21 October, 2020

Blog

Culpability Of Public Servants Acting Under Orders

By Somapala Gunadheera

Somapala Gunadheera

Somapala Gunadheera

As a retired public servant, I am concerned with actions being taken currently against some of my former colleagues in the Public Service. I make no bones if they are being dealt with for acts of commission or omission taken on their own. But some indictments appear to be on actions taken under superior orders. That context places their cases under the Nuremberg Principle: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

The legal defence to this charge is that the defendant was “only following orders” and is therefore not responsible for his or her crimes. This defence was put forward in the matter of Lieutenant Karl Neumann, a captain responsible for the sinking of a hospital ship.  Even though Neumann admitted to having sunk the ship, he stated that he had done so on orders given to him by the Admiralty and for that reason, he could not be held liable for his actions. Germany’s Supreme Court acquitted him, accepting the defence of superior orders as a grounds to escape criminal liability. Declaring, “… that all civilized nations recognize the principle that a subordinate is covered by the orders of his superiors.”Lalith and Mahinda

More recently, Article 33, titled “Superior orders and prescription of law” of the Rome Statute agreed upon in 1998, as the foundational document of the International Criminal Court states:

“ The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

Both the Nuremburg Principle and the Rome Statute impliedly accept that a person acting under superior orders was covered by such orders, provided that

  • A moral choice was in fact possible to him.
  • The person did not know that the order was unlawful
  • The order was not manifestly unlawful

The question is whether a ‘moral choice’ was possible for a person acting under the circumstances in which the above public servants acted. What remedy did they have even if the order was ‘unlawful’ or ‘manifestly unlawful’ if they were acting under orders of the President? Article 35. (1) Of the Constitution states, “While any person holds office as President, no proceedings shall he instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private capacity”.

This immunity shuts out the officers concerned from all tribunals to which they could normally appeal for redress. That leaves a Hobson’s choice in their hands unless they were prepared to sacrifice their jobs in midstream. As a public servant who had to lose his employment thrice in his carrier, I can personally vouch for the shocking privations, humiliations and deprivations that such a premature termination of a man’s source of livelihood could bring upon him and his family.

Can any civilized legal system, obliged to recognize the fundamental right to employment and job security, impugn a decision to comply with erratic superior orders, regardless of a ‘moral choice’ to quit and the question whether the act was ‘unlawful’ or ‘manifestly unlawful’, in view of the background in which the said public servants have acted? Application of positive law to such real life situations calls for a deep appreciation of the compulsions of normal human behaviour.

“Even where the orders were manifestly unlawful, the defence of obedience to superior orders and the peace officer defence will be available in those circumstances where the accused had no moral choice as to whether to follow the orders. There can be no moral choice where there was such an air of compulsion and threat to the accused that he or she had no alternative but to obey the order” (R v. Finta [1994] 1 SCR [701], Supreme Court of Canada)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    0

    Mr Somapala Gunadherra: What is your advice to Mr. Lalith Weeratunga the ex Secretary to President Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse and the Chairman of the CRT and Mr. Anusha Palpita who are charged in courts with “Misuse of Public Funds” for the purchase of Rs. 600 million worth “Sil Redi” (Devotees Clothes) that were distributed during the last Presidential election?. How can they get themselves out of this “charge” as public servants? Can they plead that they were compelled to follow the “orders” of their “Superior Officer” and they had no alternative?

  • 1
    0

    The Writer intervenes in a matter of great concern to thousands of decent officials. In recent times the all-Political boss, uncaring and usually not sufficiently educated, insufficiently familiar with the laws, is the Lord of most everything. Thousands of fine officers have lost their jobs i.e. their only livelihood. Many have fallen badly ill sent home refusing to carry out illegal orders. Many were thrown into the streets without a source of income. The others silently and unwillingly carry out illegal orders fully aware they are forced to do the patently wrong thing. They carry out the illegal orders in the interests of keeping the home fire burning in an environment where they have no other recourse.

    Mahinda Rajapakse’s regime were the worse offenders in this ifamy.
    The Rajapakse regime created an army of servile and salivating Administrative Officers who knew the art of buttering the bread on both sides. Many tainted officials made millions in ill-gotten gains and are now in trouble.

    The sooner we come out with something close to the earlier system when our valuable State officials were efficient, non-partisan and are presented with the conditions to serve without fear or favour – the better for the country.

    Let us remember it is that strong Indian Civil Service, inter alia, that keeps that vast plural and highly diverse country together. The other being an alert free media and a generally efficient and independent judiciary.

    Kettikaran

  • 1
    0

    “The Writer intervenes in a matter of great concern to thousands of decent officials. In recent times the all-Political boss, uncaring and usually not sufficiently educated, insufficiently familiar with the laws, is the Lord of most everything. Thousands of fine officers have lost their jobs i.e. their only livelihood…”

    Kettikaran, you are right on the Mark!

    I know of Fine Engineers Who were forced to find Employment Overseas, due to Death Threats, because they refused to carry out Illegal or Dangerous Developments!

    Unqualified Politicians did not consider these Projects, Technologically Unviable!

  • 0
    0

    Hamlet,

    I am surprised at the paucity of comments in this crime that has virtually destroyed our once vibrant honourable and efficient public service. In my humble view, only strident comments conveying outrage will go out to remind our over supply of rogue politikkas they are destroying the country and the future of generations to come.

    Kettikaran

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.