After over 13 months of inaction, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption was revived two weeks ago, following the appointment of a Chairman and two Commissioners by the President. The cases that had accumulated during the time it ceased to function exceeds a massive 3000, in addition to the 112 new cases it has received within the brief two weeks period of its assuming duties.
With an embedded culture of corruption in the public sector, especially within the most crucial departments of the public sector; the Police, Courts and the Customs, the new Commissioners face a tremendous challenge and a race against time in clearing the huge backlog while attending to new cases that keep gushing in everyday.
The newly appointed Chairman of the Commission, Justice D.J.De S. Balapatabendi, a seasoned lawmaker and retired Supreme Court Judge in an interview with the Sunday Observer explained his challenging task and their way forward in cleansing the public service of the tiny caucus of corrupt officers that has earned the country a bad name.
“We need to amend the sections that spell out penalties. The existing penalties are not at all sufficient to fight the menace of bribery and corruption in the public sector. The legal draughtsman will be notified through the Presidential Secretariat shortly to bring in necessary changes,” the Chairman said.
The excerpts of the interview:
We assumed duties about two weeks back. When we took over, there were more than 1600 files of new cases, accumulated during the 13 months the Commission ceased to function.
At the same time a large number of pending cases where preliminary investigations have been completed are on the table. These cases need to be reviewed. If there is substantial material we have to initiate further investigations or commence prosecutions. There are a total of over 1700 such files pending suitable action.
Altogether a total of 3,000 cases are pending before the Commission. During the past two weeks, after we assumed duties, the Commission received 112 new complaints.
Justice Balapatabendi said the volume of work before the Commission now was enormous but all three members were taking their work home in a bid to expedite the clearing of the backlog.
The Chairman said they may have to close some of the smaller cases that have no supporting material to take further action in order to speed up the clearing of the huge backlog. He said his intention is to catch the ‘big fish’ who somehow manage to wriggle their way out of the legal barriers.
Others will be referred to the investigation branch for action.
We have conducted 12 open raids so far out of which six raids were successful. The suspects have been produced before Courts and remanded. Among the suspects are inspectors of police, sub inspectors, grama niladaris and police security assistants. Their offences are mainly taking monetary bribes.
There are about 46 corruption inquiries pending against public servants. We have completed inquiries on those complaints but need to file action. There are many assets cases. An asset case involves complaints with regard to suspicious accumulation of wealth.
Three of us get together and cover about 50-75 matters and we take home daily about 25 – 30 files and bring it on the following day. That is a lot of work. We have to clear the heavy backlog of bribery and corruption cases as the Commission was defunct for over a year. Our aim is to minimise the menace of corruption in the public sector and hopefully embed in the minds of public servants a fear for soliciting bribes and engaging in corrupt means to accumulate wealth.
Although we do not want to admit this in public, it is an open secret that bribery and corruption is still a big issue in public offices especially in the Police Department, Courts, Customs and many others.
The new Commission members in their mandate have taken serious note of the law that has not been implemented so far.
I must specifically mention, by the end of June we expect every public servant to declare their assets and liabilities. It will be a compulsory requirement and the heads of all public offices should ensure that the set of applications that will be circulated by the Commission is filled and returned within the given period of time.
The groups who should declare their assets include all Parliamentarians, local government members, provincial councillors and all heads of government, etc.
The following defines a public servant under the Bribery Act.
“A Public servant – includes a minister of the Cabinet of Ministers, a minister appointed under Article 45 of the Constitution, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees, a deputy minister, the governor of a province, a minister of the Board of Ministers of a province, a Member of Parliament, every officer, servant or employee of the State or any Chairman, director, Governor, member, officer, or employee, whether in receipt of remuneration or not, of a provincial council, local authority or of a scheduled institution, or of a company incorporated under the Companies Act No 17 of 1982, in which over fifty per centum of the shares are held by the Government, a member of a Provincial Public Service, every juror, every licensed surveyor, and every arbitrator, or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court or any other competent public authority”.
A law that was introduced in 1975 required the public servants to make a declaration but it has not been properly implemented thus far.
The intention is to cross check the data provided by the public servant in case of a bribery or corruption complaint against the individual.
The data provided by the officials will be kept with the heads of relevant offices or in case of Parliamentarians, with the Presidential secretariat, to be referred to in an instance of a formal complaint.
If the law is not adhered or followed in the breach, under the “Declaration of Assets and Liability Law No.1 of 1975”, a person can be imposed a fine and/or a prison term.
“A person who fails without reasonable cause to make any declaration of assets and liabilities which is required to make under section 3 of this Act or who makes any false statement in any such declaration or who wilfully omits any assets or liability from any such declaration, or who fails without reasonable cause to give such additional information at the commission to investigate alleged allegation of bribery or corruption may require under these law or who otherwise contravenes any provisions of these law under this act shall be guilty of an offence and shall unless any other penalty is otherwise provided, on conviction after trial before a Magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs.1000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.”
The Bribery Commissioners are in the process of amending the law to bring in tougher laws and penalties to the 1975 Act.
“I must say this penalty section should be amended. The Rs.1,000 fine should be increased to at least Rs.50,000 and the imprisonment should be increased to at least five years. Otherwise the people will not take this law seriously.
Q: The investigation officers are attached to Bribery Commission from the Police Department, thus you have no jurisdiction or control over these individuals. Could they be recalled in the midst of an investigation?
A: If we want to recruit officers to the Bribery Commission, we advertise or send an advertisement to the Inspector General of Police, for officers to apply for the posts through the OIC of the station.
Then we interview them and recruit. Once an officer is recruited he is not transferable from the Bribery Commission. There are officers who have been here for more than 15 – 20 years.
They are attached to the Bribery Commission. This is because if they get a transfer during an investigation, that person can go back to the police department and possibly leak out the information with regard to an ongoing investigation. That is a risk. Normally it is not done. Even after the completion of cases, the officers remain with the Bribery Commission.
Q: In the past especially during Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike’s time, there were instances of leading politicians and public figures prosecuted and punished. In the recent past we have not seen such bold action by the Bribery commission. The case against Mr.Anuruddha Ratwatte is an exception but this too is yet to be concluded?
A: It was an asset case not a bribery case. We have not yet come across any big cases so far. It has been only two weeks.
If we come across any such case, definitely we are going to investigate and prosecute, if they have committed an offence under the Bribery Act or the declaration of assets and liabilities. If there is enough material we can and we have to do it.
The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption is there to investigate cases involving not just ordinary second tier officers but the top-most seniors. We will not hesitate to do that.
Q: Are you satisfied with the existing set of rules to punish the offenders or do you think more deterrent punishment should be meted out?
A: This is what I just mentioned. Even though the law spells out tough penalties, sometimes the courts depending on the facts, do not impose the maximum punishment. So it is finally left to courts. But personally I think the law needs to be amended and more deterrent punishment should be introduced to curb this menace that has plagued our public sector.
Q: Will there be any action initiated by the Commission to do that?
A: I have already taken this matter up with the Director General and we are in the process of making some suggestions to the legal draughtsman through the Presidential Secretariat.
I was told by the Director General that we need at least 200 members in the staff but at the moment our staff strength is less than 100. We need over 100 more. To make the place more efficient we need the additional staff and more legal officers.
Bribery Commission Fact File
* The first commission appointed on 15th December 1994, Members of the first Commission (15.12.1994 – 14.12.1999)
* Justice T.A. de S. Wijesundara – Rtd. SC Judge – Chairman
* Justice Siva Selliah – Rtd. CA Judge – Member – Expired on – 09.01.1997
* Mr. C. Wijesuriya – Rtd. Govt. Auditor General – Member – Resigned on 13.07.1995
* Mr. Rudra Rajasingham – Rtd. IGP was appointed on 14.07.1995
* The second commission appointed on 15th December 1999 (1999-2004)
* The Third commission appointed on 29th March 2005 ( for 5 year period)
* The Present Commission members:
* Justice D.J.de S. Balapatabendi (Chairman), Justice L.K.Wimalachandra (Commissioner), Mr.Jayantha Wickramaratne (Commissioner)