The unsafe construction of more than 40% of the 73 bridges, (as disclosed by a recent survey conducted by the Universities of Peradeniya and Moratuwa), on the much hyped Southern Expressway is yet another glaring indicator of the staggering extent of corruption in regard to Sri Lanka's major development projects.

In this case, the collapsing of one bridge has already resulted in the loss of one young life. At that time, there was much wailing and weeping but now, who mourns this life, other than the immediate family members and friends of this schoolboy, whose lives would have been irreversibly changed as a result?
Predictably, no relevant government agency has accepted responsibility publicly. In a functional democracy, the Minister responsible would have resigned. However, to expect such responses in this country would indeed be futile.

The Road Development Authority has merely stated that the unsafe bridges would be reconstructed, apparently with no new cost to the government. But what pray, is the guarantee that these replacement bridges would be safer than what previously existed? And who takes responsibility for such a spectacular failure in the monitoring process?

Key missing elements in governance
This fiasco underlines one of the key missing elements in our governance systems. Ideally, we should be able to scrutinize the financial and planning process relating to such mega development projects in order to ascertain as to whether the allotted finances have been used properly. It is for this reason that a Right to Information law is necessary.

In other countries in South Asia, such laws have been used not only at the city level but also at the rural level, by village communities who have called local government contractors and local level politicians to account for myriad financial irregularities. In some instances, these exposures have also compelled these officials and individuals to resign in disgrace.

It is not only in India that we see this but also in Pakistan and Bangladesh despite the very difficult political climate in those countries. Nepal is also sure to follow suit in the coming months.

Irregularities on the Southern Expressway project
The Southern Expressway project is a useful example for highlighting the need for financial accountability in the development process in Sri Lanka. It was held up for many years due to hundreds of furious landowners protesting before court that their properties had been acquired without adequate warning and with minimum compensation. It was only through judicial intervention that important documents relevant to the planning process were released into the public forum.

Irregularities in the process were highlighted through internal reviews by the major lenders including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as well as on the floor of the United States Congress. Sri Lanka's own Supreme Court ruled in Heather Therese Mundy v. Central Environmental Authority and Others (SC Appeal 58/03, SC Minutes of 20.01.2004. SC Appeal 58/2003, judgment of Justice Mark Fernando with Justices Ismail and Wigneswaran agreeing), that the doctrine of Public Trust had been violated by property owners in Akmeemana and Bandaragama not being given adequate notice that their lands were going to be acquired.

This case is one of the strongest articulations of the legal principle that powers vested in public authorities are not absolute or unfettered but are held in trust for the public, to be exercised for the purposes for which they have been conferred. The exercise of such powers should be measured against the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and the equal protection of the law. The relevant government agencies had failed in their duties on all counts.

Absence of Right to Information
The secrecy prevalent in development projects is aggravated by the fact that Sri Lanka lacks not only a Right to Information Act but also a constitutionally guaranteed right to information. In certain instances, judges have implied such a right most commonly within the ambit of the right to freedom of speech and expression secured to all 'citizens' by Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. Most recently, the Supreme Court held, in Environmental Foundation Ltd v Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka and Others, (SC (FR) Application 47/2004, SCM 28.11.2005. per then Chief Justice Sarath Silva), that for the right to expression to be meaningful and effective, a person has an 'implicit right' to secure relevant information from a public authority in respect of a matter in the public domain. This is necessarily the case where "the public interest in the matter outweigh [sic] the confidentiality that attach [sic] to affairs of State and official communications."

Despite such decisions, citizens should not be compelled to go before court every time that access is sought to such information. The financial costs, the energies spent and the time taken on such court interventions are far too much for this to be a feasible alternative. Instead, the right to such information must be made part of the administrative culture with court action only being looked upon as the very last resort.

The draft 2003 Right to Information Law, formulated with the input of civil society and the media, in fact gives the public the right to access information relating to donor funded projects. Clause 8 of the draft law imposes an obligation on the relevant Minister/government body to divulge documents in relation to foreign funded projects (where the value exceeds US$1,000,000 and locally funded projects (where the value exceeds Rs. 5,000,000). The information would be released according to guidelines prescribed by the Freedom of Information Commission to be established in terms of the law. However, this draft law, though approved by the Cabinet of the day, now remains discarded for reasons yet undisclosed.

Shivering cold of an anti-information culture
The example of collapsing bridges on the Southern Expressway is important as it reflects similar problems and deficiencies in major expressway projects and other developments projects already underway or being planned in Sri Lanka. The public outcry that we should be allowed right of access to financial and project information that is relevant to the use of public funds on these projects should indeed be stronger.

In all of South Asia, it is only Sri Lanka (it seems) who is left out in the shivering cold of an outdated and archaic pro-secrecy and anti-information policy that serves only to hide the corruption of ministers and their local level henchmen and henchwomen. In the meantime, lives are lost, families destroyed and countless millions lost to the public coffers. How long is this going to continue?