By Skandha Gunasekara
The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has increasingly withdrawn a questionably high number of cases that were filed related to probes carried out by the commission, causing concern among those tackling corruption in the country.
Since 2019, almost 100 cases have either been withdrawn or haven’t received an acquittal or conviction.
According to the annual progress reports of the CIABOC, in 2019, of the total 94 cases filed that year, four cases had been withdrawn or had not received an acquittal or conviction.
In 2020, of the total 55 cases, three were withdrawn, while 42 of the total 69 cases filed in 2021 were withdrawn.
In 2022, up until 31 August, 43 cases have been withdrawn from a total of 71 cases filed.
Controversial cases
Quite a number of these cases were high-profile cases, involving politicians and other controversial individuals.
These include the withdrawal of the case filed by the commission against former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris for allegedly committing an offence under the Bribery Act by not giving proper instructions to take legal action against alleged irregularities in the purchase of land by the Lanka Electricity Company (Pvt) Ltd. (LECO) between 1 and 10 December 2010. The case was withdrawn in March 2021 due to a technical error.
In January this year a case filed against former Minister Johnston Fernando was withdrawn by the CIABOC because its investigators had not obtained approval from three commissioners before filing the cases.
CIABOC had filed cases against Minister Fernando, former Lak Sathosa Chairman Eraj Fernando, and the Minister’s former Private Secretary Raj Mohideen Mohammad Sakeer, over the alleged deployment of 153 Cooperative Wholesale Establishment (CWE) workers for electoral activities in the 2010 and 2014 election seasons. These deployments allegedly resulted in a Rs. 40 million loss to the State.
Judicial order leads to withdrawals
A senior official at the CIABOC, speaking on conditions of anonymity, told The Sunday Morning that a judicial order issued in 2019 had resulted in a majority of these cases being withdrawn.
“Most of these cases were withdrawn due to a judgement given in 2019 that all three commissioners had not signed the filed cases.”
However, the official said that the commission expected to refile some of the cases. “We are planning on refiling most of these cases while some cases are under further investigation.”
In terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in October 2020, the appointments to the CIABOC are made by the President.
The CIABOC comprises retired Supreme Court Justice Eva Wanasundera (Chairperson), retired Court of Appeal Justice Deepali Wijesundera, and one-time Head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) DIG Chandra Nimal Wakishta.
A question of credibility
Attorney-at-Law Nuwan Bopage said that this turn of events raised concerns about the intentions of the commission.
“Most of the cases were withdrawn or dismissed because all the commissioners had not signed the indictment. So obviously there is a doubt about how the cases are being instituted by the Bribery Commission. They should know how they should institute these actions. If they are not doing so, then obviously one can question if they had not followed proper procedure with the ulterior motive of dismissing these cases.”
He pointed out that with all the resources available to the commission, it should not be failing to institute action due to technical errors when criminal cases were filed correctly by the Police on a daily basis.
“Most of these cases are very sensitive cases where politicians are involved, so they have to give due consideration when they are instituting these actions, but they have failed to do so. Generally we know that where criminal court cases are concerned, the Police files cases every day and even if there are technical issues, nobody objects and the cases go on. However, in this case, for corruption cases there is a separate commission, there are commissioners, these institutions are being maintained by public funds, so what are the problems they have that they cannot institute these cases without following proper procedure?”
Going easy on politicians
He went on to say that the CIABOC was also dragging its feet when it had to investigate politicians.
“At the same time, at the investigation level, there are plenty of corruption complaints being filed by individuals, political parties, and institutions, but the efficiency of the commission to conduct inquiries is very low, especially when politicians are involved.”
He charged that the Attorney General’s Department too was failing in its duties due to political influence and that these institutions were not functioning for the purpose they were set up.
“The Attorney General’s Department too has a duty to follow up these cases and give proper instructions to these institutions, but we don’t see it discharging its duties properly when there are politicians involved. When we consider all these facts, we have to question whether the objective of establishing these institutions has been fulfilled because there is discrimination where politicians and those in power are treated differently.”
The fate of the cases filed by the CIABOC involve convictions, acquitals, withdrawals without possibility of refiling, and withdrawals for the purposes of refiling following the rectification of technical and procedural errors in the initial filing.
Degradation of public trust
Transparency International Sri Lanka Executive Director Nadishani Perera said that case withdrawals by the CIABOC showed its inefficiencies and could dissuade people from making future complaints.
“First, deciding to go to courts on a matter and then withdrawing the same reflects CIABOC’s inadequacy and inefficiency. But it is the key anti-corruption agency in the country, so it is questionable whether the real impact which is supposed to be achieved in terms of deterrence and prevention of corruption can actually happen. It could also result in people being hesitant to take complaints to the CIABOC.”
She also noted that it would lead to the degradation of public trust in law enforcement. “Not having a proper prosecution system gives the impression to perpetrators that they can easily get away,” Perera added.