Controversy over Govt. bill to withdraw cases against its supporters
Govt. wants to withdraw several cases on grounds of "political Victimisation" and Political Victimisation Commission recommends strong action against Yahapalan Defence Secretary proscribes seven Diaspora Tamil groups and names 424 people a terrorism; move seen as a blow to reconciliation efforts
The Government appears to be on an offensive against its detractors here and abroad whilst a nation, unaffected, marked the National New Year on a more positive note than last year.
The strong thrust of this multi-pronged exercise, now taking shape, is local. It is to call a halt to cases pending in courts over alleged bribery, corruption, or other improprieties against some in the ruling alliance or their backers. This is on the grounds that the cases were “politically motivated.” The controversial move is based on the findings of a Commission of Inquiry which probed alleged instances of “political victimisation” and made recommendations to “redress the situation.”
The fact that there were strong political undertones in a few of the investigations at that time is no secret. Nor was it a secret that some top leaders of the yahapalana government also interfered with the investigators regularly seeking to play down cases against persons whom they had close connections with or to accelerate the cases of others. One such instance was when a top leader telephoned President Maithripala Sirisena, when he was in London in March 2015 to attend the Commonwealth Summit, to caution him against an ‘uncontrollable situation’ that would arise if a particular person was arrested. He ordered a halt to the move. Then Ministers Rajitha Senaratne and Champika Ranawaka raised issue at weekly ministerial meetings over a then UNP minister who was also openly espousing the cases of much less than a handful of persons. A UNP Justice Minister boasted how he had saved “the Rajapaksas.” There were many a deal and many a compromise then. These could easily make a chapter for Ripley’s
Believe it or Not. That the yahapalana government was voted to power in 2015 on the pledges it made to deal with bribery, corruption and other irregularities is all too well known. Also too well known is that the Yahapalana government was voted out of office because it failed. The UNP was swept off the country’s electoral map, bagging a mere two percent of the votes at the August 2020 parliamentary elections.
Now, the Parliament Order Book for April 21 lists a motion for the withdrawal of cases before courts. Expert legal advice obtained by ruling alliance leaders from the private bar points out that a person or body could not change the actions already initiated by the Attorney General, the state prosecutor. They have learnt that it would also lead to far reaching consequences. Other issues pointed out to the leaders are far too sensitive to elaborate upon. Yet, the move seeks to call upon the Attorney General to withdraw a set of listed cases. The only known response from the main opposition Samagi Jana
Balavegaya (SJB) is a claim that it would appeal to the Supreme Court. However, no move has yet been initiated. Last week, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa was speaking about contaminated coconut oil.
Of course, SJB leaders’ concerns on fears of losing their civic rights -- a matter over which Premadasa even met with UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe -- has now receded. The government does not want to pursue this aspect but wants to punish those who made complaints that led to the cases in question.
First to the full text of the motion: “The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious & Cultural Affairs and Minister of Urban Development & Housing,— Implementation of Decisions and Recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into and obtain information in relation to alleged political victimizations of Public Officers, Employees of Public Corporations, and Members of Armed Forces and Police Service, who were holding posts during the period commencing from 08th January 2015 and ending on 16th November 2019,—
“Approval of the Cabinet of Ministers has been granted with regard to the matters mentioned below, as per the Cabinet Decision /21/01 05/301/003 and dated 15.02.2021 referred to the
Cabinet Memorandum dated 15.01.2021 submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers by H.E. the President regarding the above matter:— ( a) To submit the Final Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (Contained in the First, Second and Third Volumes and the Addendum correcting the typographical and printing errors of the said report) through a Resolution in Parliament;
(b) To implement of the decisions and recommendations made by the said Commission in relation to the AntiCorruption Committee referred to in Item No. 08 of the First Volume of the said Final Report;
(c) To make arrangements for the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry or for the creation of any other appropriate mechanism as determined by Parliament for the implementation of the decision No. 1 and recommendation No. 1 of the said Item No. 08;
(d) To refer the decisions and recommendations made by the above
Presidential Commission of Inquiry pertaining to Item No. 08 and to the complaints from I to LXI in Item No. 09 in the First, Second and Third Volumes and the Addendum correcting typographical and printing errors in the said Final Report, to the relevant authorities, including the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Public Service Commission, the Inspector General of Police, the Minister in-charge of the relevant Ministries and the Secretaries to the Ministries, for implementation; and
(e) To implement the decisions and recommendations made by the said Presidential Commission of Inquiry, pertaining to the complaints referred to under Item No. 10 in the Third Volume of the said Final Report.
“Accordingly, since a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry has been appointed by H.E. the President through the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2221/54 and 01.04.2021 as mentioned in (c) above; subject to consideration on the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of Item No. 08 contained in the Final Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry mentioned in the aforesaid Cabinet Decision, after receiving the report of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, that this Parliament resolves that the decisions and recommendations mentioned in the Item No. 09 and 10, omitting Item No. 08, in the said Final Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (Containing the First, Second and Third Volume and the Addendum correcting the typographical and printing errors) which obtained information on the political victimizations mentioned in those Cabinet Decisions, be implemented as mentioned in (d) and (e) above.”
Motion in layman’s term
The wording of the motion, as is clear, is technical and tends to be confusing to the average person in the light of its legalistic formulation. In laymen’s terms, the gravamen of its contents is to legally withdraw many cases pending for which the Cabinet of Ministers has given approval in January, this year. There is, however, an exception in respect of one provision – Item 8. Through this, the motion refers to the setting up of the Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) and the Anti- Corruption Committee Secretariat ( ACCS) by the previous yahapalana government. This is where some yahapalana leaders conceded before the Commission that the setting up of the two bodies was illegal. That admission was damning since they did not think it fit to legislate for it when they were in power. Why? This is despite Police teams being sent to the United Kingdom to learn from its Serious Frauds Office so a similar body could be set up in Sri Lanka.
They were established on a Cabinet Memorandum forwarded by then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on June 2, 2015, at a ministerial meeting chaired by the then President Maithripala Sirisena. He reasoned that, “it was to investigate the 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 occurrences in the future,” A sum of Rs 7.5 million he sought for the use of the Secretariat was then approved by the Cabinet. The Commission said more than Rs 33 million had been spent altogether. On February 12, 2015, the then Cabinet Secretary Sumith Abeysinghe faxed to former Inspector General of Police, N.K. Illangakoon a letter informing him of the decision of the ministers “for the establishment of a Division to Investigate Matters relating to Serious Financial Crimes, Public Funds and Property.” He signed a Gazette notification on February 13, 2015 establishing a “new Police Division in the Department of Police – Sri Lanka.” It came to be known as the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID).
By 2017, the functioning of the AntiCorruption Committee Secretariat (ACCS) had become so unwieldy with political interference at various levels. Documents before it were circulated like bus tickets. It was also riddled with institutional problems. There were complaints that persons who held large amounts of money in banks were hassled. Some parted with a part. Then Premier Wickremesinghe sent in a “confidential” cabinet note dated June 30, 2017. He observed, “Now that the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) is fully functional, a decision has to be taken on whether the future operations of the ACCS be continued or not.” He said he was submitting the note “for an appropriate decision by the Cabinet of Ministers.” This came at a time when the ACCS itself became the subject of serious accusations of large-scale bribery and corruption. It was decided to shut down the ACCS, but the FCID continued to function until its tasks were assigned to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) by the ruling alliance.
In its final report, the Commission headed by retired Supreme Court Judge, Upali Abeyratne held that in establishing the Anti-Corruption Committee ( ACC) and the Anti- Corruption Committee Secretariat (ACCS), that 22 persons including former Premier Wickremesinghe, MPs from the then (yahapalana) government and opposition, as well as senior Police officers and government officials, “have violated the Constitution and misused public property.” Other members of the Commission were Court of Appeal’s retired Judge Daya Chandrasiri Jayatithilake and onetime Police Chief, Chandra Fernando.
Besides the then Premier Wickremesinghe, others named by the Commission for “violating the Constitution and misusing public property” are: former Ministers Mangala Samaraweera, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Rauff Hakeem, Malik Samarawickrema and Sarath Fonseka, Tamil National Alliance ( TNA) Leader R. Sampanthan, TNA Parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna ( JVP) Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Attorney-at-Law J.C. Weliamuna, former MP Dr Jayampathi Wickramaratne, the Criminal Investigation Department’s former Director Shani Abeysekara and former Prime Minister’s Secretary Saman Ekanayake.” It is noteworthy that the name of another leading politician who took part in meetings has not surfaced though it appeared even in the minutes of ACC meetings.
The Commission had also noted that the then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and members of the Cabinet had “violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution” through their actions to establish the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and “also by having political opponents arrested and detained on false charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).”
The Commission has noted in its report that there is no Constitutional Court to hand down punishments for violations of the Constitution and, therefore, recommended the setting up of