Editorial

The relatively swift and somewhat unceremonious dismissal of the Justice and Buddha Sasana Minister on Wednesday is one more in a somewhat long line of ministerial sackings, and another bizarre episode gripping the Government in general and the UNP in particular. The former Finance and later Foreign Minister escaped this ignominy only by a whisker a fortnight ago by resigning before getting the boot.

The now former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe dug in his heels and held his ground as his party hierarchy ganged up and rallied the troops to go for his blood. The ostensible crime he had committed was to have spoken against the party and violated principles of Cabinet ‘collective responsibility’ but, the real reason was his sudden outburst on the controversial Hambantota harbour agreement signed by his Government.

The former Minister did himself no favours by saying that it is the President who can sack him – something that therefore pitched his party (UNP) leadership directly in a battle of pride with the President (SLFP). Mr. Rajapakshe, a self-made lawyer is no greenhorn in politics. He ought to have known he had signed his own political death sentence by taking that provocative position in an environment where the two coalition partners don’t see eye-to-eye.

Since Independence, the country has seen resignations, crossovers and sackings of MPs aplenty. In 1959, Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike wanted to expel five MPs found guilty by a one-man Bribery Commission but he was assassinated before action was taken. The Civic Disabilities law was introduced only in 1965. In 1975, an entire party (LSSP) was expelled from the Cabinet and Government. Somewhat more recently, Ministers M.D.H. Jayawardene, Cyril Mathew and Ronnie de Mel were sacked from their portfolios by President J.R. Jayewardene for criticising the party. So, Mr. Rajapakshe now joins that illustrious and not-so illustrious list. To accuse him of stalling corruption investigations against the former Mahinda Rajapaksa Government is an unfair allegation making him a scapegoat for the sins of others within his party. As Minister of Justice he may have been less pro-active in the prosecution of the corrupt, but his role was only in the adjudicating process and not in the investigations being handled by another department.

The fact that influential political persona in his own party were hand-in-glove with the nefarious characters of the past Government is an open secret. Business deal-makers, government contractors and even those wanting to launder ill-gotten monies of those in the former Administration, having a cosy partnership with some UNP Ministers is what has put the party at odds with the President – and the country.

Cabinet’s ‘collective responsibility’ is an essential prerequisite for effective governance maybe, however much it stifles the free expression of Ministers. Parliament allows a ‘conscience vote’, not so the Cabinet. During the Cabinet discussion on the move to strip former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike of her civic rights four Ministers expressed their opposition to the exercise. One of them was then front-line Minister, Gamini Dissanayake. He was ostracised for what he did by his leader, President J.R. Jayewardene for several months. Even so, Mr. Dissanayake made no public comment on the stance he took.

Mr. Rajapakshe has had to pay the price for what SLFP Ministers in the Cabinet are doing on a regular basis. Just a fortnight ago, and immediately after the Cabinet approved the 20th Amendment to the Constitution giving Parliament powers of dissolved Provincial Councils (in a veiled bid to postpone PC elections), SLFP Ministers went public opposing the Cabinet decision. Apparently, what is sauce for Mr. Rajapakshe is not sauce for the SLFP Ministers. Conversely, the UNP- run CCEM (Cabinet Committee on Economic Management) was accused of by-passing Cabinet ‘collective responsibility’ by taking decisions without the Cabinet’s knowledge.

What Mr. Rajapakshe said in one of his interviews was absolutely right i.e. “the country is bigger than the government”. He was removed for his public posturing on the Hambantota agreement. But then, under fire, he wilted. He began backtracking without sticking to his position in a bid to save his portfolio.

In the process, he has fallen between two stools; that of his twin portfolios and the moral high ground he took.

Effective ways to expedite corruption probes
The outgoing Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha had something succinct to say in his farewell comments to the media on Wednesday. He said that while other Justice Ministers were blamed for interfering with the Attorney General and the Judiciary, he was being blamed for not doing so. We know how former Justice Ministers humiliated judges and one more recently even ordered the AG to send out an indictment when the AG said there was “no case”. The entire issue revolves around the impotence of the incumbent Government to successfully prosecute corrupt wrongdoers of the previous Government. Now, leaders downplay the accusations saying “election rhetoric must not be taken seriously” while finding various excuses for the inaction.

We have said this before; the reasons for these delays are four-fold i.e. 1) the lack of forensic skills to follow paper trails of mega deals and banking secrecy overseas; 2) bribery within the investigations; 3) volume of files on petty thefts; and 4) political interference – not necessarily in that order resulting in half- baked files being sent up to the AG’s department for indictment.

We were told in the early days of this Government that World Bank teams from the Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative (StAR) and US Federal investigators were there to identify the rogues of yesteryear and help recover the loot.

Insofar as special courts to accelerate these cases go, step one is not to have half-baked investigations sent to the AG. The Bond Commission is being skilfully handled partly because the crimes committed are local, and there is a willingness to go ahead. The long arm of the law is not long enough overseas. Examples from other countries, even China, and how they are having special courts to fight corruption, are worth studying.

There is a need to bring in the Suo Moto provisions found in India where various legal instruments exist for civil society groups and even lower court judges to initiate investigations. Some Ministers glibly talk of High Courts sitting morning, noon and afternoon. Already two Supreme Court judges of a 11-member bench are sitting in the Bond Commission. However important and onerous their work is, law’s delays are a real issue for the ordinary citizen. It is time the respective age-limits of the Appellate Court and High Court justices are reviewed with a view to raising them as is happening all over the world, and also their numbers increased – without lowering standards, to accommodate the junior judicial officers to meet the demand. Over to the Government to walk the talk. Where there is a will, there is a way.