brand logo

Throwing CIABOC in the deep end

07 Oct 2021

The alarming revelations made by the Pandora Papers about two powerful and wealthy Sri Lankans have become the newest reason for the Opposition and the Governing Party to point fingers at each other. However, without much ado, the President directed the Commission to Investigate into Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to look into the allegations and submit a report in a month. However, without putting the burden of solving this case solely on the CIABOC’s shoulders, we should rather employ a more prudent approach involving several parties. The corruption allegations levelled against the President’s cousin and former Deputy Minister Nirupama Rajapaksa and her husband Thirukumar Nadesan are said to have taken place or started over a decade ago at the international level, and aside from certain Opposition politicians who levelled vague corruption allegations against the duo, the country had no clue. In this context, finding evidence – which is the main duty of the CIABOC in this case, as certain specific information has been revealed by the Pandora Papers – is likely to be a challenging process, and will take a lot of effort due to the sheer number of parties involved and the evidence it requires to ascertain the allegations. In this context, the CIABOC’s investigations into these allegations are likely to be more complicated than smaller corruption cases, as it involves political families, secret transactions, international financial institutions, legal jurisdictions, and an unknown number of middlemen. Therefore, it would have been more prudent to appoint a special entity comprising experts in tax evasion, law, and internet-based transactions, as well as experts from the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Foreign Affairs Ministry, who have handled similar cases before. That is not to say that the CIABOC does not have the competence to conduct a successful investigation into what was revealed by the Pandora Papers; it is a matter of time and the workload. In fact, to a great extent, the CIABOC investigations have to focus on finding evidence to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by the Pandora Papers, as investigative journalists working on the Pandora Papers have already revealed very specific information about the allegations, and have even tried to speak to the duo. Thus the CIABOC is not required to build its case from the ground up, but rather do the follow-up work, of a sort. However, allegations of this nature, which have not one but many aspects relating to multiple jurisdictions and domestic and international parties, can hardly be successfully conducted by one domestic institution, and must therefore be looked into simultaneously by experts in the relevant fields. Getting the aforementioned parties involved in this investigation would expedite the investigation, and thereby make the report the CIABOC is expected to submit in a month a comprehensive one with some substantive findings, not just a document describing what needs to be found. In fact, to some degree, the involvement of the said parties would also give the people the assurance that the investigations would be impartial and transparent, due to the notion that a multi-party investigation is less likely to succumb to power and money than an investigation conducted by a single entity. Such an assurance is more important in cases such as these, as Sri Lanka rarely sees powerful people getting convicted after a proper and fair investigation. This highlights another reason for this multifaceted approach – to ensure that this probe is not eventually swept under the rug once the limelight fades. The bottom line is, Sri Lanka should not take these allegations lightly, and be complacent after handing over the investigations to the CIABOC merely because it is the main anti-graft authority in the country. The actions should be taken based on the urgency and seriousness of the situation, not just on the type of offence. We should not forget the urgency aspect, especially, as any delay in investigations may create room for the destruction of evidence, and that is why more support is needed to expedite investigations. As a matter of fact, this case highlights that what is more important than ensuring the speed of an investigation is to ensure that  it is thorough and free of political bias or interference.


More News..