SLFP-UNP marriag heading for separa
President, PM outline different missions instead of common vision: Decision of renew Sirisena tells party loyalists to be patient and confident, says that some JO members a Ranil gears the party for local council elections, while party prepares to field h
For a second successive week, ministers at their weekly meeting last Tuesday discussed the future of the AntiCorruption Committee Secretariat (ACCS) and this time, decided to shut it down.
Previous week’s meeting ended inconclusively with President Maithripala Sirisena letting off some steam on his coalition partner, the United National Party’s (UNP) alleged nexus with the Joint Opposition led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Like in the previous week, where the discussion exposed cracks within the coalition, the mood was far from conciliatory this week too. Then, President Maithripala Sirisena accused the UNP of scuttling high profile investigations into allegations of bribery, corruption and fraud involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, members of his family, associates and officials.
This time again, he was insistent that the Secretariat should not be given a new lease of life. The extended term of the Secretariat expired on June 30. The subject of discussion was a ‘Note to Cabinet’ from Premier Wickremesinghe, asking ministers to take an “appropriate decision”. Varied views were expressed at last Tuesday’s meeting.
At one point, in a bid to reach a compromise, Wickremesinghe suggested that the Secretariat be brought under his purview -- vesting it under his own Secretary. This was turned down by Sirisena. Until its term lapsed on June 30, the Prime Minister’s Secretary had exercised limited administrative control. Whilst the monthly pay for the Secretariat staffers came from the different departments they earlier served, a fifty per cent incentive payment, which was a ‘risk allowance,’ was met by the Premier’s office. So were emoluments for retired police officers including onetime intelligence operatives who were involved in fact checks on complaints. However, months earlier, relations between the Secretariat and the Premier’s office soured after an official there was reportedly miffed over an investigation directed by the Secretariat to the Police Chief.
At the ministerial meeting, Sirisena who did not favour the Secretariat being brought under the Premier’s Secretary said that would not be in the Premier’s own interest since it would lead to more accusations. He would have to face the same charges again. Sirisena noted that there were several independent state institutions which were capable of handling public complaints. He accused the Secretariat of not doing its job properly except to pick and choose some cases.
Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera opined that rather than closing down the Secretariat, it would be better to scale down its activities gradually. If that happens, he added, there would be no accusations or criticism. Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera who said he agreed with Samaraweera declared he had done some research on the matter. He has found out that the cases of State Minister A.H.M. Fowzie and the then Minister Priyankara Jayaratne were not handled by the Secretariat. They were the result of complaints made directly to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). Fowzie stands accused of misusing a special vehicle with monitoring devices. This was gifted by a foreign government (Denmark) for tsunami relief work. Jayaratne has been indicted for providing a job in his Ministry for his daughter. In referring to the two SLFPers, Sirisena made out during the previous week that they had to meet that fate because they were close to him.
“Dann nethi deval kathaa karanna epa” or do not speak of matters that you don’t know, exhorted Sirisena to Jayasekera. He said the complaints had gone from the Secretariat to the then Director General of CIABOC. Most ministers were by then in favour of shutting down the Secretariat. The decision was recorded accordingly. Ananda Wijepala, then Director of the now defunct Secretariat told the Sunday Times, “I can say categorically that we had no role in the probes into State Minister Fowzie and former Minister Jayaratne. Neither did we receive complaints at that time nor did we have contacts with CIABOC over these two cases.” Wijepala also refuted claims by Government spokesperson and Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne that the Secretariat had wasted more than Rs 65 million of government funds in the conduct of its operations. “The annual allocation approved by the Cabinet of Ministers, upon a request from the Prime Minister, was Rs 7.5 million. Yet, we did not utilise more than Rs 1.2 million every month,” he said. Now, the former Secretariat staffers have filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking a detailed list of expenditure incurred for their functioning. Another source at the former Secretariat alleged that they “had just begun investigations into a fishy deal by a powerful and vociferous politician in the government (who was a minister in the previous government as well) when the decision to close down came.”
After last Tuesday’s ministerial meeting, Senaratne told the media the Secretariat was “not set up to curb corruption.” It was established to provide the basic paper work to the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), he claimed. He added: “Now most of the complaints have been received. There are 14 other institutions to take action against corruption. The FCID is there, the Commission to Investigate Allegation of Bribery and Corruption (CIAOBC) is there, the CID and a Presidential Task Force too are there and there are several other state institutions that also carry out the task. The Auditor General, the Crime Intelligence Analysis Bureau (CIAB), the Financial Intelligence Unit and the AntiNarcotics Department are also there -- as well as the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID), the State Intelligence Service (SIS), Colombo Crime Division (CCD) and the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE). All of them investigate corruption which is why it was decided that there is no use in maintaining the anti-corruption unit any longer.”
If Senaratne’s argument, ostensibly the official position of the government, is correct, the question arises over why a special AntiCorruption Committee Secretariat had to be set up in the first place. After all, it is the Kalutara District MP’s own party leader and Prime Minister who had wanted it established. Wouldbe complainants could easily have been told to go to one of those state agencies. Despite their existence, the only reason for setting up the Secretariat was because the Government, as repeatedly declared, wanted to give priority to fighting bribery and corruption. Therefore, the official position for closure, articulated by him raises more questions than it answers.
Senaratne went on to say: “To investigate minor cases the Police is there. But what was happening to the FCID is that they were being forwarded all the complaints that the Secretariat received and they were forced to investigate all of them. The Secretariat was allocated Rs. 12.26 million each year; the unit has spent Rs. 26 million in 2015 and another Rs. 26 million in 2016 and another Rs. 12 million during the first six months of this year, totalling nearly Rs. 65 million.”
More details of why an Anti-Corruption Committee Secretariat (ACCS) became necessary are clear from a decision made by the Cabinet of Ministers on January 21, 2015 – just two weeks after the presidential election. A memorandum from Premier Wickremesinghe that was approved said “….it was decided to establish an Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) to investigate large scale corruption and fraudulent activities that prevailed during the previous regime, initiate legal action against those responsible for same, and recommend measures to be adopted to prevent such occurrence in future...”
It added: “…. Accordingly, the AntiCorruption Committee (chaired by the Premier) decided to establish a dedicated Secretariat for the Committee, to co-ordinate and direct the investigations of the allegations of serious frauds, financial crimes and corruption….” It is abundantly clear from what Premier Wickremesinghe told his cabinet colleagues in a memorandum that the government spokesperson Senaratne’s assertion that the Secretariat was “not set up to curb corruption” is wrong and grossly misleading. Such official pronouncements with little or no basis lead to more suspicion in the public mind about the Government’s intentions and further erodes its credibility.
Whilst giving approval for Premier Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet memorandum on January 21, 2015, ministers, also took a number of decisions on the course of action. In one instance, a decision said, “Recognising that corruption in the form of money laundering and illegal transfer of money is not confined to geographical boundaries but a transitional phenomenon that affects all economies, demanding international co-operation to prevent and control the same, the Hon. Prime Minister was authorsed to seek the assistance from institutions like the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Reserve Bank of India and other relevant international agencies to obtain the services of their experts to build the capacity of the government officers and the staff of regulatory agencies engaged in conducting inquiries on irregularities in the financial sector.”
On that same date (January 21, 2015) the Cabinet also decided to appoint a Ministerial Committee headed by Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe to make recommendations to formulate a Bill to provide for an institution with wide powers to deal with corruption. This was after ministers noted that “the current legislative framework has been found inadequate and also incorporating stringent provisions to deal with persons who have acquired wealth, the source of which cannot be established.” However, even after the Government has reached its mid-term, no such legislation has seen the light of day.
The fallout from these issues, particularly President Sirisena’s accusations against his governing partner the UNP, of stalling investigations against the Rajapaksas, has caused serious concerns for the party. A four-member team led by Premier Wickremesinghe met Sirisena for talks on Thursday afternoon in what appears to be a ‘damage control’ exercise. Others accompanying him were Ministers Malik Samarawickrema (UNP Chairman), Kabir Hashim (UNP General Secretary) and Mangala Samaraweera. Both sides remained tight lipped over details of their discussions.
One source familiar with the meeting, however, said the UNP team had raised issue over Sirisena’s accusations that the UNP was selectively stalling the anti-corruption drive. They had politely refuted the allegations. However, the President was both emphatic and assertive. He has said that he had to make those references since little or nothing had happened over probes into high profile cases. He has declared that the way forward is to deal with cases of corruption. A source close to the Presidency said Sirisena was unequivocal that the drive against corruption should continue and whoever responsible for it should be brought to book. The UNP delegation also seized the opportunity to invite Sirisena for the party’s 71st anniversary. Plans are afoot to have a major ceremony to mark this occasion on September 4. The UNP held a simi-