තක්කඩියන් රැකීම
The editorial calls the Public Trustee, a former judicial officer close to the Chief Justice, a ‘respectable crook’ who placed Rs. 131.2 million of trust funds, including Rs. 18.1 million belonging to the Temple of the Tooth, in a bank and pocketed a commission of about Rs. 1.9 million. It notes that he admitted the commission once confronted with documents, that a Bribery Commission report recommending prosecution was suppressed, and that the ministry secretary has taken no disciplinary action.
චෞර රාජ්යය 2
Continuing his survey, Ivan shows how constitutions and laws are made to suit rulers, from J.R. Jayewardene’s 1977 amendment and Kumaratunga’s 2000 bid to change the electoral system by buying MPs to the UNP’s tax amnesty law challenged by Nihal Sri Ameresekere. He faults Attorneys General for serving governments, and the Bribery Commission for clearing Mangala Samaraweera and ignoring evidence of state resources used in the 2001 election. Short items follow on party discipline, the President’s tales, V. Anandasangaree’s defiance of the LTTE, the JVP and Anura Bandaranaike.
ස්වාධීන කොමිෂන් සභාවල ගෙල මිරීකීම
The 17th Amendment was meant to make the police, elections, public service, judicial service, human rights and bribery bodies independent, but the PA distorted it and the UNP government is now quietly strangling the commissions. The editorial notes that the Police Commission has no staff, the Bribery Commission cannot function, the Human Rights Commission has not met, the Judicial Service Commission is left to the Chief Justice and no Elections Commission has been appointed.
අඳ-ගොළු-බිහිරි පාර්ලිමේන්තුව
Ivan argues that Parliament, unlike legislatures elsewhere, ignores citizens’ complaints and media exposures. His examples include the Bribery Commission’s ruling on Mangala Samaraweera’s credit-card spending, its refusal to act on his own complaint against the Chief Justice, and Ravaya’s 2001 exposure of abuses by the Public Trustee, including misuse of the Samarakoon fund meant for poor couples’ dowries. He cites the Marga survey and the IBA report on the judiciary, which Parliament never debated, and the UNP’s silence on the Chief Justice now it is in government.
නීතිය ඔලුවෙන් සිටුවීම
Ivan rejects the Bribery Commission’s ruling that the Chief Justice is not a public servant and that his complaint against Sarath N. Silva and Lenin Ratnayake falls outside its remit, citing the Penal Code and the assets law. Further sections argue that the 17th Amendment was certified without its transitional provisions, leaving the existing commissions without legal standing; criticise the Constitutional Council’s demand for immunity through an 18th Amendment; and ask whether the securities found in Anuruddha Ratwatte’s safes will be pursued.
අගවිනිසුරුගේ ඊළග රංගනය
The government thinks it can find the votes to curb the President’s power to dissolve Parliament, but Ivan notes she controls the urgent-bill route and the Chief Justice decides constitutionality. Sarath N. Silva may protect her as before or switch to the new rulers, and either choice harms the country; he criticises the justice minister’s wish to use the Chief Justice as she did. A second section faults the Elections Commissioner and Auditor General for saying they cannot refer offenders to the Bribery Commission.
අගවිනිසුරුට, ලෙනින් රත්නායකට එරෙහිව අල්ලස් කොමිසමට පැමිණිල්ලක්
In a formal complaint dated 30 July 2002, Ivan asks the Bribery Commission to investigate magistrate Lenin Ratnayake for concealing his dismissal from the Insurance Corporation for claims fraud when becoming a lawyer and magistrate, and Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva for abusing office to protect his relative: misleading the justice minister in a confidential report, suppressing the Supreme Court inquiry into himself, derailing prosecution through an illegal one-man inquiry and withholding the three-judge committee’s findings. Numbered exhibits are listed.
අල්ලස් කොමිසම ඉදිරියේ දහසක් මල් පිපීම
Government and opposition are now filing rival corruption complaints with the Bribery Commission, which the editorial sees as a chance to force it to look at the top of the power pyramid. It urges commissioners to publish their own asset declarations, to treat the editorial itself as a complaint and call for the declarations of everyone from the President down, to act on the Auditor General’s findings, and to start with the President’s Rs 2,400 million vehicle purchases against a Rs 63 million allocation.
අල්ලස් හා දූෂණය
Ivan explains the 1994 laws that created the Bribery Commission and the offence of corruption, and why they failed: the President appointed commissioners freely and was excluded from the definition of public servant, as the 48 security vehicles bought in 2000, 13 missing, show. He criticises the Commission’s handling of the Channel 9, Mangala Samaraweera credit-card and misuse-of-state-resources complaints, its reference to the 1975 rather than the amended 1988 assets law, and proposes reforms.
මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස්, වත්කම් බැරකම් නීතිය හා අල්ලස් කොමිසම
Ivan notes that the Elections Commissioner must collect asset declarations from candidates and party office-bearers, and asks whether they were received after the local elections. Requests for copies of the President’s and ministers’ declarations under the previous government were ignored. He points out that the 1994 Bribery Commission Act refers to the outdated 1976 law rather than the 1988 law giving public access, and urges this be fixed and the Commission allowed to act without a complaint.