“We were not consulted” – Bribery Commission Chairman writes to President

[October 02, 2003 - 10.45 GMT]

The debate over the proposed amendments to the Bribery Law took a new turn Tuesday 30th September with a letter from the Chairman and a member of the Bribery and Corruption Commission to President Kumaratunga stating that “at no stage” did the government consult them on the proposed changes. 

“We strongly feel that we should have been consulted before coming up with these proposals because it is we who know the difficulties in the implementation of the Commission Act,” the letter said. 

Commenting on the proposed amendment, Chairman Ananda Coomaraswamy and member Dr. Kingsley Wickremasuriya say that while they “fully agree” to the introduction of a Section or Law that would enable the commission to function not-withstanding a vacancy, they consider “all the rest of the proposals before the Cabinet irrelevant”. 

Meanwhile, Cabinet spokesman Prof. G L Peiris at the weekly media briefing said today that there seems to be some “confusion and misunderstanding” about what is proposed by the government. 

“The Amendment to the Bribery and Corruption Law was presented as an item for discussion in the supplementary agenda at the Cabinet meeting yesterday,” he said, adding that the President however wanted to discuss the matter first with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and did not want the matter taken up at the meeting. 

 

Full text of the letter:

 

Her Excellency Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga,

The President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,

President’s House,

Colombo 1.

 

September 30, 2003

 

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CIABOC ACT

 

We refer to our letter dated April 30, 2003, a copy of which is attached for Your Excellency's easy reference.

 

We are now informed, according to the recent media announcements made by the Minister of Justice, that proposals are before the Cabinet to amend the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No.19 of 1994. The proposals referred to are (a) the introduction of a section in law to enable the Commission to function not withstanding a vacancy in the Commission (b) increasing the number of Commissioners from 3 to 5 (c) fixing a quorum for meetings and (d) appointing the Director General in consultation with the Constitutional Council.

 

We wish to inform Your Excellency that at no stage were we consulted on these proposed changes. We strongly feel that we should have been consulted before coming up with these proposals because it is we who know the difficulties in the implementation of the Commission Act. We however, wish to make the following comments on the proposed amendment:

 

 

Commission to function not- withstanding any vacancy

 

We fully agree that the introduction of a Section or Law to this effect as in the case of the other Independent Commissions established under the 17th Amendment is the solution to the present problem where the Commission has been rendered ineffective (consequent to the demise of one of the Commissioners) in respect of certain of its powers. All the rest of the proposals before the Cabinet we consider are irrelevant.

 

 

Increase in the number of Commissioners


We have never asked for an increase in the number of the Commissioners. Complaints of delay if at all, are not due to the insufficient number of Commissioners. It is solely due to the shortage of investigative staff and the non-filling of vacancies in the cadre, particularly in the Gazetted ranks and the Inspectorate. Increase in the number of Commissioners, therefore, is not the solution to the problem. Rather, it is likely to aggravate the problem. Besides it is an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer having to cater to FIVE Commissioners instead of THREE, with additional resources with experience of almost a decade of working the Commission has shown that three is the optimum workable number for the Commission.

 

 

Quasi-judicial body


The Commission as constituted now under Act No 19 of 1994 is a quasi-judicial body. Therefore, what is essential is to have members experienced in the practice of law such as retired Superior Court Judges as stipulated in the present Act, the powers and functions being of a quasi-judicial nature. This was the original intention of the framers of the law as contained in the speech of the then Minster of External Trade, Justice, and Constitutional Affairs as appearing beginning in column 406 of the Hansard of October 5, 1994. It is in investigations that persons with expertise in other fields that will be of use.

 

 

Quorum for meetings


Moreover, the Commission as constituted now under the Act No. 19 of 1994 (Section 8) enables the members of the Commission to exercise the powers conferred on it, either sitting together or separately. The act of a Commissioner sitting separately is deemed to be an act of the Commission. Unlike the other Commissions established under the 17th Amendment which meet to deliberate their business on a weekly/ fortnightly/ monthly basis, the Commissioners of this Commission work full-time and as such sit on a daily basis being a permanent Commission. A quorum, therefore, is redundant in law.

 

 

Appointment of Director-General


The new proposals envisage the appointment of the Director-General by the President in consultation with the Constitutional Council as against the present provision of appointment of the Director-General in consultation with the Commission. The Director-General, even now, is not under the disciplinary control of the Commission. The present arrangement has worked solely on the relationship and understanding between the Commission and the Director-General. The consultative process with the Commission has contributed to this understanding and goodwill. Even with such consultation the Commission has run into difficulties with the Director-General as the past experience has shown us. Therefore, if this consultative process with the Commission is removed by this new proposal, we can foresee its adverse effects on the smooth working of the Commission, particularly when the Director-General is not under the disciplinary control of the Commission.

 

S Ananda Coomaraswamy
Chairman. 

Dr. Kingsley Wickremasuriya
Member

  

 

 

 

 

 

PRINT THIS STORY

 

Contact Information: Send mail to gosl@presidentsl.org with questions or comments about this web site. 
Last Updated Date: October 02, 2003  -10.45 GMT.

 


Today's Stories

For or against US action
 
“We were not consulted” – Bribery Commission Chairman writes to President