Interceding for traffic offenders

January 18, 2014, 5:16 pm 

The Island reported yesterday that IGP N.K. Ilangakoon has in a special message to all traffic police directed them to resist pressure exerted by phone by their superiors and politicians to let off offenders booked for traffic offences. The public will hope that this measure will effectively stop what has become a common occurrence when somebody is booked. He phones a friend in the police or some politician and the cop on the street receives a call to let off the offender. Since nearly all policemen, like most people, carry a mobile phone, instant contact is possible. It’s easy enough to call the police station to which the detecting officer belongs, find his phone contact and reach him even as he is writing out the dada kolay (the spot fine form).

This is undoubtedly a problem. Far too many well connected people get off that way. But, as the IGP doubtlessly knows, there is a corollary to this business. Too often, cops stop motorists for real or perceived offences in the expectation of a bribe. And there are many offenders who are only too willing to slip a thousand rupee note or more to save themselves the hassle of having to go to the post office to pay the fine and then to the police station to recover the surrendered driving license. They regard a thousand buck bribe to a policeman cheap at the price. Many such, despite their loud condemnation of bribery and corruption, do not stop to think that the bribe giver is as guilty as the bribe taker. People trying to buy their way out of a hassle, especially if the offence entails a court appearance rather than a spot fine, may be helping themselves and the detecting officer by such shabby conduct. But they little realize that they are growing the problem as police officers seeing easy money stopping motorists for all manner of offences, some trivial where a warning would suffice, will raise their hands more frequently in anticipation of a quick buck.

We hope the IGP has also told his senior officers, going down from gazetted ranks to OICs of police stations; they should not intercede in traffic offence matters on behalf of their friends, relations and politicians. We do not know how effective such a ruling will be. It is the tragedy of this country that most people, be they public servants or employees of the private sector, do not stand up to their bosses giving wrongful orders. That is largely the result of sycophants being rewarded with patronage while those who are straightforward are punished for their pains. It is reported that the IGP has instructed that if any injustice is caused to an officer as a result of his ignoring an illegal order, the victim could complain to the area DIG, Police Relief Center or an email link that has been provided. Good intentions, no doubt, but how effective is the question. We must wait and see. Quite apart from a constable standing up to his OIC who wants his brother-in-law who had crashed a red light let off, we all know that police top brass readily fall in line when they get phone calls from the high and mighty. No less than President Mahinda Rajapaksa once said ``what’s the use of being the president if I can’t get the Tangalle OIC transferred?’’

While we are on the subject of traffic offenders and offences, it is worth raising the question on the current status of the seat belt law or rule. Occasionally a policeman will stop a motorist who is not strapped on. There have also been a few news reports of courts imposing fines on offenders. But this is not consistently enforced. A newspaper editor once told the president at one of his breakfast meetings that large numbers of seat belt offenders were then being hauled up in court. He was not protesting about this although he did say that a person not represented by a lawyer was fined more than other who had retained lawyers to plead for them. His suggestion was that driving licenses should not be docked as this would sometimes necessitate driving long distances to retrieve them. The president characteristically called the IGP immediately to find out what the problem was all about. It appeared that the law as it stood made court prosecution mandatory and the possibility of amending the law was discussed.

Following that encounter, the police stopped booking motorists for seat belt offences. We do not know whether the law has since been amended and what the present position is. It would be useful if the police clarify this matter as right now it is not every traffic cop who stops a motorist not strapped to his seat. The fact of the matter is somebody not wearing a seat belt is endangering himself/herself more than other road users. Also, is it sensible to impose this law only on those driving newer vehicles? There is some logic in this to the extent that many of the older vehicles are not manufacturer-fitted with seat belts unlike newer models. Those who refuse to use a facility their vehicles feature deserve punishment more than those without the device. Yet, if a seat belt law is to be enforced as it is in many countries, equipping all vehicles with this safety feature within a reasonable time period should be made mandatory.

We commend the IGP for his directive that intercessions on behalf of traffic offenders should not be countenanced. Hopefully these orders will be implemented. But we cannot help going back to the sprats and sharks analogy. Will the police brass, starting from the IGP himself, resist illegal or improper orders emanating from up above? The police force has been increasingly politicized over the years and is no more what it was when officers of the caliber of Sidney de Zoysa adorned it. This story may be apocryphal but it is part of police lore that an applicant to join the force was rejected on the ground of an inadequate chest measurement. The man returned with a letter from a VIP. De Zoysa asked him to take off his shirt, placed the letter flat on his chest and ran a measuring tape round the chest. ``Still not enough,’’ was the verdict.