By Rusiripala Tennakoon –

Rusiripala Tennakoon

The recent intervention by the President in Parliament to personally defend several controversial political appointments marks a noteworthy moment in the country’s political discourse. It is not often that a Head of State finds it necessary to directly respond to mounting public criticism over appointments made by his own administration. The very fact that such an intervention became necessary reflects the depth and intensity of the public concern.

There is nothing improper about a President explaining or defending decisions taken by his government. Indeed, executive accountability demands that major decisions be explained to both Parliament and the people. However, the real test of such an intervention lies not in the act of defending the appointments but in whether the concerns that gave rise to the criticism are meaningfully addressed.

The criticism surrounding these appointments has not been confined to political opponents. Much of it has emerged from civil society, professionals, independent commentators, and ordinary citizens who have questioned both the past records and the present suitability of some of those entrusted with high public office. Such concerns cannot simply be dismissed as routine political attacks.

When public confidence is under strain, governments strengthen their credibility by addressing the substance of the allegations with openness, evidence, and transparency. Redirecting the debate towards the parliamentary opposition may serve a political purpose, but it does little to answer the questions that continue to occupy the public mind.

In any mature democracy, appointments to high office must satisfy not only the legal requirements but also the broader expectations of integrity, competence, and public trust. Public office is sustained not merely by constitutional authority but by confidence earned through accountability.

The present episode therefore raises a broader constitutional and political question. Should public concern over important appointments be answered primarily through political defense, or should it prompt a more transparent process that reassures the public that merit, integrity, and accountability remain the guiding principles of governance?

Not all public appointments carry the same implications. While every appointment to high office should be made with due regard to competence and integrity, appointments to institutions responsible for law enforcement, criminal investigations, and the administration of justice occupy a category of their own. These offices derive their authority not merely from statute but from the confidence the public reposes in their impartiality and integrity.

Those entrusted with the enforcement of the law are expected to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct. Their decisions directly affect the liberty, rights, and reputation of citizens. Consequently, even the appearance of unresolved controversy surrounding such appointments can diminish public confidence in the institutions they are called upon to lead.

It is in this context that the recent public debate assumes greater significance. Several senior members of the legal profession have publicly raised concerns regarding the backgrounds of certain appointees. Their observations are not based merely on political disagreement but refer to matters that have already entered the public domain, including affidavits reportedly filed before the Supreme Court by some of the individuals concerned. Whether those matters ultimately attract legal consequences is one issue; whether they satisfy the higher standard of public confidence expected of law enforcement leadership is another.

This distinction is fundamental. Legality alone is not always sufficient to inspire public trust. Those who administer and enforce the law must also command unquestioned credibility in the eyes of the public. In democratic governance, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The same principle applies to those appointed to uphold it.

Some senior members of the legal profession have referred to affidavits and other material already placed before the Supreme Court and available in the public domain, arguing that these matters warrant careful consideration when assessing the suitability of appointments to positions entrusted with enforcing the law.

In such circumstances, the public would naturally expect the Government to address several related issues. These include the growing criticism surrounding the appointments, the reasons that compelled the President to intervene personally in Parliament, the higher standards expected of appointments connected with law enforcement, the concerns already placed in the public domain, and the need to demonstrate that legality and public confidence are complementary rather than competing principles.

Governments are elected to exercise power, but institutions endure only so long as they retain public confidence. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, appointments to positions of public trust should therefore meet not only the constitutional test of legality but also the equally important test of credibility, integrity, and public confidence. Once that confidence is weakened, defending appointments becomes far more difficult than making them.

When public confidence in appointments to sensitive public offices begins to erode, the Government’s first obligation is to address the concerns of the public—not merely to engage the political opposition.

A democratic government should be careful not to equate public concern with opposition politics. While opposition parties may articulate some of these issues in Parliament, the concerns themselves often originate far beyond the political arena. They arise from citizens who expect the highest standards of integrity in public office, particularly where the administration and enforcement of the law are concerned. Responding to those concerns as though they were merely partisan attacks risks overlooking the broader issue of public confidence.

Governments are elected for fixed terms .Public institutions are built to serve generations. Every appointment to those institutions should therefore strengthen -not diminish – the public confidence upon which democratic governance ultimately depends.

The issue before the country is not whether a government possesses the legal authority to make appointments. It undoubtedly does. The real question is whether that authority has been exercised in a manner that strengthens public confidence in the institutions entrusted with upholding the rule of law. In the final analysis, governments are judged not merely by the powers they exercise, but by the confidence they inspire in the institutions they leave behind.