Gota and his 17m bucks may reunite as Bribery Com withdraws court case
The Bribery Commission informed the Fort Magistrate Court on Wednesday that it was withdrawing the legal action regarding the Rs. 17,850,000 recovered from ex-President Gotabaya’s room at President’s House in July last year by Aragalaya protestors and handed over to the police.
Earlier the Bribery Commission had informed the Court that, pursuant to a complaint lodged at its office by the Puravasi Balaya Organization, it had begun an investigation into the multimillion sum found at President House after its presidential incumbent had fled the country.
It’s certainly good news for former President Gotabaya, and a round of congratulations must, indeed, be called. At last, Gota is set to be reunited with his money, and what the Commission hath rejoined together, may no man or court put asunder hereafter.
But instead of keeping your peace at this joyous moment of man’s reunion with mammon’s gifts, you might rudely break your silence and ask?
Why was Gota keeping nearly 18 million bucks stashed at his house instead of banking the stuff ? Well, you would wouldn’t you, if you were in his shoes? For one, the President’s House is more securely guarded than any state or private bank. And secondly, with the economy collapsed and near anarchy on the streets, if you were privy—as Gota was—to inside information of a possible run on the banks, wouldn’t you have withdrawn your fixed deposits from the banks and brought the cash to your house and stuffed the lot to your almirah—as Gota may have done?
But then you still impertinently ask, ‘from where did Gota get this 17 odd million bucks? ‘This, of course, is quite a different kettle of fish. The answer to this must be tended before the celebration bubbly is uncorked at Gotabaya’s residence.
Despite their earlier fervour why had the Bribery Commissioners suddenly turned lukewarm to the idea of proceeding with it any further? Why were they calling a sudden halt to the legal process? The reason the Bribery Commission gave to court was that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case. Insufficient evidence? When the owner of the money Gotabaya—had himself claimed the money as his, had lodged a complaint at the police and declared in a statement to the CID that he was the legal owner of the missing 17.85 million?
If it had been black money, Gota could have simply denied ownership, in which case it would have been impossible to link the money to him. Thousands of protesters and sightseers had occupied his private quarters at the President’s House after it was vacated by him, and anyone—with a political agenda—could have planted it to incriminate him.
But creditably, Gotabaya had done nothing of the sort. He had not denied but firmly insisted to the law enforcing authorities and also to court that he was the true owner and to return it to him.
With Gotabaya’s self-declaration to ownership firmly established, the sole purpose of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption—to give the Bribery Commission its full name—was to inquire whether the money stemmed from a corrupt source.
The Bribery Commission’s excuse that it has insufficient evidence to pursue what it had dutifully commenced falls lame when, under the Money Laundering Act, the prosecuting agency has only to establish ownership or possession of the cash. Once that has been done, the onus of proof shifts to rest on the accused’s head.
The presumption of innocence the suspect would have otherwise enjoyed when tried under normal Acts is dramatically replaced by the presumption of guilt. Instead of the prosecutor marshalling an array of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the suspect’s guilt, the pendulum swings towards the suspect and casts upon him the legal obligation to prove his innocence by presenting convincing evidence to disprove his guilt. Else he would remain guilty as had been first presumed.
On February 8 this year, Gotabaya’s counsel had requested Court to return to his client the 17 million rupees. But the magistrate Thilini Gamage had turned it down when objections were raised that it must be first determined whether it had been acquired in violation of the Money Laundering Act.
What a pity the Bribery Commission, on the spurious grounds of insufficient evidence, had decided to withdraw the case and not gone the whole hog. As a result of the Commission withdrawing the case, after the formalities have been completed, it is bound to freely flow into Gota’s bag, no questions asked. It has denied the former President, the opportunity to clear his name in open court and to become instead the subject of evil speculation.
Yet, though the Bribery Commission has apparently stumbled in this case, let it not reflect on its impressive record of cracking down on bribery and corruption in whatever nook or cranny found. Two months ago, the Bribery Commission’s investigation officers dramatically arrested a Technical Officer serving at the Divisional Engineers Office at Mathugama for accepting a bribe of Rs. 5000. Bravo.
Alas, the present Bribery Commissioners’ days are numbered. They may not even last to celebrate Christmas in office this year. The IMF has insisted that before November 23 this year the Government must set up an Advisory Committee composed of independent experts on anticorruption to assist in the nomination of CIABOC Commissioners—the Bribery and Anticorruption Commission—and the Director General.
The sooner this is done, the better it will be for Lanka’s rule of law.