February 24, Colombo (LNW): The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings for a series of Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions challenging the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
The petitions, which raise concerns over the constitutional validity of Tennakoon’s appointment, were taken up by a five-judge bench today (24), with proceedings set to continue in May.
The petitions, filed by various parties, argue that the manner in which Tennakoon, who was previously the Senior Deputy Inspector General (DIG) for the Western Province, was appointed to the post of IGP is unconstitutional.
The petitioners seek a court declaration stating that the decision to appoint Tennakoon is invalid.
Representing Tennakoon, President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva presented evidence before the court, informing the bench that an interim injunction had been granted, barring his client from assuming the duties of IGP.
De Silva requested that the court expedite the hearing process, citing the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the appointment.
After reviewing the arguments and the circumstances surrounding the case, the five-judge bench, which includes Justices Preethi Padman Surasena, Yasantha Kodagoda, A.H.M.D. Nawaz, Shiran Gunaratne, and Achala Vengappuli, decided to schedule the hearing of the petitions for May 06, 07, and 08.
The petitioners include a range of notable figures and organisations, including the Archbishop of Colombo, His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, and the Young Journalists’ Association, alongside several other individuals.
They assert that the recommendations made by the Constitutional Council to appoint Tennakoon are unlawful, and therefore, the appointment itself is in breach of constitutional principles.
The petitions seek a ruling declaring that Tennakoon’s appointment, made on the basis of those recommendations, violates the law.
The case now moves into its next phase, with the Supreme Court set to examine the legality of the appointment, which has sparked significant public and legal debate.
