No. 25 of 1947 (PSO). The proclamation must be communicated immediately to Parliament, which must approve by a resolution within 14 days. Probably emboldened by the recent vote to elect a deputy speaker in which the Government-backed candidate obtained 148 votes, President Rajapaksa has once again declared a state of emergency. The purported reason for this according to the Government’s information department is “to ensure political stability which is a vital condition in overcoming the current socio-economic crisis in the country thereby assuring public safety and uninterrupted supply of essential services.” 

International law as stipulated by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) says that a state of emergency in which some fundamental human rights could be curtailed should be declared only during an ‘extraordinary public emergency.’ Such an emergency situation is defined as one ‘which threatens the life of the nation.’ The Constitution does not define a state of emergency. It provides for the procedural framework by which the President can declare an emergency, without any objective considerations. It does not require that the restrictions on human rights permitted under emergency law be proportionate to the objectives of ‘national security’ that may have prompted the declaration. Emergency regulations often enable atrocities by reducing legal safeguards against violations since it can override laws protecting the citizens against excesses by the State.

According to the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), a declared emergency empowers the President to enact regulations that can override any law, regulation, or provincial statute. The PSO also provides special powers, including procedures for arrest, detention and executive review of detention, commandeering and acquisition of private property, calling the armed forces out to the aid of the civil power, and the suspension of certain safeguards contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure Act on the liberty of the individual.

Even the official press release by the department of government information suggests that the current declaration by the President is a desperate attempt to stifle public outrage that has erupted across the country rather than an extraordinary emergency that ‘threatens the life of the nation.’ Socio-economic problems cannot be resolved by declaring an emergency. They require dialogue, negotiation, consensus and policy changes. Part of this process is for the citizens to express their opinions and will. Protests, trade union actions, civil disobedience, etc. are not only rights of a citizen but essential components of this process that seek resolutions to problems through greater consensus and democratic means. Curtailing such rights and processes will by no means resolve anything but lead to more resentment and troubles.

Any moves to bring in the military to curtail the protests will have devastating results and further escalate the crisis. Military personnel carrying out such orders also should be aware of the dire consequences for them personally and to the military as a whole if they engage in anti-democratic moves to scuttle what have so far been legitimate and peaceful protests. Instead of addressing the issues that have alienated the public who had only two years ago given him a resounding mandate, President Rajapaksa has over-reacted in the worst possible manner. He should rescind the declaration of emergency and address the political crisis through democratic means.