Sri Lanka has on many occasions been at the centre of human rights related discussions. While the three-decade war left over numerous human rights related concerns and controversies especially in the North and the East, the overall socio-political climate that prevailed since the mid-2000s has raised human rights issues outside the war and outside the North and the East. These issues received attention at various international and domestic forums. However, that attention reached a new level with human rights violations, including those that occurred during the aragalaya (the public protest movement that sought the resignation of the former Government led by then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa), that were reported during the past few months.

In this backdrop, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), which plays a unique role in protecting the public’s human rights, appears to have found itself in a crisis situation where it has to pay more attention to protect its stability. As was reported by The Daily Morning, the HRCSL’s Chairperson, retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Rohini Marasinghe, and three out of four Commissioners, namely, Dr. Vijitha Nanayakkara, Dr. Nimal Karunasiri and Ven. Kalupahana Piyarathana Thera, are entangled in a dispute over the two parties’ suitability to remain members of the HRCSL, their personal interests, and the fulfilment of duties and roles. Justice Marasinghe claims that the three said Commissioners have little to no understanding of human rights and have not done enough to further the human rights situation in the country, while the three Commissioners allege that the Chairperson takes arbitrary decisions with no regard for the other Commissioners’ opinions, regarding which they have written to President Ranil Wickremesinghe.

While the veracity of these claims is yet to be established and whether they have in fact affected the discharge of the HRCSL’s duties is yet to be looked into, for a country that has been confronted by a number of human rights related issues in which the HRCSL played a noteworthy role, this is a situation that calls for immediate action. However, what the nature of these actions should be is a matter that should be decided upon after careful consideration of not only the above mentioned dispute, but also the HRCSL’s reputation as an independent Commission. The three Commissioners’ group has sought the President’s audience as part of their attempts to set this situation right. However, not only is it excessive as a first step, but could also constitute a threat to the idea of the concept of “independent Commissions”, which is supposed to be free of the clutches of political authority, if the President actually intervenes. Therefore, both parties should prioritise the HRCSL’s independence, and try to resolve these disputes in accordance with the Human Rights Commission Act, No. 21 of 1996.

That is however not to say that the political authority does not have a responsibility in ensuring the stability of the HRCSL, or any independent Commission for that matter, in the long run. One of the allegations that were raised in the HRCSL’s issue was that while the said three Commissioners do not have an adequate understanding of human rights, the Chairperson does not respect the idea of making decisions collectively. In a context where allegations of various challenges to the collective responsibility of independent Commissions have been levelled in the cases of the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka and the Election Commission as well, these are matters in independent Commissions regarding which the Constitutional Council (CC) could make some sort of intervention. The CC should think more carefully about ensuring that those appointed to independent Commissions are in fact suitable in terms of knowledge, experience and attitudes, and that they all understand their roles and responsibilities, and most importantly, that they are capable of handling their internal matters in accordance with the relevant legal provisions or policies without allowing external interventions to jeopardise their “independent” aspect. Such care will help to ensure that independent Commissions are not only free from political and other influences, but are also independent enough to resolve their issues and prioritise the services that they are expected to discharge. In nominating persons to the CC, seeking the latter’s recommendations prior to making appointments to such Commissions, the Executive President too should select suitable persons per the relevant laws, following the exhaustive scrutiny of their individual backgrounds and track records. The CC should also pay serious attention to this vetting and short-listing process.   

Although disputes and allegations akin to those raised in the HRCSL are not new, they have an impact on the extent to which the public relies on the HRCSL. While the HRCSL’s power is technically limited to issuing recommendations to rectify human rights related issues, the influence it has on the county’s human rights situation goes beyond that, and that is why certain members of the Government saw the HRCSL as a threat during the aragalaya period. Therefore, the HRCSL’s members should learn to resolve its issues in a manner that protects its status as an independent Commission, while the CC, which has the representation of Opposition politicians as well as civil society organisations, should pay more attention to the individuals that they appoint to independent Commissions.