News
Summoning MR to Bribery Conmmission brings out sharp differences
The decision by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC) to summon former President Mahinda Rajapaksa before it has led to the sharp differences of opinion among Government and Opposition legislators with both sides arguing the validity of such a move.
The former President is to be questioned over allegations that his decision to offer a ministerial portfolio to the former UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayaka, who changed sides just prior to the January 8 Presidential poll, violates provisions of the Presidential Election Act.
Those who oppose the move say that the former President was exercising his constitutional powers that are vested with the executive to appoint ministers even though Government legislators say that giving ministerial appointment at a time a Presidential election is to held makes it illegal.
Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe implied the former President has violated Section 79 of the Presidential Election Act which prohibits the offer of a “ministerial or any position or any privilege to a person expecting political gain or causing disadvantage to a rival candidate when a Presidential election has been declared, if so, such violation would be considered as a bribe.”
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa offered the ministerial portfolio of the Health Ministry to MP Tissa Attanayaka on December 11, 2014 though the nominations for the Presidential election opened on December 8, 2014.
Mr.Rajapakshe told the Sunday Times that as the election agent of the election campaign of the incumbent President, Maithripala Sirisena made a formal complaint to CIABOC on December 16, 2014 to investigate how a ministerial post was offered to MP Tissa Attanayake.
He said that each Presidential candidate is required to conduct his/her election campaign in accordance with the legal provisions provided in the Presidential Election Act even if a candidate holds the position of the Executive President which prohibits him or her to appoint a minister during the time of election.
He further added that the recent allegations made by the opposition MPs against the Bribery Director General (DG) Ms. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe were probed and she was cleared of any wrongdoing. He reiterated the importance of enabling the Bribery Commission to function independently.
However rejecting the bribery allegations, UPFA MP Tissa Attanyake pointed out that the Constitution enables the President to appoint any Parliamentarian as a Cabinet or non-Cabinet Minister at any given time. Therefore the appointment of his ministerial portfolio has not violated the legal provisions in the Constitution.
He said that at the time the Presidential election was announced, if the current President was contesting for another term then he or she would not perform as a care-taker President or an acting President but was in office with entitled privileges and immunities vested in the executive presidency.
Asked why he had not appeared before the Bribery Commission last Wednesday after receiving a notice signed by the DG of the Commission, he said he requested the Commission inform his lawyers the charges made against him and said he would appear before the Commission with the approval of Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa.
UPFA Colombo District MP Bandula Gunawardena said that there is no legal provision to question a former President who is covered by immunity from legal action under Section 35 by the Constitution which has been violated by the current Government and the Bribery Commission for their own hidden agendas.
He criticised the Bribery DG for sending a notice to summon the former President to the commission without obtaining permission from the Chairman and members of the commission.
Justice Minister Rajapakshe rejected the Opposition claim that that the former President will continue to hold immunity from prosecution after leaving office. He cited the fundamental rights case filed in the Supreme Court against former President Chandrika Kumaratunga for abusing executive powers and illegally transferring State lands allocated for public purpose to be used as a private golf course. Known as the Waters Edge case, Ms. Kumaratunga was fined three million rupees by the Supreme Court.