Editorial

Editorial

Bribery bluff and blunder
The High Court Judge of Colombo acquitted jailed UNP national organiser S.B. Dissanayake this week, and in her order made some scathing remarks about the conduct of the Bribery and Corruption Commission in bringing this prosecution to court.

We reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment on page 2 of this issue.
Readers will recall the facts of the case: That S.B. Dissanayake was an influential politician close to President Chandrika Kumaratunga and largely instrumental in guiding her and her party to victory in 1994, thus retaining power. He was the General Secretary, no less, of the ruling Sri Lanka Freedom Party of which the President was the head. He wept on national TV when the President was nearly assassinated in 1999 but the relationship gradually turned sour and political differences turned into personal differences.

Unable to continue in this situation, Mr. Dissanayake defected to the opposition, to the President’s arch-enemy -- the United National Party, was able to change the name of the opposition coalition to the United National Front, and helped eventually topple her government in 2001.

She refused to administer oaths to him as a Cabinet Minister in the new UNF Government, but later relented. However, by 2003, he found himself facing a contempt of court charge by the Supreme Court for an outlandish remark he made as a minister at a political rally.

The sentencing of S.B. Dissanayake to jail for that remark in 2004 took everyone, not least himself, by surprise. Questions were raised whether the harsh punishment fitted the crime, but there being no appeal, the only recourse he had was to appeal to the court of the people. Then, he was slapped with a bribery charge. The charge-sheet alone gave the state media the handle to pitch into him. Clearly, somebody wanted to bid him good riddance for ever.

Questions now emerge as to the circumstances behind the prosecution. For a prosecution to succeed with only one witness giving evidence, and that witness saying that the prosecution case was half-baked at best; the judge asking why some material witnesses were not listed in the case; the defence not even being called upon to make a defence – are unusual to say the least. They bear all the hallmarks of a malicious prosecution for which there probably is a legal remedy.

But the bigger question is the moral issue.
Should not someone take the rap for such a blatant witch-hunt? Where does the buck stop?
An added dimension to this is whether by crashing this case, the Bribery and Corruption Commission — in fact — gave a clean certificate to someone who may not have, in truth, been entitled to it.

Whether, in taking the course of action they took, they lost a good case.
The Commission has had a chequered past from the very beginning. The law itself was so badly drafted that a former Ministry secretary was able to get away on a preliminary legal objection that the Commission shall comprise three members. For years, the Director-General of the Commission was being hounded by the State Counsel assigned to it. The only prosecution they made was against a school principal for accepting a tea-set as a gift, and that lady was acquitted in court for lack of evidence.

In the past several months, the Commission has been non-functional simply because for the Commission to be operational, it shall have three Commissioners. Such a simple defect has not been rectified and nobody seems to want it done. Files and files of clear-cut complaints of bribery and corruption remain closed, gathering dust. A former Minister is able to say that Rs. 45 million of Certificates of Deposit found in a private bank were given to him for safe keeping by others — and that the money is not really his, and get away with it.

Bribery and corruption take place in every country, and in democracies, often the biggest political parties are the biggest bribe-takers.
Yet there is at least a semblance of an effort to stamp it out in most of these countries. In Thailand last month, all members of the Bribery and Corruption Commission were asked to resign for giving themselves a pay increase.
But, of course Sri Lanka, as the Tourist Board slogan goes, is a land like no other.

EDITORIAL OFFICE
No. 8, Hunupitiya Cross Road, Colombo 2. P.O. Box: 1136, Colombo 2, Sri Lanka.
Tel: 2326247, 2328889, 2433272-3. Fax: 2423922, 2423258
Email:
Editor - editor@sundaytimes.wnl.lk
News - stnews@sundaytimes.wnl.lk
Features - features@sundaytimes.wnl.lk
Financial Times- ft@sundaytimes.wnl.lk
Subs Desk - subdesk@sundaytimes.wnl.lk,
Funday Times - funtimes@wijeya.lk

ADVERTISING OFFICE
No. 48, Parkway Building, Park Street, Colombo 2, Sri Lanka
Tel: 0115330330, 0115330808, 0115330808. Fax: 2314864
Email: adve@lankabellnet.com

CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

No. 47, W.A.D. Ramanayake Mawatha, Colombo 2, Sri Lanka.
Tel: 2435454, 2448322, 0114714252. Fax: 2459725

Back to Index