අල්ලස් හෝ දූෂණ චෝදනා විමර්ශන කොමිෂන් සභාවේ සභාපතිගේ ලිපිය සහ කර්තෘ සටහන
Replying to Ravaya’s article of 7 September 2003, Chairman S. Ananda Coomaraswamy rejects the charge of partisanship, saying files on several senior ministers of the current government were also closed for lack of evidence, that the Mangala Samaraweera decision was unanimous and followed a lengthy inquiry, and that the Supreme Court can review it. The editor’s note argues that ministers may not draw extra funds such as a Telecom credit card beyond legal allowances, and that review is meaningless without an independent Supreme Court.
අල්ලස් දූෂණ, දේශපාලනය හා යුක්තිය පසිඳලීම
At a Transparency International seminar Ivan asked Bribery Commission chairman S. Ananda Coomaraswamy why the commission had cleared Mangala Samaraweera over a Rs. 500,000 credit card from a state body. He contrasts the commission with former commissioner Neelum Gamage, who resisted pressure from President Wijetunga over Wack Silva, and argues that politicians enriched by corruption will never accept an independent commission. A second section criticises the legal community’s belated alarm at Mark Fernando’s early retirement and describes the decay of the judiciary under Sarath N. Silva.
Bribery, Corruption and Politics
In this article, Victor Ivan highlights the systemic political corruption in Sri Lanka and the ineffectiveness of the Commission of Inquiry into Bribery or Corruption. Recounting an exchange at a Transparency International seminar, Ivan criticizes the Commission’s Chairman for protecting a former minister accused of misusing state funds via a credit card, arguing that the Commission acts as a shield for corrupt politicians rather than a deterrent. The author contends that bribery and corruption have become the very foundation of Sri Lankan politics and political funding. Because both major political parties depend on illegal wealth generation and crony capitalism for their survival, neither President Chandrika Kumaratunga nor Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe genuinely wants an independent Bribery Commission, as true accountability would result in many politicians facing imprisonment.
ටෝනිට සිදුවූයේ කුමක්ද
Ivan traces Tony Fernando’s long search for redress after his employer refused to meet his private hospital bills following a workplace accident, through the Labour Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, Speaker and Supreme Court, until the Chief Justice jailed him for a year for contempt and he was beaten in prison. He argues that Sarath N. Silva has placed close associates at the head of every institution of redress, including the human rights and bribery commissions, the Public Trustee and the prisons, forming an octopus-like net.
බොරුවෙන්ම ජීවත් වන රට හා ව්යවස්ථා සභාව
Ivan argues that the Constitutional Council, demanded by civil society to curb presidential appointments, was hollowed out from the start. He details how Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s draft of the 17th Amendment removed the seniority rule for the Judicial Service Commission to protect Sarath N. Silva, how the Speaker signed the unamended bill, and the injunction against the Speaker over the impeachment. He adds that the Council, made up only of lawyers, has set up just two commissions while the President blocks appointments such as Ranjith Dheeraratne’s.