Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

by the Consumer Watch

Enforcing the law

As a sequel to what a Consumer Watch had written earlier all watched with considerable interest how effectively the relevant Authorities were going about their business of keeping Night Clubs under surveillance before another tragedy strikes.

We were not surprised that not too long after the Royal Park tragedy the public was treated this time to a comedy of the antics of a loud and foul mouth politician also arising from an incident at a Night Club involving his son, his friends and some public officers who had gone to a Night Club on legitimate business in the discharge of their duties. This latter incident shows that the problems of Night Clubs and wayward youth have not yet shown even signs of improving, despite the raids carried out by the Department of Excise.

It is in this context that the conduct of the IGP himself has come for considerable criticism - namely that he has let down his own officers some of whom had suffered injuries in the fracas. Some newspapers referred to the fact that some of the youth were armed and one was carrying a bottle of liquor.

One does get the impression that if not for the restraint exercised by the Police, there could have been a major incident. One is however gratified that the Attorney General had called for the relevant papers and that action has now been filed in Court.

We ask the question in the public interest, what happened to the earlier similar incidents in which some youths were involved in assaulting Police Officers at a club in Cinnamon Gardens. That case has fizzled out because the witnesses who were positive in their earlier identification of the offenders were now "shaping" their evidence by saying "it was someone like him".

Nothing worthwhile has come out of several other similar incidents also and the public is fast losing the little faith that they had in the law and the law enforcement authorities. Although we take great pride in talking of the majesty of the law, and that no one is above the law, it is clear the law can be so adjusted to suit people when those involved are the so called high and mighty or are powerful and influential.

Let us see first of all if there are lapses in the law itself. We referred in our earlier column to the closing hours applicable to bars, licensed clubs and clubs in five star hotels. These hours vary from 9.00 p.m. to midnight. Midnight then is the closing time at most and after which no liquor can be served or consumed. How then can these clubs and night spots go on night after night till the next morning? The answer is the complete indifference or laxity of the enforcing authorities.

It is disheartening to note that till his Minister gave an order to raid those nightclubs and send him a daily report, little meaningful appears to have been done by the Department of Excise to implement the law. Surely the public is entitled to an explanation for this sorry state of affairs.

It is even more disheartening to read an article in a Sunday paper of July 31st 2005, which refers to the "great nightclub humbug" which quotes the Commissioner of Excise saying "folks under 21 can enter clubs -but they just can't drink". It would appear that the 21-year limit has been placed by the Commissioner himself.

And what is the sanctity of the 21-years. limit when the age of majority is 18 yrs. Does it meant that a major of 18 plus cannot enter a club or drink if he chooses? Even the 21- year. limit is said to be a "regulation", but a regulation not passed by Parliament or gazetted. According to this article, the Commissioner of Excise is alleged to have said "anyone can go to Court and challenge the law -it's just that nobody has done so yet."

Why was this regulation not tabled before Parliament and gazetted. If the Department of Excise had done so the law would have given it all the authority to act instead of being a "cosmetic damage control" exercise till the storm has blown over.

Why did this Department have to wait till the Minister of Finance gave an "order" as reported in the Press? He has called for daily reports of the raid on nightclubs. Did the officers of the Department not know of the existence of unauthorised nightclubs where liquor is served? Otherwise how did you raid five of them overnight?

Apart from the minimum age for persons to be served liquor in nightclubs, what about the rules or regulations pertaining to closing hours, which are so strictly enforced in other countries leading even to cancellation of licences for violations? The above article says bars have to close their counters by 11.00 p.m., " but was not implemented by the Excise Department until very recently." Is this so? Does this mean that no liquor is served after 11.00 p.m.? There is a club we know where music goes on night after night from about 9.00 p.m. till the next dawn.

People would not be dancing drinking coke! The Commissioner of Excise has said " earlier the law was that bars should close at 11.00 p.m..... But now we are monitoring the times these clubs close or otherwise we will cancel their licence" Brave words indeed! Consumer Watch tried to contact him on the phone to tell him of a nightclub that disturbs the neighbourhood night after night on his office phone number and was told that he was "at a meeting".

We were given a telephone number and on ringing it, one of his officers put us on to another officer and on ringing that number we were told that he too was " at a meeting". Why does this Department not keep the public informed of the nature of the "monitoring". The public will give the Department all the information it needs provided, as we suspect what has happened now is not a knee jerk or cosmetic reaction after being castigated by the Minister.

Before the Department goes any further it should get the relevant rules passed by Parliament and gazetted so that at least it has the requisite authority to back up its "monitoring"?

Subsequently it was announced that in these places of entertainment no liquor will be served after 1.00 a.m. Here too, this appears to be an administrative order- devoid of legal sanction. Suppose a person purchases a bottle of liquor or several rounds of liquor five minutes before 1.00 a.m., then there is no infringement of the latest rule. Suppose then, he and his friends go on drinking till morning.

Then again, there is no infringement and any action taken to enforce the rule could easily be challenged in court. If therefore as the article in the Sunday paper of July 31st says, the raid was at 1.30 a.m. and the person concerned had a bottle of alcohol in his hand what offence has been committed?

Even if the rule says a bar should be closed by a particular time, this could easily be complied with by the bar keeper having earlier i.e before closing time served his customers adequate liquor to keep them going for several hours thereafter.

Is the remedy to close the club after 1.00 a.m. so that customers cannot be in the premises after closing time? If so, should not the rule be so framed that not only will customers not be served after closing hours but that customers will not be in the premises after closing hours? What about private parties when presumably the restrictions are not observed. What action do the authorities proposed taking.

The best course appears to be, consult the Attorney General and get the rules so framed that no loop holes are there, and then get the regulations passed by Parliament and have them gazetted. All this no doubt takes time. But once passed there is no excuse for their non-implementation.

At a subsequent Press Conference, Excise Commissioner (Crimes) had referred to a steady increase of the revenue collected by the Department and that 58,000 detections were planned for this year. He claimed "we have now enhanced our detection activities" and that Rs. 5.2 million had been collected following raids conducted on nightclubs five star hotels and other restaurants in City limits. How then were these infringements detected so easily following the Ministerial Order.

What is required is constant surveillance and cancellation of licences in appropriate cases, for there is nothing worse than having a law on the statute book and not implementing it. The Department of Excise should make known to the public the clubs and pubs it has raided and the punishments imposed.

This at least should act as a deterrent. Consumer Watch is concerned about the escalating lawlessness, and an efficient Department of Excise can at least make a dent.

Concerned individuals and Organizations can contact us at 143A, Vajira Road, Colombo 5.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager