Sri Lanka received 600,000 doses of the Chinese donated Sinopharm vaccine today, some of which will be used to vaccinate Chinese nationals employed in the country starting next week, an official said.

Chief Epidemiologist Dr Sudath Samaraweera told EconomyNext that the consignment has been transported from the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to the health ministry’s central storage facilities.

“As per the Chinese government’s request, we will first vaccinate Chinese workers in Sri Lanka, most likely starting next week,” he said.

However, said Samaraweera, the exact number of the Chinese nationals working in the island cannot be determined at the moment.

On March 20, the National Medicine Regulatory Authority (NMRA) approved a decision to bring the donated vaccine into the country and to immunise Chinese nationals with it, though the regulatory body has yet to authorise it for use on Sri Lankan citizens. The World Health Organisation (WHO), too, has yet to approve the jab for emergency use.

In an earlier interview Chief Executive Officer of NMRA doctor Kamal Jayasinghe said around 30,000 Chinese workers have requested vaccination in Sri Lanka.

Co-cabinet spokesman Minister Ramesh Pathirana said yesterday that pending WHO approval for emergency use, the health ministry will use the remaining doses of the donated Sinopharm vaccine to immunise the general public.

“The NMRA only gave approval to vaccinate Chinese workers in Sri Lanka with this vaccine,” Pathirana told reporters at the weekly cabinet press briefing yesterday. The minister did not explain how long the health ministry intends to store the vials until WHO approves the jab.

Meanwhile, the Association of Medical Specialists (AMS) issuing a statement yesterday said, according to the NMRA report published on March 17, due to the insufficient data provided to make a decision about the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of the Sinopharm vaccine it was decided to not to approve the vaccine for emergency use in Sri Lanka under the present circumstances.

“Despite this clear recommendation of a properly-constituted independent expert advisory panel, we are concerned about reports that a newly reconstituted Board of the NMRA appears to have taken an unprecedented step to disregard the expert panel opinion and allowed the import of the said vaccine to be used in Sri Lankans [sic],” President of the AMS Doctor Lalantha Ranasinghe said in the statement.

“We also note with great anxiety and dismay of certain arbitrary appointments and removals being made to the Board of NMRA. We strongly believe such moves as an attempt to undermine the scientific basis of vaccine approval and hence it’s safety, efficacy and acceptance by the general public,” he added.

Dr Ranasinghe was referring to a controversial removal of NMRA board members over the vaccine issue.

Pathirana, meanwhile, claimed that WHO approval has delayed due to a translation issue.

“It is said some translation issue has occurred since all data documents are in Chinese. As soon as they translate it to English and give their approval, it will be possible to administer the Sinopharm vaccine to Sri Lankans as well,” he said.

Pathirana’s remark about translation issues could not be independently verified, but a perusal of WHO documents showed that the Chinese vaccine may be approved for emergency use in early April.

“We will look for the most eligible community to receive the jab and will take necessary steps to vaccinate them,” Smaraweera told EconomyNext yesterday.

He noted, however, that NMRA approval for emergency use of the vaccine will need to be obtained, in addition to a number of other processes that must be completed, prior to administering it.

Civilians have the right to self-defence in the event of an unprovoked attack from a police officer, police spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana said.

Speaking to the privately owned Swarnavahini this morning, Rohana said members of the public may resort to self-defence if their life is threatened by the actions of a uniformed police officer abusing his or her powers, as per sections 92 and 93 of the penal code.

The police spokesman, who is also an attorney-at-law, was commenting on the brutal assault on a lorry driver by a traffic police officer in Pannipitiya yesterday (29). Footage of the incident went viral on social media yesterday afternoon and the constable, who is attached to the Maharagama police station, was promptly arrested later in the evening amid public outcry about police brutality.

Investigations have revealed that the lorry driver in question had accidentally knocked down the Traffic OIC (officer in charge) of the Maharagama police at the Pannipitiya junction on the High Level Road. Footage showed the enraged constable, who was on duty at the junction, shoving the driver to the ground and leaping onto him, not unlike a professional wrestler. (Incidentally, the constable is a former athlete, according to Rohana).

Asked if civilians who find themselves in such situations can retaliate in order to defend themselves, Rohana said a civilian who is unarmed and not showing resistance can use provisions in the penal code to defend themselves in such a situation.

“The law is the same for everyone. It’s fair. And the civilian has the right to self defence in that situation,” he said.

Section 92 of the penal code reads:

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under color of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised.
The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Explanation 1

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2

A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction ; or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or. if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

Section 93:

The right of private offence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely –

Firstly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.