Prevention of Corruption: The system fails

Prevention of corruption has become the latest call under law and order. And, law and order cannot prevail without prevention of corruption.

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) is the instrument to prevent bribery or corruption. Since 1994, prevention of corruption has come alongside detection of offences, a substantive task of the CIABOC. The offence of cor ruption is now defined as that which causes loss to the government and benefits the party concerned.

The following comments arise from the proceedings on a prevention of corruption webinar organised by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka

(BASL) a few days ago. Due thanks to the BASL for setting the stage and affording the opportunity to make some comments on the subject.

A primary comment is that, through all the BASL proceedings for prevention of bribery and corruption, there was no mention of the UN Convention against Corruption 2003 Article 5 on ‘Preventive anti- corruption policies and practice.’ Section 3 of this article calls for periodical evaluation of ‘legal and administrative measures.’ The Government was a signatory to the UN Convention. The phrase ‘legal and administrative measures’ had completely missed the attention of the BASL webinar! Being a signatory to the UN Convention was an undertaking given to promote legal and administrative measures. The signature casts a grave onus on the CIABOC. Neither the government nor the CIABOC, however, has yet taken any action in this respect.

Administrative measures

One important consequence of such inadvertence to administrative measures is the failure to supplement the law for prevention of corruption. More specifically, it is the failure of the government to enlist administrative capacity of the Public Service alongside the legal means to deal with prevention of corruption.

The Public Service handles Establishment Code (EC) matters, which deal with prevention of corruption, as much as the Bribery law. But in the course of law development since 1994, and before, the EC provisions have been relegated to near oblivion. All complaints, petitions, intelligence on bribery and corruption have to be referred to the Bribery Commissioner for action, since 1964. The Public Service exercised little control. Even consideration of officers for promotion could now not consider the idea of corruption to determine their suitability. Court acquittals are again subject to the vagaries of procedure with shades of corruption. The sheet is not quite clean of those returning to service after court acquittal.

The manner of prevention is now to be spelt out by the CIABOC. Prevention of corruption has been proposed by the CIABOC to take the form of holding seminars, educating school children, raising awareness of the problem in society and other such loose initiatives. The National Action Plan has been offered in like mode. Much money and time on this have been spent. All this, in the name of prevention, is, however, of little avail.

Efforts on detection and investigation of cases of bribery and corruption by CIABOC have been dismally low, going by the rate of convictions reflected in its annual reports. Prevention and detection of bribery and corruption have thus been seriously in default.

Legal measures

Primarily, the CIABOC acts only when complaints are made to it. This stance is much in the nature of a court response to deal with cases only as brought before the court. This approach is only reactive. Forward action is the need to deal with these matters even though complaints are not made to the CIABOC.

Society is replete with examples of corruption, as the issue of false vaccination certificates stating the vaccine has been administered when they are not, and the medicines are spirited away in departmental vehicles in full public view and protest. This happened at a girls’ school in Hikkaduwa. Is there no CIABOC response to this in the name of prevention of corruption? The public know all this. The CIABOC does not want to know it -- no complaint has come to the CIABOC.

Rules framed by the Government as law are thus blatantly flouted. They cause loss to Government and bring in benefit to the miscreant. The above illustration covers the very definition of corruption. Can CIABOC seminars and a national action plan meet this legal need? The trumpeted national action plan offered as legal measures is little else than loud noise.

Failure in courts adds to the dilemma. Furthermore, prevention of corruption, as feigned to be done, does not make for intelligence and information as forward action to initiate the process. Much by way of corruption thus eludes action by CIABOC.

Presidential communiqué

Into this quagmire is added a further dimension. Legal and administrative measures for prevention of corruption are pathetically weak. Into this pliable situation, the Presidential Secretariat steps in to issue a communiqué ( 3rd September 2021, p 1, The Island paper). That communication allows the CIABOC to institute fresh proceedings in cases settled in courts or which had been withdrawn by the CIABOC itself, earlier. These can be done by the CIABOC even on a selective basis; the very definition of corruption! Mischief is now compounded. It takes away even a plaintive hope for law and order.

( The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at seneviratnetz@gmail.com 077 44 751 44)