Eight years is a sufficiently long span of time to measure an institution. And from this yardstick, it would be putting it mildly to state that Sri Lanka's Bribery and Corruption Commission has hitherto chiefly distinguished itself for unpleasant controversies surrounding its functioning rather than for anything else. Like the monsoon rains that occur periodically in this country, we see another controversy this week alleging grave subversion of the functioning of the Commission and violation of the Bribery and Corruption Commission Act by none other than a Commissioner himself.

Sworn evidence given by senior police officers before the Fort Magistrate's Court allege that Commissioner Kingsley Wickremesuriya had exerted influence on senior police officers attached to the Commission, compelling one of them to show investigation files against dissident politician S.B. Dissanayake to President Chandrika Kumaratunga during late 2002. Commissioner Wickremesuriya had allegedly taken the police officer with him to see President Kumaratunga in the course of which discussions, the contents of the files have been revealed.

These assertions of Inspector of Police K.M.S. Nandasena heading the Investigation Unit of the Commission are backed up by the sworn evidence of Senior Superintendant of Police, P.R. Gunatilleke who is also attached to the Commission. Based on this evidence, the Magistrate's Court has issued summons in a private plaint filed on the basis that Commissioner Kingsley Wickremesuriya had violated the secrecy clause in the Bribery and Corruption Commission Act, thereby rendering himself liable under Section 22 of the Act.

These are grave allegations that render an individual liable, on conviction after summary trial, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and/or to a fine not exceeding rupees one lakh. The secrecy clause that Commisssioner Wickremesuriya is alleged to have violated, stipulates that every member of the Commission, the Director General and every officer or servant appointed to assist the Commission, shall sign a declaration that he will not disclose any information received by him or coming to his knowledge in the exercise and discharge of his powers and functions under the Act, except for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.

As there can be no justification for disclosure of pending investigations to a member of the executive on the ground of 'giving effect to the provisions of the Act", no matter how highly placed that individual may be, the manner in which Commissioner Wickremesuriya refutes these allegations will be interesting, to say the least.

Also interesting will be the possible consequences if Commissioner Wickremesuriya is found guilty in the private plaint, given the fact that the Act specifies the removal of the Commissioners only upon proved misconduct or incapacity and through a parliamentary process similar to that of removal of an appeal court judge. Recent political controversies involving moves to remove members of a previous Commission still remain fresh in our minds.

From another perspective, the call had long been for the Commission to have an independent police force, the members of which are not susceptible to the pressures that regular police officers are subjected to. The question, however, becomes relevant in the light of these court documents, as to what purpose this would serve when a member of the Commission itself is alleged to be active in pressuring police officers attached to the Commission.

Ironically enough, the Commission, this week, responded to allegations of inefficiency and alleged lack of independence by stating that it could not fully justify its position or its activities due to the secrecy clause in the Act which prohibits the Commission from being "one hundred percent transparent." What finer example of a quid pro quo, one cannot imagine. Further explaining its stand, the Commission also pointed to an orchestrated media campaign to undermine its role, alleging in turn that this is due to the frustrations of certain parties who have been affected by its investigations.

As this tit-for-tat scenario continues, the question as to whether the prevalent Commission has legal status has also emerged in the context of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which prescribes the appointment of the members to be by the President upon the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Members presently holding office have been appointed on the sole authority of the President at a time when the Constitutional Council was not in existence.

Arguments have been advanced by some strong objectors to the present Commission, that the Commission should be dissolved and a new Commission constituted through procedures that are insulated from political influences to some extent at least. The ambiguity prevalent on this question is another defect evident in the poorly drafted 17th Amendment, Article 41B (3) of which states that it is the duty of the Council to recommend appointments to the Commission, 'whenever the occasion for such appointment arises'. The Commission has been fortified by the advice of the Attorney General that the composition of the Commission would remain unaffected for the remaining period of the five-year term that they have been appointed for under the Act.

Over and above the re constitution of the Commission, either now or any point in the future, one is beset with an extreme sense of hopelessness as to whether improved methods of appointment - or anything else for that matter, will free the Commission from its hopelessly politicised past. We are dogged by the pathetic faith that perfect procedures will result in perfect institutions when it is axiomatic that these cannot replace individuals with a sense of integrity and commitment.

Not so long ago, one remembers a promise made by the United National Party that its members will be asked to sign an anti-corruption contract and that the expenses of its ministers will be severely restricted with their budgets being published in the newspapers. This was just prior to the 2000 General Elections. Now, we have a United Front government in office but no reiteration of these promises. Stricter measures put into effect by the government in this regard will undoubtedly be of positive effect on other political parties as well. As far as the Bribery and Corruption Commission is concerned, however, it appears to be the appropriate time to give up hope.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster