Friday 20th December, 2024

The JVP-led NPP’s ascent to power rekindled the hopes of good governance activists for a radical break from the past and a new political culture. The incumbent government came under pressure to ensure the independence and integrity of the parliamentary Financial Committees by allowing them to be headed by Opposition MPs. But the efforts of the campaigners for good governance have been only partially successful. SJB MP Dr. Harsha de Silva has been appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF), and the government has said one of the NPP members should head the COPE (Committee on Public Finance).

The government’s position is that the COPE will conduct investigations into what happened under the previous administration and therefore an NPP MP should chair it. The Opposition’s efforts to persuade the government to change its mind have been in vain. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake himself reiterated the NPP’s position in Parliament on Wednesday in response to a request from Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa that the government reconsider its decision.

The COPE plays a pivotal role in exposing irregularities in state enterprises and has the potential to restore public trust in Parliament. According to Standing Order No. 120, the duty of the COPE is to examine the accounts of public corporations, institutions funded wholly or in part by the state and of any business or other undertaking vested under any written law, with the assistance of the Auditor-General. One of the criticisms against the COPE is that its probes do not yield the desired results, and its reports gather dust. But there have been glaring exceptions.

The COPE under Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s chairmanship, during the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, played an activist role, paving the way for the reversal of a questionable divestiture programme—the privatisation of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and Lanka Marine Services. Similarly, the COPE under D. E. W. Gunasekara’s chairmanship was bold enough to produce a damning report on the first Treasury bond scam in 2015, but the UNP had Parliament dissolved, forestalling the submission of that vital document to the House. The COPE carried out its second probe into the Treasury bond scams under the chairmanship of the then Opposition MP Sunil Handunnetti. Thus, the COPE has proved its ability to safeguard the interests of the public, and the precedents it has set should be followed. Handunnetti, who is a powerful minister in the incumbent government, ought to lend his voice to those who are demanding that an Opposition MP be appointed as the COPE chairperson.

Situations could arise warranting investigations that adversely impact the interests of the incumbent government. If the COPE chairperson is a ruling party MP, he or she, under such circumstances, will not be able to act impartially owing to his or her party loyalty. This is why the campaigners for good governance insist that the parliamentary watchdog committees should be chaired by the Opposition.

The government’s argument that it has to appoint one of its MPs as the COPE chairperson because the irregularities to be probed occurred under the previous dispensation, whose MPs are currently in the opposition, is not tenable. The vast majority of the Opposition MPs in the current Parliament were not members of the previous administration, which became a metaphor for corruption, and therefore one of them can be appointed the COPE head.

The COPE will have to probe irregularities in state institutions during the current administration as well, and a ruling party MP functioning as its chairperson will be constrained to act in such a way that he or she is seen to be biased; the integrity of the watchdog committee will be compromised in such an eventuality.

One can only hope that the NPP will change its position and let an Opposition MP be appointed as COPE head.