Columns

The National People’s Power (NPP) government is clearly banking heavily on its campaign against corruption to sustain its popularity. From the very beginning of its administration, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his cabinet identified the fight against graft as both a moral imperative and a political strategy. In the government’s first year in office, the Bribery Commission (CIABOC) has been exceptionally active, pursuing investigations with renewed energy, securing multiple arrests, and bringing several high-profile cases before courts.

For NPP leaders, these developments are nothing short of a political boon. They continue to highlight arrests and prosecutions as the hallmark of the administration’s first year, confident that the absence of any serious corruption scandal involving NPP bigwigs further strengthens the government’s credibility. The government’s narrative, therefore, is one of moral cleanliness: a break from decades of corrupt political culture.

President Dissanayake himself underscored this theme at the United Nations General Assembly last week. In blunt terms, he declared:

“We regard corruption as an epidemic causing widespread harm to broad swathes of society. We believe corruption to be an obstruction for development, a decisive threat to democracy and global well-being and also a cause for poverty. Let me remind you that fighting corruption is dangerous, but not fighting corruption is even more dangerous.”

Yet, even as the government celebrates its achievements, cracks are beginning to appear in its approach.

The problem of politicisation

The NPP’s anti-corruption crusade, while laudable in principle, has also revealed a troubling tendency: politicisation. Instead of leaving CIABOC and other independent bodies to conduct their investigations in a manner shielded from political interference, government ministers and party spokespersons frequently intervene in public debates on the subject, giving the campaign a partisan colouration.

The arrest and detention of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, on what Indian politician Shashi Tharoor called petty charges, stands as the most glaring example. Widely criticised as ill-conceived, targeted, and ultimately unjust, the move backfired badly. Rather than reinforcing the government’s commitment to justice, it lent credence to opposition claims that the anti-corruption drive was a weapon used selectively against political adversaries.

This episode underlines a broader danger: when anti-corruption efforts are perceived as politically motivated, they risk losing legitimacy. Worse, they may undermine the very institutions—such as CIABOC, the police, and the judiciary—that are essential to ensuring justice.

Collateral damage:
The judiciary in the crossfire

Perhaps the most serious collateral damage in this campaign has been the erosion of public perceptions of the judiciary’s independence. Recent media reports have spoken of judges being interdicted, dismissed, or transferred. When lumped together with stories of corruption among police officers and other officials, these developments risk creating a misleading but dangerous impression: that the judiciary itself is corrupt or compromised.

The media, too, has been partly responsible for this blurring of lines. By failing to exercise caution and restraint in reporting allegations, journalists sometimes contribute to the erosion of confidence in the courts.

This is a particularly perilous development. The judiciary is the ultimate safeguard of citizens’ rights. Its independence—both real and perceived—is the cornerstone of democracy. Sri Lanka’s judiciary, despite pressures, has historically demonstrated resilience. After the 1978 Constitution, which strengthened the executive and weakened institutional checks, Dr Colvin R. de Silva famously warned of “monkeying with the judiciary”. Yet, the courts largely held their ground. Even during the troubled Rajapaksa years, many young judges issued bold orders, standing firm in defence of the rule of law.

For these reasons, the government and media alike must exercise great care. Safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, and public faith in that
independence, must be placed above all political considerations.

Parliamentary allegations and the Bar Association’s role

Adding to the complexities, last Friday’s parliamentary proceedings have raised fresh concerns about the judiciary. Opposition MPs, particularly Ranjit Madduma Bandara and Mujibur Rahman of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya, alleged that judicial promotions were now being decided through interviews rather than the traditional seniority system. They contended that this shift undermines judicial independence by opening the door to political or executive influence.

How accurate these allegations are remains unclear. But they are serious enough to warrant scrutiny by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the primary guardian of the legal profession’s independence. As the voice of the legal community, the BASL must investigate, express its considered views, and act if necessary.

Another controversy erupted following a revelation by former JVP parliamentarian Nandana Goonetilleke, who alleged that the current CIABOC Director General Ranga Dissanayake once served as a member of the JVP’s legal team. If true, the Opposition argues, such a past raises concerns about impartiality. Similar allegations have been made against senior officials such as Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekera, accused of supporting the NPP election campaigns.

Lessons from the past

History offers useful parallels. President J.R. Jayewardene’s appointment of Neville Samarakoon, Queens Counsel, as Chief Justice in the late 1970s raised eyebrows in Hulftsdorf due to his political affiliations with the United National Party. Yet, Samarakoon soon established himself as fiercely independent, even clashing publicly with Jayewardene.

Similarly, past members of oversight bodies who came from political backgrounds have, on occasion, acted more independently than their non-political peers. In Dissanayake’s case, his alleged JVP affiliation dates back more than 30 years, and his career in the judiciary would have long since eclipsed his political leanings.

As for Seneviratne and Abeysekera, while it was ill-advised for them to appear at political events during the election campaigns, their professionalism prior to that remained exemplary. Efforts by some opposition politicians to link them to negligence in preventing the Easter Sunday attacks have no basis and stand discredited, as the Justice Janak de Silva Commission of Inquiry made no such findings.

The burden on such officials is, however, now greater: they must not only be independent but also be perceived as independent. Their professionalism and transparency will be critical in convincing the public that their decisions are untainted by political bias.

The ultimate responsibility for protecting judicial independence lies not only with government leaders or officials but also with professional bodies like the BASL and with civil society at large. Eternal vigilance is required to ensure that executive actions, whether wittingly or unwittingly, do not erode the integrity of the courts.

Sri Lanka’s democratic experiment has suffered repeated blows from corruption, authoritarianism, and political manipulation. The NPP’s determination to eradicate corruption is commendable and resonates with a public weary of decades of impunity. But if this crusade slips into partisan excesses, undermines the judiciary, or damages the credibility of independent institutions, it may end up doing more harm than good.

The challenge before the NPP government is clear. It must demonstrate that the fight against corruption is not a political tool but a principled commitment to building a just society. That requires restraint from politicians, independence for investigative agencies, responsible reporting by the media, and vigilant oversight by the legal profession.

In the end, Sri Lanka’s fight against corruption will be judged not only by how many wrongdoers are prosecuted but also by whether the institutions of justice emerge stronger, freer, and more trusted than before. The independence of the judiciary is not merely another issue on the government’s agenda—it is the bulwark of democracy itself.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)