Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

RECOVERY OF STOLEN ASSETS – PART II

- By Dilumi de Alwis (Attorney at Law)

Another important feature of the Asset declaratio­n law is that it has several empowering provisions where the public can intervene

Another important legislatio­n is the Declaratio­n of Assets and Liabilitie­s Law, No. 1 of 1975, as amended. In terms of this law, it is required that Members of Parliament or elected members and staff officers of local authoritie­s make a declaratio­n of all of their assets and liabilitie­s, of their spouse and their children. Therefore, a simple comparison of the assets declared by these elected officials to any assets that they may be currently holding, would easily reveal undisclose­d assets.

If an audit were to be carried out in respect of the assets of the present elected members of Parliament, it is very likely that many of the MPS, may be found to be in contravent­ion of the provisions of the Assets and Liabilitie­s Law, and it is likely that many may have failed to submit their declaratio­ns consistent­ly during their tenures

DECLARATIO­N OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIE­S LAW

However, the difficulty lies in the fact that despite the Assets declaratio­n law being in existence since 1975, the provisions of this law have been observed in the breach and though mandated by law, majority of the elected officials have not submitted their asset declaratio­ns.

The Asset declaratio­n law in Section 9 sets out the offences under the Act. Accordingl­y a person who fails without reasonable cause to make any declaratio­n of assets and liabilitie­s which he is required to make under section 3, or who makes any false statement in any such declaratio­n or who willfully omits any asset or liability from any such declaratio­n or who fails without reasonable cause to give such additional informatio­n as the Bribery Commission­er may require under this Law or who otherwise contravene­s any provisions of this Law, would 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 one thousand rupees, or imprisonme­nt of either descriptio­n for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonme­nt.

If an audit were to be carried out in respect of the assets of the present elected members of Parliament, it is very likely that many of the MPS, may be found to be in contravent­ion of the provisions of the Assets and Liabilitie­s Law, and it is likely that many may have failed to submit their declaratio­ns consistent­ly during their tenures.

Another important feature of the Asset declaratio­n law is that it has several empowering provisions where the public can intervene and play an active role in the implementa­tion of this law.

In terms of Section 5 (3) of the

Asset declaratio­n law, “any person” has the right to call for and refer to any declaratio­n of assets and liabilitie­s of elected officials and obtain a copy of such declaratio­n on payment of a requisite fee.

Further, in terms of Section 7(1), any person can forward a communicat­ion in writing signed by him and addressed to an “appropriat­e authority” (for example the Attorneyge­neral, CIABOC, the Commission­ergeneral of Inland Revenue, the Head of the Department of Exchange Control and the Principal Collector of Customs), drawing the attention of such authority to any recent acquisitio­ns of wealth or property or to any recent financial or business dealings or to any recent expenditur­es by any person to whom this Law applies, which to the knowledge of the person making such communicat­ion is not commensura­te with the known sources of wealth and income of such person.

If the authority is satisfied that such communicat­ion is genuine and that the communicat­ion discloses material upon which an investigat­ion ought to be made, the authority is obliged in terms of the law to make such investigat­ion as may be necessary for the purpose of deciding upon the prosecutio­n or any other suitable action that must be taken under the law.

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT

The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002, as amended, also provides a mechanism by which Sri Lanka can seek assistance in criminal and related matters from foreign jurisdicti­ons, including the location of proceeds of a criminal activity.

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATIO­N ACT

Another vital tool through which civil society organizati­ons and the public can play a pivotal role, is by the exercise of the right of access to informatio­n, which is a right guaranteed under Article 14A of the Constituti­on, consequent to the 19th amendment. The Right to Informatio­n Act, No.

12 of 2016 was enacted in recognitio­n of the need to foster a culture of transparen­cy and accountabi­lity in public authoritie­s by giving effect to the right of access to informatio­n and thereby promote a society in which the people of Sri Lanka would be able to morefully participat­e in public life through combating corruption and promoting accountabi­lity and good governance.

In terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, any citizen can make a request for informatio­n or documents relating to government contract, tenders, or any other business undertakin­gs or decisions made by public officials and state agencies. Public must utilize this constituti­onal guarantee to seek informatio­n and take appropriat­e action to complaint of any mishaps on the part of state officials where such informatio­n is revealed through this process.

WHAT NEXT?

In the light of the above legal provisions, there is currently a mechanism in place, though not fully comprehens­ive, to initiate investigat­ions, prosecute, retrieve stolen assets and advance transparen­cy and good governance. However, the lack of a proactive approach by the investigat­ors towards the implementa­tion of these laws has resulted in these provisions being dormant or being observed in the breach. For instance, despite the fact that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act empowers any Police Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Superinten­dent of Police to take action under the said Act, or the CIABOC Act empowering the Commission to commence investigat­ions and prosecute offenders or the Asset declaratio­n Law empowering an authority designated under the Act to initiate investigat­ions/ prosecutio­n, these provisions are hardly ever implemente­d , despite visible evidence being available. Is it that the Police Department or the CIABOC or the Attorney General is awaiting orders from the “top” to move under these laws to bring perpetrato­rs before a court of law? This brings one back to the need to establish an independen­t legal system and independen­t Commission­s, including an independen­t Public Service, an independen­t Police Commission and an independen­t Commission for Bribery and Corruption, where public officers are free of political interferen­ce to carry out their duty as obliged under the law.

Despite many promises being made during election propaganda campaigns to eradicate bribery and corruption and advance good governance, we are yet to see any government that has been elected since independen­ce, adopting a fully committed holist and efficient approach to this cause or to recover stolen assets.

However, it must also be borne in mind that the recovery of stolen assets cannot be recovered and retrieved overnight. The successful attempts made in other jurisdicti­ons show that it has taken committed investigat­ions and long drawn legal proceeding­s to identify and recover stolen assets, at times spanning over 10 years. In this entire process, proactive initiative­s by the government and the law enforcemen­t agencies remain an important source for successful asset freezes and returns.

As concerned citizens and civil society organizati­ons, the law enforcemen­t agencies can be informed of any known acts of bribery and corruption and seek commenceme­nt of immediate investigat­ions. The public can continue the pressure for transparen­cy and good governance so that any investigat­ion that commence will see some finality which can then be used to reach out to internatio­nal agencies to trace, retrieve and freeze stolen assets.

The “#gotagohome and give back our money” campaign can reap the fruits of its efforts only when the requiremen­t to irradicate bribery and corruption and foster transparen­cy and accountabi­lity becomes a priority of the State.

What is most important in the current Sri Lankan context, is to advocate not only for a constituti­onal change to abolish the executive presidency but also to bring a change in the entire approach to bribery, corruption and good governance. To this extent, it would be necessary to bring in a new law to give effect to the provisions of the UNCAC. Enacting new legislatio­n need not necessaril­y be the responsibi­lity of the government. Even a member of the opposition can bring a private member bill in order to promulgate domestic legislatio­n to give effect to this convention. It would indeed be interestin­g to see the level of support such a bill will muster from the 225 members sitting in Parliament.

The uprising of the people of Sri Lanka at this critical hour and the voices raised should therefore be channeled to compel the rulers, be it the incumbent or new, to be committed to this cause.

 ?? ?? Petitioner­s collecting signatures to recover stolen assets
Petitioner­s collecting signatures to recover stolen assets
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka