If you can't read please download the document
Upload
thavam-ratna
View
181
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Corruption Sri Lanka : Ranil Wickremasinghe Vs Shiral
LakthilakaUntitledSri Lanka Brief27/03/2015The Coordinating
Secretary to the President, Attorney-at-Law Shiral Lakthilaka, in
an interview with Ceylon Today spoke of two pressing issues the
need to prosecute cases of corruption with more vigour and to go
for a national government with a win-win situation. The country now
has the latter, but now the question is whether a government with
the same old faces would be as interested in pursuing the
corruption of the past.Following are the excerpts of the
interview:Q: : The Prime Minister (PM) in a special statement to
Parliament on the 17, reprimanded the media organizations, which
had called for the resignation of the Central Bank Governor, Arjuna
Mahendran. In a country where media freedom is to be promoted, is
it wrong for newspapers to call for the resignation of a public
official who is facing allegations of fraud? This statement seems
to mean that though the government promotes media freedom, it only
comes to play when the media is attacking the Opposition and not
the government? I ask you this because you too have been a strong
supporter of media freedom.A : Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka media
freedom is always discussed and portrayed according to the
political context. It is not something abstract.When it comes to
the statement by the PM in Parliament, my personal opinion is that
it is unbecoming of the PM to refer to me in such a personal manner
on that particular issue. If you look at the background to this
remark, I am a member of the Anti-Corruption Front; we were the
first to expose this Central Bank bond issue. There, we said there
is insider dealing in relation to the issuing of bonds and this
should be inquired into. We never said A or B is the culprit. We
just said that there is enough information to suspect a financial
scam. Then, the President who was in England, from there, ordered
to set up an inquiry board. We were happy with that, as the
government was very swift in taking action and thereafter we found
that the PM, making use of the Presidents directive appointed a
three member committee. When you look at the composition of the
committee, one media institution asked me of the ability and
credibility of this committee to go into this inquiry. What I said
to them was that, first of all they are all lawyers appointed by
the United National Party (UNP). Now this scandal happened at the
Central Bank, so there should be a governmental inquiry not a civil
or UNP inquiry board. This is a State related issue. That was my
first opinion. Second opinion was that, I said when you look at the
lawyers, on the face of it, two of the lawyers in this committee
have a background in criminal law. I said this with respect to
their ability to handle such a case, as these lawyers do not have
the background to handle this kind of complex financial scandal.
Even I, with 22 years of civil practice, am not in a position to go
into the sensitive issues of this case. That is all I said. It
seems to me that the PM was highly embarrassed by this incident but
it has nothing to do with us. We as citizens, though I am holding a
responsible post under the Presidential system, aired our view. So
he need not remark like this, it is unbecoming and unwarranted, to
compare my background with that of the lawyers.Secondly, the remark
he made about me was stated under the Privileges of Parliament. If
it was said outside, I had a right to challenge it and that too is
unbecoming. If he wants to hurl critical remarks at a person, he
should come forward as any other citizen and do that. Because what
he said in Parliament was utter falsehood. First, he was referring
to some kind of remand case. But the whole country knows who made
allegations against me. That is directly connected to the Sirikotha
(UNP Headquarters) attack and I have several affidavits by his
present Cabinet Ministers to say that we have nothing to do with
these attacks. It was a cooked up story and we were remanded and
once this case is over we will know how to clear our name.
Therefore he cannot say that my credibility is low, compared to
whoever is on the inquiry board.Q : So are you saying that the PM
is making this personal, given your history with the UNP?
A: Yes, definitely.Q : You remarked that the lawyers have a
background in criminal law and might not be able to understand the
issue. The PM made a similar statement with regard to
Parliamentarians when he said that he would not appoint a
Parliamentary Select Committee as MPs have no knowledge of
bonds?
A: It is the same argument. If politicians cannot understand,
lawyers with different disciplines also cannot understand the fine
issues of these transactions.Q : You said this should be a State
investigation and not a UNP one, but is not a committee appointed
by the PM, a State investigation?
A: Yes, he has a right to appoint a committee. But when it comes to
principles of natural justice, the basic principle is, you should
not conduct your case when you are a party to the allegation and
you should not be the arbitrator of that same case. We know very
well that the PM appointed the Central Bank Governor in haste and
he showed a tremendous interest in it. At that time he (Mahendran)
was not even a Sri Lankan citizen. Then UNP Chairman, Malik
Samaraweera is also allegedly connected with this issue. The Bank
of Ceylon Chairman is also allegedly connected. So in that case,
this is a home and home affair. In that context it is better not to
appoint someone from the closer circuits of the UNP but to appoint
someone with a professional background affiliated to the State.
Q : Some may point out that you are making all these allegations
because you too have a bone to pick with the UNP?
A: No, that is not the case. We formed the Anti-Corruption Front
and started going after various scandals of the previous regime.
This is a matter of our credibility and we have to show that we are
balanced and impartial. In that case, when there is a
straightforward case before us, how can we keep quiet? If we keep
quiet, what would be the credibility of our movement?
Q : The Anti-Corruption Front was formed soon after the new
government came into power. Why did you decide to form such an
organization, did you lose faith in the ability of the Commission
to Investigate into Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC)
and other State institutions to tackle corruption?
A: There are many reasons. In the present context in Sri Lanka, it
is very difficult for an ordinary citizen to come forward and lodge
a complaint before a State institution. Therefore we came forward
to offer a facilitator role between the State institutions and the
citizens: to take the complaint, verify it and then forward it.
Secondly, we know in the context of the Sri Lankan political
culture, a lot of citizens fear to take bold action. Therefore, we
are there as a movement to take over the risk factor involved.
Thirdly, we thought that this kind of movement is needed to change
this whole pattern of corrupt political and administrative
practices. These motivations led us to form this movement.
But this is not the first time; we have always been fighting
against corruption, earlier we were called Corruption Watch. We
were the people who filed the case against hedging, we did a lot of
things in 2009, so this group has a past.
Q : To date (25) the new government has been in power for 76
days, how has the progress been? Have they taken your verified
complaints seriously? Are you satisfied with the response
received?
A: So far we have made more than 30 substantial complaints to the
CIABOC. We also made several complaints to the Criminal
Investigation Department and the Income Tax Department. I can give
you a mixed answer, yes and no.
Satisfied, compared to the previous regime. Now the mechanism and
process has been started, somebody is inquiring into it and
statements are being taken down. But with regard to the speediness
of the progress, we are not satisfied. We are also not satisfied in
the way the Terms of References were formulated to go after these
scandals. Some of the scandals or irregularities are very
technical. If you look at the ways in which corruption happens,
there are several kinds of corruption: you have financial,
management, technical, conflict of interest and waste of money.
These things cannot be unearthed in a lackadaisical manner. You
need the political will and a strong legal regime. Thus far, we
have not seen the government coming up with a strong legal regime;
though the 100 day programme has stated that it would formulate
special laws to deal with this kind of situations. Therefore we are
a bit frustrated but we have not lost hope.
Q : But this government came with a lot of political will to
tackle corruption, so why is the legal framework not
forthcoming?
A: That is the problem. The case of Avant Garde is a classic case
of what is wrong here.
In the Avant Garde issue, it is a multifaceted fraud. It has
violated international law regimes, local law, and has made certain
individuals unjustly rich. There are so many ways of looking at
this case. But unfortunately, Minister Lakshman Kiriella said in
Parliament that this was a legal project. The former Defence
Secretary also said this. This is not the case.M.V. Mahanuwara
violated Sri Lankan laws as well as international maritime
regulations. In Sri Lanka if you want to carry or hold weapons, the
Firearms Act regulates the whole procedure. Under the Firearms Act,
nobody can hold firearms.The International Maritime Agency (IMA)
however using international custom to deal with the issue of piracy
allowed certain countries to apply to maintain floating armouries.
At the same time, it said, the armouries must hold that countrys
flagship status. Our Firearms Act does not provide space for such a
thing. In that case, it should be the Navy and not Avant Garde. But
what did they do? Mahanuwara belonged to the Sri Lanka Shipping
Company Ltd. Avant Garde charted it from this company therefore it
is Sri Lankan property. In order to carry weapons, they obtained
the Mongolian flagship. They cannot do that, it is a blatant
violation of international as well as Sri Lankan law.They also had
two other floating ships in the Middle East. Those ships are
carrying Sri Lankan flagship status, they cannot do that. Once
again this is a violation of Sri Lankan law and you are conning the
IMA. This shows the gravity of the situation. Then Avant Garde with
the help of Rakna Lanka has issued inducer certificates: a permit
to transport arms on a ship. So when you allow third parties to
purchase and carry arms, it opens the Pandoras Box for illegal and
illicit arms trade.Then the Sri Lankan Navy was contracted to
manufacture 60 odd naval boats for Nigeria, Avant Garde was the
middleman for that. This case is very complex but the Sri Lankan
Government says all this is proper.Q : When this case first came
out, there was a lot of interest in prosecuting the case and
investigations were launched but all that seems to have died down
now?A: That is because of the conflict of interest within the
system. We know what various MPs said and how very very important
persons intervened and try to suppress the whole issue. These are
what we call deals.Q :Garde is one of the biggest floating
armouries in the world. There are also reports of Britain wanting
to work with Avant Garde because of the legitimacy they had derived
with their close association with the Sri Lankan Government. But
how is it that no one in Sri Lanka knew of Avant Garde and its
operations? How did such a huge operation function below our
radar?A: The problem is that all these deals are hidden. They have
also declined to show their assets. The Anti-Corruption Front
assumes their annual turnover to be around US$ 900 million, whereas
Kiriella says they have paid US$ 235 million as tax, which is
peanuts. That is why I said we are frustrated about the way things
are going on.Q: What are the loopholes in our system which let them
get away with it?A: If you look at the International Convention on
Corruption, there are certain new offenses which they talk about.
There are two ways of dealing with fraud; one is dealing under the
Penal Code and the second is under the CIABOC. Both these legal
regimes are not enough to tackle these modern type frauds.
Avant Garde is an example of this. These archaic laws cannot deal
with it that is why you need to reform the law to suit modern
crimes.
When the President appointed a commission to inquire about these
issues, I think Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka put forward a
Cabinet memorandum with a new set of Terms of References (ToR).
Thus far we do not know if they were accepted or not. If those ToRs
are accepted, that is enough to tackle this issue. Confusion here
is due to the politicians being in two minds.Q: They dont want to
tackle this issue?
A: There are various technical and political issues against it.Q:
Do you think that corruption today has become a societal problem in
Sri Lanka?
A: Yes. In the last two to three weeks, we have got around 1,700
complaints. When we analysed them, we see they are both big and
small. As you said, this is a human problem, so you need structural
changes, process related changes and attitudinal changes. Within
the next couple of weeks we are going to start an attitudinal
change programme and as a slogan we want to say that by 2020, we
want a society with zero tolerance for corruption. That is
needed.
If you look at our culture, our culture tolerates corruption. Our
culture thinks that if you are not corrupt, you are not a talented
guy. Even in a small way, if you try to follow the normal system to
get something done, your wife or husband would say you are a fool.
This is the attitude of our society.
We are trying to do that, starting with an educational programme.
This is a day to day issue.
Q: There has been a deadlock in the issue of electoral reforms.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has now requested 50/50
First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR).
How will the government act on this issue?A: When you look at the
promises made by the President in the manifesto, there are three
salient promises. One is to remove Executive Presidential powers,
second is to do away with the 18th Amendment and bring back the
17th Amendment, and the third is Electoral Reforms.
We are now talking of a new political culture, but if you dont do
away with the existing PR system, you cannot think of a new
political culture. Once you spend so much money on an election,
then you must deal with the black market. Secondly we have given a
promise, not all things in the 100 day programme are as important
as these three. So we have to keep to it. Whatever said and done by
the JVP, they were not involved in this programme. They were in the
periphery, giving indirect support, but we were the people who put
our necks out, for this whole thing. So we want to see that
electoral reforms are done and a new system is introduced into the
Constitution.On the issue of weightage, different parties may have
their own opinions we dont have a problem with that. That is why
political parties must come together and do their horse- deal,
whether it is 60/40, 70/30 or 50/50, we dont mind. But we want a
new system.Q : Your manifesto also promised that the Parliament
would be dissolved by 23 April, so do you have time to accomplish
all this by that time?
A: No, this is what we are saying. The President also said that 23
April is not a hard and fast rule, what is important is delivering
on substantial promises. If we can do the necessary changes before
23, well and good, if not let us do it within a reasonable time
framework and then go for elections. Both are important but what is
important right now is delivering on the promises.
Q: The new government also promotes the concept of a National
Government, but right now we see the Government speaking in many
voices, and everyone is confused with what is going on. In such a
circumstance, do you think a National Government is a good
idea?
A: I am firm believer the National Government, because nobody
understands the nature of this in the current context. None have
had this kind of experience. A candidate from another party gets
the support of the grassroots of the main party of the Opposition
and several other parties and becomes the countrys Executive. This
in itself is a national situation.I think we need a pre-election
National Government and a post-election National Government; two
things. The pre-election National Government will go on until the
election, you cannot continue with this for long. This pre-election
National Government will give the two thirds majority needed to
pass the constitutional reforms in Parliament. The Supreme Court
may at times say you need a referendum too. In that context, if you
let the political context play out in terms of power politics, we
cannot achieve the desired goals. Therefore, you need some kind of
national politics. It is obvious that this present government is a
minority government you cant bring in these constitutional changes
without the assistance of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), so
you need a national understanding.Q: Do you have hope that this
will happen?
A: Yes I have. The President is committed to it.Q: You think he
will be able to change everyones mindset?
A: Well look at the way he has changed the people so far? Who ever
thought that the President will be made Chairman of the SLFP, or
the United Peoples Freedom Alliance? Things are happening which
many never did not imagine. That is the nature of a win-win
situationBY Zahrah Imtiaz/CT
Posted byThavam