“Does the law mean anything in Sri Lanka for such citizens? As almost every citizen belongs to similar categories as the persons mentioned above, it may be justified to ask, what the law means in Sri Lanka to its citizens who are entitled by law for protection but are deprived, in fact, of such protection.”
_____________
By Basil Fernando
(October 08, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) The two boys who were murdered by the Angulana police, Ranga Bandara, MP, or a child in an IDP camp, all have one thing in common as Sri Lankans; they have no protection in law.
Yet according to the legal enactments each is entitled to protection. The Angulana boys were entitled under the law to be arrested only on suspicion of a criminal charge, to be treated humanely during detention and if there were any charges, to be produced before a court within 24 hours. As for Ranga Bandara, MP, according to the law there were many kinds of protection available. As a Member of Parliament he had the right to special protection. As a citizen of the country he had the right to have his property protected. Further he had the right when a crime was committed against him to expect an independent and impartial inquiry by competent investigators and to have the perpetrators of the crime prosecuted. A child in an IDP camp, as far as the law is concerned is no different to any other child. However, a child in an IDP camp is denied of freedom of movement despite the fact that neither the child nor his parents have been deprived of their freedoms through a process of law. For the child too, the law says that, as a citizen, the child is entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the constitution which includes the right of movement and the freedom to live in the house of his parent’s choice.
None of these three categories of persons have been deprived of their entitlements under the law by any process recognised by law. In fact, the protection that is offered to them by law had been withdrawn without any reference to the law itself. In all three cases their protection was not removed even by the application of special laws or the Anti Terrorism Act. They were deprived of protection offered by the law by means which are not recognised as valid before the law.
The law says that if your entitlements under the law are removed in any way other than through means recognised by law, you should have an effective legal remedy. The deprived person’s deprivations must be restored by those who have the responsibility of doing so due to the positions they hold in authority. It is the law that has given them the authority to function in their positions.
Sri Lanka’s law books give all these people mentioned above the right to protection under the law. But in reality their plight is one where there is no such protection through legal means. This being the case what is the meaning of the legal status that they have as citizens? How are they different to an alien within Sri Lankan territory who may not have the legal protection according to Sri Lankan law books? What kinds of citizenship do these people have; a citizenship in name and no real citizenship in law?
Who has taken away their legal entitlements and how have they been taken away? Is there nothing that can be done when legal entitlements are removed without any reference to law?
Does the law mean anything in Sri Lanka for such citizens? As almost every citizen belongs to similar categories as the persons mentioned above, it may be justified to ask, what the law means in Sri Lanka to its citizens who are entitled by law for protection but are deprived, in fact, of such protection. -Sri Lanka Guardian
The absence of legal protection – does the law mean anything?
