“Wherever there were money and humans, there was corruption.”- Lakshman Kadirgamar.
“Sri Lanka is actively working to address investors’ concerns about corruption and inefficiency, with a goal of establishing a transparent and predictable environment that fosters investment and protects investors’ rights. Continuous efforts to strengthen the rule of law will enhance Sri Lanka’s reputation as a reliable and favourable destination for both local and international investors.”
—said Marie Antonia von Schönburg, Chief of the Delegation of German Industry and Commerce in Sri Lanka, in interview with Daily Mirror.
Lawmakers are well aware of this statistic. Despite the plethora of statutes, acts, decrees, laws, and regulations, they seem to have little impact on stemming corruption. While the legislature was deliberating on corruption, a member, caught by customs for smuggling gold biscuits, enjoyed all the privileges of a Member of Parliament, having switched sides. Bribery victims rarely come forward, with only one out of 12,000 corrupt transactions being reported. This statistic underscores the significant underreporting of corruption and highlights the urgent need for comprehensive measures to encourage reporting and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
Combating corruption effectively must be a top priority for the President and the Cabinet, especially, the Minister of Justice. This official holds a pivotal role in amending existing laws or introducing new enactments, particularly in recent times. It’s imperative that we address corruption comprehensively before heading into the next General Elections. Their leadership and commitment to implementing robust legal reforms are essential for strengthening the legal framework and enhancing enforcement mechanisms to address corruption effectively. Without their proactive efforts, it would be challenging to create a conducive environment for transparency, accountability, and the effective prosecution of corrupt individuals.
Bribery Laws are 140-years old
The Chief Whips in the House played a crucial role in ensuring party discipline and promoting participation in the proposed Anti-Corruption Bill. They supported the Minister of Justice’s introduction of the latest bribery enactment, including the proposal for an Independent Commission of Inquiry on Bribery and Corruption. However, criticisms remain regarding parliamentarians’ failure to establish an effective institutional framework to combat bribery, corruption, and fraud. The oldest legislation on bribery is The Penal Code Ordinance No. 2 of 1883.
In 2010, Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe himself proposed that no Minister or State Minister be appointed to the two watchdog committees COPE and the Public Accounts. He wanted only ordinary MPs instead. Corruption engulfed the country at an unprecedented level since 1978, and continued breaking all records during the past regimes. Rather than following standard procedures, individuals often seek out “contacts” or connections to influential figures within the administration to get things done. This practice fuels a culture where certain dubious officials and politicians prioritize personal relationships, often through nepotism and cronyism, in pursuit of financial gain. These irregularities are particularly prevalent in government institutions, where employment opportunities are often tied to political connections rather than merit or qualifications.
Parliamentarians Caught in Bribery Web
Anura Daniel MP faced consequences for his involvement in smuggling gold bars when he had to resign from his seat on April 18, 1982, following apprehension by customs. His resignation led to the appointment of his sister, Rupa Daniel, as his replacement. Despite the scandal, Anura Daniel returned to politics in the 1989 elections, nominated to contest the Kandy District by President R Premadasa. However, his political journey was tragically cut short when he was ‘executed’ on June 25, 1989, by the JVP.
The Bribery (Amendment) Act No 19 of 1994, introduced by Chandrika Bandaranaike, modified the Bribery Act of 1954 and facilitated the establishment of a Commission to replace the old Bribery department. However, the employment of retired judicial and Police officers with lethargic attitudes has proven to be ineffective. The proposed draft included provisions for a Director-General of Bribery with enhanced powers, along with a conflict of interest clause to cover all officers.
The new Act aims to revoke the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Act, extending its coverage from the President down to all politicians, from Parliamentarians to Pradeshiya Sabha members. It includes provisions for monitoring the accuracy and correctness of asset declarations, extending coverage to immediate family members of the declarants. the punishment for non-declaration was a mere fine of Rs 1000/=, highlighting the need for more stringent measures.
Bribery among Parliamentarians in Sri Lanka has a long-standing history, with recorded incidents dating back to the State Council days in the early 1940s. In 1942, during British colonial rule, the then British Governor, Sir John H. Hall, appointed senior Solicitor and close friend of Mr D.S. Senanayake, L.M.D. de Silva, a legal luminary, as a one-man commission to investigate bribery charges against several State Councillors. L.M.D. de Silva later served as a Privy Councillor in Britain. His investigation found eight of the alleged bribe-taking legislators guilty, including three Englishmen appointed to the State Council by the Governor himself.
Following the investigation, five local legislators elected by the people promptly resigned. The sole remaining member, E.R. Thambimuththu, MP for Trinco-Batticaloa, was removed by DS Senanayake through a motion at the very next sitting of the State Council.
In 1959, just before his assassination, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike appointed the second bribery Commission under Walter Thalgodapitiya. The commission found six members: R.E. Jayatilleke, D.B. Monnekulame, Deputy Minister Henry Abeywickrema, Deputy Minister C.A.S. Marikkar, Minister M.P. de Zoysa of SLFP, and M.S. Kariapper of ITAK, guilty of bribery. The six included three close associates of SWRD himself. Deputy Minister A.P. Jayasuriya was accused of accepting a bribe Rs. 300 and a bag of rice were in exchange for recommending a person for the post of Village Headman (gramasevaka). Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who succeeded her husband as Prime Minister, failed to take action against the guilty individuals. This historical account underscores the challenges in addressing corruption within the Sri Lankan political landscape.
Sexual Bribery
Another significant aspect of the 1994 Act is the inclusion of clauses aimed at protecting whistle-blowers, witnesses, and victims. It also provides for compensation for any harm suffered by victims. Moreover, the Act addresses issues such as sexual harassment faced by women in workplaces, as well as same-sex bribery, making it one of Asia’s most comprehensive anti-corruption Acts. The incorporation of the concept of sexual bribery into the draft received praise from the head of the Women Parliamentarians’ Caucus, highlighting the Act’s progressive approach to combating corruption and promoting gender equality in the workplace.
It’s disheartening to acknowledge that corruption has become an accepted norm in Sri Lanka. Religious leaders, with significant influence in a society deeply rooted in religious values, play a crucial role in combating bribery and corruption. Despite the pervasive presence of religious institutions and their dominance in national media, corruption continues to plague society, undermining its foundations.
While legal statutes and initiatives exist to combat these issues, their effectiveness is frequently undermined by weak enforcement mechanisms and systemic obstacles.
In light of this, it’s imperative to engage religious dignitaries who wield significant moral authority within society. Their involvement can help catalyze efforts to address bribery and corruption by emphasising the ethical imperative of integrity and accountability. Collaborative action, drawing upon both legal frameworks and moral leadership, is essential to effectively tackle these pervasive challenges and foster a culture of transparency and fairness in Sri Lanka and beyond.
