The resignation of Director General (DG) of the Bribery Commission Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe has become a subject of too much discussion these days. She has justified her action by claiming that she resigned because of the statement made by President Maithripala Sirisena about the actions of the Commission. She has said that she believes it is not fair for her to remain in office after the first citizen of the country has cast doubts on the functioning of an independent commission as well as on her duties as its Director General. Accordingly, she has sent a lengthy four-page letter of resignation to the President. During his controversial speech, President Sirisena expressed his doubts about the bribery commission whether it has been politicised and also expressed his displeasure over summoning war heroes before the commission without his knowledge. However, she has refused the allegations made against her that she was treating the employees of the commission inhumanly. The former DG has said that she accepts that she is strict, but she would not admit the claims about refusing to grant leave for a female official who was suffering from cancer. Pointing out that she has always believed that the corruption in the country could be eliminated 100 per cent, she has claimed that under her instructions, over 87 cases have been filed against suspects of bribery and fraud during the past 10 months. However, she has refuted the allegations that have been raised about her entertaining undue political influences from the United National Party (UNP) to throw some of those cases under the rug.
Subsequently, the President accepted her resignation and the matter has now become a hot topic. The following are excerpts of some of the comments intellectuals, civil society representatives, and political party representatives made on the matter.
Gamini Viyangoda-Social Activist and Prominent Writer
The resignation of Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe had shattered the hopes of millions of people who yearn for good governance in this country. Her resignation could be interpreted as the resignation of millions of people from the yahapalana voyage. The President’s statement has directly influenced this turn of events. It is true that the commissions and the law enforcement agencies had acted only with the expressed permission of Mahinda Rajapaksa during the past regime. I have read President’s statement several times. I believe that the rest of the society understands what I have understood from his words. When I hear his wording that he should be informed before summoning former military commanders before the commission, it reminded me the Rajapaksa era. I agree with him about not mentioning anything about Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. But I cannot agree with his claim about informing him when summoning military commanders before the law. This is not what people expected from yahapalanaya. He has said that 16 cases including the case of Prageeth Eknaligoda are being delayed without either imprisoning or releasing the suspects. But he failed to tell us why these suspects have been kept in remand custody for over 16 months. Likewise, hundreds of Tamil political prisoners still not been released even after almost two years after the government has come into power. Why is the President keen on only the case of Prageeth Eknaligoda? That means the President is in favour of the war veterans.
This gives a bad signal to both law enforcement agencies and judicial agencies who are engaged in these cases. We must not forget that the Joint Opposition has repeated many times this same claim. If the President believes that the investigations are biased then instead of disturbing ongoing ones, he can point out the investigations such as the one into Central Bank bond issue, which has been slowed down.
Saman Rathnapriya – Chairman, GNOU and Member, the Trade Union Collective
Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe was appointed the DG of the Bribery commission under the 100-day government. During her period in office, she has done very well to prevent bribery and corruption.
When we compare the present situation with the time before January 8, 2015, we can see the difference. Before January 8, the JVP lodged a complaint about the alleged corruption of the Chairman of the Bribery Commission. But the then government did not hold even an investigation. This was the situation of the country then. But people had a glimpse of hope under Dilrukshi’s tenure.
New investigations were initiated and many halted investigations resumed. The general public came to know more about bribery and corruption.
As civil society organisation, we too spoke about these issues. So we know that she did play an active role in rallying people against corruption. But unfortunately the government now has slowed down the pace in countering this menace. But it is a problem of this entire system. Still the Rajapaksa regime has not been really defeated. Most of the officials now in State offices have been appointed during his reign. They still work for the old system.
They can be persuaded to follow the new system. But for that to take place, we must all be enthusiastic. This could have been done without making any political interventions. But now the President has accepted her resignation. An acting DG has been appointed for the post. I think that the statement of the President should not have been delivered.
We cannot accept his claims. In a civilized society, the law enforcement agencies do not and should not work according to the whims and fancies of its political leaders. They only interfere when the officials are ignoring their duties, because, otherwise, everything will get politicized.
Keerthi Tennakoon-Advisor, Anti-corruption Front
The first 21 months of the ‘good governance’ government was an exercise in ‘gimmick politics’, which refused to deal with the ground realities. The 6.2 million people who voted for ‘change’ expected results. They are immensely tired of various reasons that the government makes for not punishing those guilty of huge financial irregularities. Apart from a few, most Sri Lankans are disillusioned with the ‘good governance’. It has now become a ‘bad word’.
The DG of the anti-corruption campaign now has returned to the AG’s Department. Many people assume that the essence of the President’s speech is that the independent commissions are not doing their duties properly. Is that the truth?
Dilrukshi is very much experience in tackling corruption, but she has little idea about political realities of Sri Lanka. So when the President pointed his finger at the moon, she looked at his finger and sent him her resignation letter. As I have said earlier, President Sirisena denotes our desire for good governance, and Dilrukshi symbolized our hope against corruption.
The people who were hitherto blaming the President, the Prime Minister, and the government for slow progress in punishing the guilty now attempt to understand what is going on in real terms. They have realized now that the so called ‘war on anti-corruption’ was only a gimmick. We realised this truth a long time ago, and told the public. But some people who want to ‘protect’ the government, more than the President and the Prime Minister, attempted to silence our voice claiming that ‘Mahinda is coming back’.
We have always said that the President should not have been made that speech. It was bit of an angry speech a man who was tired of the slow progress on every front made. But conflict has always been a pre-requisite in progress, and we realise that here also it is the same.
Dilrukshi was the symbol of anti corruption. But can we be happy about what the Bribery Commission has done. The ACF has lodged the highest number of complaints to the Commission (225), but only three cases have been satisfactorily investigated. If the top client of the commission is unhappy, how can others be? I think that those investigated by PRESIFAC and the Bribery Commission are extremely happy. They can come to these institutions periodically, get free media coverage, fulfill their political agenda and ultimately walk away free from their crimes.
That biasness of the commission is now public. We were shocked because details that we considered confidential tended to become a common knowledge. For example, the driver of former presidential aide, Gamini Senarath, who was a chief witness to an important investigation, was harassed by the police who attempted to convict him as a terrorist. If Udul Premaratne and Ven. Ulapone Sumangala didn’t intervene, the driver Sumith Dissanayake might not be among the living now. At this point some attempted to portray us as those who attempt to protect the crooks.
The Police Inspector who handled the Sumith Dissanayake case has foreign training on money laundering, but he had also taken a bribe of Rs. 2.5 million to cover up several serious irregularities which took place during the presidential election period. If MP Ranjan Ramanayake did not take Dissanayake to the Police HQ on his own vehicle, Dissnayake might now be languishing in jail as a terrorist. Is that what people wanted?
During Dilrukshi’s tenure, the Commission uncovered what was said to be the biggest reported bribery case; when three customs officials were nabbed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 125 million. What happened to that case? The Customs filed a case to uncover a serious irregularity involving foreign currency, and it was after that only, the Commission carried out the raid. Dilrukshi did not know that a second rung leader of the Commission has a deep involvement in this case. It is enough to say now that a plot intriguing enough to make a film called ‘komisama nihandai’ (the commission is silent) has come to light now.
This is not to say that the Bribery Commission did not do anything. They did a lot of important things. They tried to introduce an anti-corruption culture; they tried to educate the people; they worked from 8 am to midnight, essentially, the commissioners had made the anti-corruption campaign their lives.
Sagara Kariyawasam-Attorney At Law
The Director General of the Bribery Commission is supposed to be independent. So that person must be capable of carrying out duties independently. Initially people in the country were skeptical about the appointment of Dilrukshi Wicramasinghe to this position. She was an official at the AG’s office. We do not have any issues about her knowledge and qualifications. But the Prime Minister announced in parliament that she was a close friend of his family. So, many showed doubt that the Commission would act according to the whims and fancies of the Prime Minister. However the appointment was made. Recently the President claimed that the Bribery commission and the FCID are acting according to a political agenda. The Head of the State made this accusation. The Opposition raised the same accusation since the beginning.
The former President was summoned before the Commission to question about giving Tissa Attanayake a ministerial position. These are political issues. The Commission carried out only a little amount of credible investigations.
The Opposition continuously claimed that this was nothing but a political manhunt. So far nothing has been done on the complaints about Minister Rajitha Senaratne. The bond scam has been thrown under the carpet. Finally the President’s conscience talked. But Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe has decided correctly. Just because she resigned, the Commission does not become inactive. So the person who comes next must carry out the work properly.
MP Udaya Gammanpila-Leader, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya
This accusation shows that the President has no trust in the DG of the Bribery Commission. When the superior is not confident of an official, the best thing for that official is to do to resign from the post. The DG of the Bribery Commission must be like the wife of Caesar. During the time of Caesar, a scandal broke at a religious event where his wife had attended. Although her innocence was proven Caesar divorced her claiming that the wife of Caesar should not be subjected to even an allegation.
Likewise, the DG of the Bribery Commission should carry out her duties in such a way that she cannot be targeted to an allegation. Even the slightest suspicion must compel her to consider herself unsuitable to carry out her duties. We have continuously accused of her conduct in the past. We believe that her resignation would help reaffirm the integrity of the Bribery Commission. It must be a prestigious and respectable institution. The government should not make the same mistake twice. The President has also accused the Police of its inefficiency. So the IGP too must resign by following the example of Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe.
Pubudu Jagoda-Secretary, Frontline Socialist Party
Putting an end to fraud and corruption was the key promise the yahapalana government chanted during the election. The Bribery Commission is the key institution for countering corruption and fraud in this country. So the resignation of its most important official and her claim that she resigned because of the political interference raise grave issues. In the election period, we clearly pointed out that none of these mainstream politicians have a genuine intention of preventing fraud, corruption and racism. We said that they were promoting these ideas only to secure votes. Unfortunately, the majority decided in favour of them. The voters had faith in the President and the Prime Minister for their “genuine commitment” towards these goals. Now they have been clearly shown that all these are nothing but mere political gimmicks.
The government always boasted about catching thieves, but they have failed to keep their promises. It is not going to happen in the future as well. Only the masses can stop this corruption by putting pressure on the government. A change of government will not stop this corruption. Mahinda Rajapaksa allowed everything to fall into disarray just to retain his power. This government came into power with the promise to correct this mistake. But now we can see nothing but the same show. So we must take this situation very seriously. We need a strong social dialogue to find out a more practical solution than a one that changes faces.
No comments:
Post a Comment