End the state of emergency

Despite peace and stability returning, Sri Lanka remains under emergency rule. Given this aberration and also due to the draconian nature of the law as per experts, the chorus has been growing for the withdrawal of the emergency.

The state of emergency was declared by then-Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe with effect from 18 July under the Public Security Ordinance in the interests of public security, the protection of public order and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.  Subsequently, the status quo on 27 July got majority (120 MPs) approval of the Parliament with 63 voting against.

Though Ranil Wickremesinghe would justify the clamping of state of emergency in view of the events in early July including the stepping down of the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, many have emphasised that the people’s struggle or the Aragalaya, has been largely peaceful. Proponents of the emergency however point to acts of arson on the private residence of Wickremesinghe as well as a few skirmishes between the Aragalaya activists and the armed forces.

By and large, the greater voice is for the withdrawal of the emergency because with it, governments tend to compromise principles of democracy.

Last week in a welcome move, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed on two separate cases filed against the emergency.  

One was a petition filed by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. The other was by Namini Panditha and Rusiru Egodage, the conveners of the newly formed Liberal Youth Movement.

CPA had previously raised concerns about the declaration of state of emergency and provided a commentary on Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2022. A state of emergency was declared in two previous instances this year, on 1 April 2022 and 6 May 2022. On both occasions, CPA maintained that the former President did not cause the proclamations, declaring the states of emergency to be placed before Parliament for its approval. 

Thus, neither of such Proclamations was approved by Parliament. Accordingly, Dr. Saravanamuttu had previously challenged this mala fide declaration of the state of emergency (of May 2022) and the unconstitutional and overbroad emergency regulations.

The CPA and Saravanamuttu, in their latest action last week, argued that the power of the Executive to make emergency regulations must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. 

Furthermore, it was submitted that in addition to the concerns raised about specific emergency regulations, as a whole the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No. 1 of 2022 are overboard and vague and undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

The Petitioners also stated that the regulations contained in Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No. 1 of 2022 do not address the economic and political crisis faced by the country and have been designed and/or promulgated with the collateral purpose of stifling dissent and the freedom of assembly and not to address any legitimate public security concern.

Separately Dr. Gehan Gunathilake, the Counsel for the petitioners – Panditha and Egodage, submitted that several provisions of the regulations violated the fundamental rights of the people, including the right to equality, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda, one of Sri Lanka’s top political scientists, last week in an interview with the Daily FT, also made a compelling case for the withdrawal of the emergency regulations which he described as “exceptionally draconian and disproportionate to the country’s situation”.

He said the state of emergency sends out a very wrong message to Sri Lankan citizens, youth as well as internationally.

 “The message the President has sent out is that peaceful citizens’ protests for political change and democratisation cannot work in this country. This is an extremely dangerous message. The President has to seriously think about whether to withdraw this message or not,” emphasised Prof. Uyangoda.

He cited countries such as Myanmar, Belarus, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya preceded Sri Lanka on a similar trajectory and saw citizens’ democratic movements suffer extreme defeat.

If the new Government-led by President Wickremesinghe is keen to tell the people and the world that Sri Lanka is indeed returning to normalcy then there is no solid ground for the continuation of the emergency. If not, Wickremesinghe will be ruling from a position of extreme weakness and suspicion, thereby unnecessarily undermining the normal laws of the country as well as his expressed commitment to democratic rule.