Widespread corruption was allowed to take its toll on the country for decades by many successive Governments and private and public institutions to the extent where Sri Lanka is now being identified by the international community as one of the most corrupt nations. Even after corruption played a key role in the making of the prevailing economic crisis, the fact that it has finally attracted enough attention to lead to stringent, updated law reforms is appreciable.
The Anti-Corruption Bill (ACB) remains one of the hottest topics in the political sphere. While almost all leading political parties have discussed the pros and cons of the ACB and also possible amendments, the Government has expressed willingness to adopt progressive proposals from the Opposition parties.
The ACB has already received formally and informally a number of suggestions and recommendations for amendments, including from the Opposition parties, the Supreme Court (in the form of a special determination delivered in response to petitions with regard to the ACB), the Women Parliamentarians Caucus and also civil organisations. Its progressive elements concerning false corruption related allegations against individuals and concerning protecting informers, whistleblowers and witnesses, have already received positive feedback. Certain Opposition parties have proposed to make the new anti-corruption law retroactive, in order to address past incidents of corruption.
However, while it is of great importance to make the formation of the ACB a bipartisan effort to ensure its effectiveness in addressing corruption as a law, as it should not be a mere process of presenting, and accepting or rejecting proposals for amendments. There needs to be a logical discourse between the ruling and Opposition parties on these proposals’ practicality, effectiveness and the potential to be misused. For example, while false corruption related charges should definitely be addressed, there are concerns as to whether such legal provisions would be used against political opponents that speak about acts of corruption by powerful figures. In addition, although addressing cases of corruption that occurred in the past is something that the majority of Sri Lankans would support, whether making this new law retroactive is necessary is a question, as the existing laws provide for such legal actions against corruption without time related limitations.
Enforcement is crucial. In fact, the passing of the ACB is merely the beginning of this determined effort. Its proper enforcement is what could lead to tangible changes. It is also the most challenging part about eradicating corruption. Therefore, the institutional framework that is in place to combat corruption, especially the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), should be strengthened. This is a much bigger concern than was thought, as the CIABOC, despite being the main anti-corruption body, has been identified as a corrupt and inefficient institution. In fact,the Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, President’s Counsel Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, has also alleged that not only those involved in various forms of corruption, but also the CIABOC is attempting to hinder the passage of the ACB. Therefore, strengthening and streamlining the CIABOC, through law reforms, if needed, should be one of the top priorities of the political authority. Not just the operations of the CIABOC, if necessary, the composition of the CIABOC should be changed, and that is the duty of the Constitutional Council, which includes both ruling Party and Opposition MPs.
When passed, the ACB would be one of the most important laws that corruption stricken Sri Lanka relies on. That is because, keeping corruption at bay is necessary to ensure that the country could benefit from the available, limited resources, especially as public funds, and obtaining the much-needed international assistance and cooperation, especially investments, are only possible with a strong anti-corruption legal system. Therefore, the duty of passing the ACB with progressive amendments should not be underestimated by the MPs, as the proper enforcement of this law could have a significant impact on the country’s future.
As was mentioned, both the ruling Party and the Opposition parties could and should play a key role in many aspects of making the new anti-corruption law a success. However, it cannot be the Government’s law, and instead, it has to be the Parliament’s law, because transparency is now more important than before. At a time where combating corruption has reached a juncture where it cannot be delayed or ignored any longer, the MPs should represent the public’s interests individually and collectively. Obtaining the public’s opinions in this regard to decide on what amendments are necessary to the ACB would be an ideal extra step that the MPs could take, and for that, the public would be thankful.