Connect with us

Features

Foreign funding and private donations for CIABOC

Published

on

Reform of the Anti-Corruption Act – Part I

The Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) announced last month that amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023 were on the cards so as to restrict public access to the assets and liabilities declarations filed with the Commission. The information, released in 2025, caused profound embarrassment to the present government, but was received very well by the public and any attempt to restrict that information flow at this stage, may prove to be very unpopular.

The popular demand now would be that organisational entities, like political parties and trade unions, also be required to file assets and liabilities declarations with the CIABOC, instead of just the individuals holding positions in such bodies.

Be that as it may, there are some serious issues that need to be rectified in the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023. Foremost among them is Section 31(4) (b) which states that the fund of the CIABOC can receive money “by way of donations, gifts, bequests, or grants from any source whatsoever, whether within or outside Sri Lanka, subject to the approval of the Minister assigned the subject of Finance.”

Those who would be motivated to give gifts and donations to a body like the CIABOC would only be those who want to influence it in some manner to achieve a collateral purpose. While the English version of the Anti-Corruption Act states that the CIABOC can receive such funds “from any source whatsoever whether within or outside Sri Lanka”, the Sinhala version of the Act has sought to disguise that intention by using more opaque wording which goes as: “Sri Lankawa thula ho Sri Lankawen pitatha pihiti yam mulashrayakin”.

The English “any source whatsoever” has been diluted in the Sinhala version by the use of the phrase “yam mulashrayakin” which roughly translates as ‘from a certain source’. When the Sinhala word ‘yam’ is used and nothing more is specified, in practice it becomes “any source whatsoever”! The difference in the way Section 31(4) (b) has been worded in the English and the Sinhala versions of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023 clearly reveals the villainous intention behind this provision.

Giving the Finance Minister a say in approving such donations gives an incumbent Finance Minister undue leverage over the Commission. We must be mindful of the fact that the Finance portfolio has often been held by the President.

The Indian policy

Section 31(6) of the Anti-Corruption Act states that the source and purpose of such foreign and local private donations have to be made public by the Commission, within one month. However, even if funding is received openly, that does not mean that such funding is given without a collateral purpose. Journalists, like Shamindra Ferdinando, and Malinda Seneviratne, have taken up cudgels in the past about foreign interested parties, like USAID openly funding organisations, such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, and certain associations of journalists. Does anyone remember what President Donald Trump said about the activities of USAID? A law enforcement agency, like the CIABOC, should never be left open to the contagion of private funding by local and foreign interested parties.

India imposes strict limitations on all Indian citizens with regard to the receipt of foreign funds under the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act of 2010. These limitations apply to politicians at all levels of government, judges, public servants and even journalists, cartoonists and political activists. The Indian restrictions apply not only to money or property but even to foreign trips and other forms of foreign-funded hospitality.

India would never allow its premier anti-corruption law enforcement body to directly receive funding from abroad or from private donors within India. The Indian anti-corruption body that corresponds to Sri Lanka’s CIABOC is the Central Vigilance Commission of India. Section 13 of the Indian Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 states that all expenses of the Commission will be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. In Sri Lanka, too, all expenses of the CIABOC should be a charge on the Consolidated fund of Sri Lanka.

Because of the enormous power that it wields over the lives of all politicians, public servants, and judicial officers in Sri Lanka, the receipt of foreign funding or private donations by the CIABOC impacts negatively on the national interest and even the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. The power of the CIABOC is such that it’s like the Police Department, Attorney General’s Department, parts of the judiciary and the executive presidency all rolled into one. Sections 32 to 72 of the Anti-Corruption Act outlines the wide ranging powers wielded by the CIABOC.

The CIABOC has complete and total control over their officers and employees. The appointment, salaries, conditions of service, promotion, disciplinary control and dismissal of their employees is handled entirely by the Commission itself. In contrast to this, such matters with regard to the Police, the Attorney General’s Department and the Judiciary are handled by the National Police Commission, the Public service Commission and the Judicial Services Commission, respectively. The checks and balances that apply to other law enforcement entities do not apply to the CIABOC.

The CIABOC can recruit staff from other parts of the public service (which includes the Police Department). However, the police officers taken into the Commission do not function under the IGP but under the authority of the Commission which effectively gives the CIABoC its own police force. Authorised officers of the CIABOC can manhandle and arrest suspects without an order from a Magistrate, enter and search any premises, or vehicle, seize any article deemed necessary for their investigations and use force if necessary in carrying out these functions. They can carry out undercover operations and use bugging devices.

The Commission can summon any person and examine him on oath or affirmation; obtain details of transactions and accounts from banks, obtain information from the Inland Revenue Department, freeze bank accounts, order the Controller of Immigration and Emigration to impound passports. With the sanction of a Magistrate the CIABOC can direct any person to unlock or unencrypt digital devices and intercept messages. Following such investigations, the CIABOC can institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the Magistrate’s Court or the High Court.

Under Sections 67 and 71, the CIABOC can withdraw or defer the indictment against the accused after taking into account considerations such as the national interest and public interest; the views of the victims of the offence; and representations that may be made by the accused person or his lawyer. In withdrawing such indictments, the CIABOC may impose on the accused conditions such as publicly expressing remorse and apology before the High Court, providing reparations to victims of the offence, publicly pledging to refrain from committing further offences or to permanently refrain from holding elected or appointed public office.

Most powerful law enforcement agency

Thus, we see that the CIABOC controls the entire gamut of law enforcement in relation to offences coming within its purview. From manhandling and arresting suspects, obtaining statements under oath, seizing documents and other goods, searching premises, freezing bank accounts, impounding passports, to conducting criminal prosecutions in Magistrate’s Courts and High Courts, and even granting clemency to accused individuals, the Commission controls the entire process.

No single institution, whether it be the Police Department, the Attorney General’s Department, the Judiciary or the Executive Presidency, wields such extensive power over the lives of key government functionaries, public servants, judges and ordinary citizens. Even the President’s power to pardon offenders is restricted in so many ways. However, the Commission can grant clemency to anyone facing legal proceedings on nothing more than the representations made by the alleged offender’s lawyer and on the condition of not committing such offences again or agreeing never to hold public office again.

Leaving an exit pathway, such as that envisaged in Section 67 and 71, is a good policy in criminal justice administration, especially when it comes to bringing to a conclusion cases with many grey areas. Hence, we do not question the power conferred on the CIABOC to grant clemency under Sections 67 and 71. However this provision, when taken together with the other powers of the Commission, immeasurably increases its power. In the hands of the wrong people, the powers of the CIABOC can be used to pressurize and remove targeted individuals from public life.

Any foreign or local interested party that provides private donations to the CIABOC, under Section 31(4) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act, will in effect be buying influence over Sri Lanka’s most powerful law enforcement agency.

In 2010, over half a million US Dollars in cash was found in the possession of a close relative of a candidate at the Presidential election. In December 2014, foreign currency totaling well over one million USD was discovered in the possession of a relative of another presidential candidate. In more recent times, many media personalities have commented on the manner in which the 2025 assets and liabilities declarations of certain government figures reveal large inflows of cash in 2022 – the regime change year.

Against such a backdrop, allowing an all-powerful law enforcement agency, like the CIABOC, to accept donations from foreign and local interested parties, can hardly be in the public interest. Hence, Section 31(4) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act should be repealed.

(To be continued tomorrow)

by A Special Correspondent



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

‘Lord Edgware Dies’

Published

on

It has been some time since I read an Agatha Christie, the plot of which I cannot remember. So, I was delighted to find on the shelves of a friend Lord Edgware Dies, which I had a vague memory of, but no certainty about who had done it.

When I read it, I found that my memory of who was probably the killer was correct, but I could not be certain and the red herrings Christie threw in were so diverting that until almost the very end I wondered if I had been wrong.

The plot is very simple. Jane Wilkinson, who is married to Lord Edgware, tells him that she is desperate for a divorce since she is in love with a very proper Anglo-Catholic peer, Lord Melton, but Edgware refuses to divorce her. She asks Poirot to talk to him, which he does, and is surprised to find that Edgware has told Jane he is prepared to give her a divorce. This was, after he had categorically refused, through a letter, which Jane said she had not received.

That night Edgware is murdered, after Jane had been to see him, or so the butler said, and also Edgware’s secretary. But Jane had been that evening at a grand dinner many miles away, where a dozen fellow guests could swear to her presence.

There was a solution however to the mystery of two Jane Wilkinsons, namely a skilful impersonator called Carlotta Adams who, in the opening chapter had impersonated Jane Wilkinson, who had also been at the performance. But when Poirot goes to see her, he finds that she had been found dead on the morning after Edgware had been killed, of an overdose. And in her bag was a gold case, with a strange inscription, that contained the drug, along with a pair of pince-nez.

Her maid said she had written a letter to her sister in America and posted it the previous night. Poirot asks Inspector Japp to get the letter, and a transcript is received from America, and in it the name of Edgware’s nephew Ronald Marsh is mentioned; he had taken Carlotta to dinner after her performance, with which the book opens, and had then set her a challenge. Japp arrests Marsh, but Poirot is not happy and asks for the original of the letter, which the sister sends him. That shows that a page is missing, and the tear is obvious, though that raises the question as to why it had not simply been cut.

Matters are further complicated by the fact that Marsh had gone in a taxi to the Edgware house, along with Edgware’s daughter Geraldine, in the interval of an opera which had previously seemed to provide them with cast iron alibis. Geraldine had gone in to fetch her pearls so that Marsh could raise money he needed, and thus had an opportunity to kill Edgware, as did Marsh, for the driver said he had got out of the taxi while waiting and gone into the house.

Agatha Christie

Marsh explained why he had gone to the house on the night of the murder as having followed Bryan Martin, an American actor, who had been in love with Jane, whom he saw go into the house with a key. But there was no one visible when he entered, and Geraldine almost immediately came down and they left together. And Martin too has become an object of suspicion to Poirot, for he had been to see him before the murders were discovered with a story of being followed by a man with a gold tooth – a story Poirot immediately realized was false when he was asked how old the man was, and was told he was young, for young people did not have gold teeth.

A heap of French money Edgware had got for a trip to Paris was missing, but since Marsh had no need for it after his cousin’s offer of help, Poirot deduces that it must have been taken by the butler, who has disappeared. Christie has stressed that he is astonishingly handsome, unusual in a butler, and Poirot notes a resemblance to Martin, so he thinks the mysterious man going into the house must have been him.

Incidentally, later Poirot assumes that Edgware’s change of mind was because he was involved in some scandal, and I believe Christie intends us to see the cause of this in his handsome butler, though this is not specified.

Meanwhile, Poirot has asked Japp to find out the provenance of the case found in Carlotta’s handbag, and it turns out to have been made in Paris, specially commissioned, and collected by a woman with pince-nez.

But then another murder occurs—that of another guest at the grand dinner, which provided Jane with her alibi. The victim is an actor who had been bemused when Jane, at a lunch, thought the Judgment of Paris referred to the city. He told Hastings he wanted to see Poirot, but was killed before he could get to the appointment. Poirot had rushed there when told about his request, but it was too late.

Meanwhile, Poirot has tried out the pince-nez on Edgware’s secretary, but she could not see through these. It was only a chance remark heard outside the theatre that led him to try them out on Wilkinson’s maid Ellis, a spare pair that had been appropriated for the night of the murders.

Poirot then lays things out, having summoned Martin and told him that he probably suppressed Edgware’s letter, as he had been dropped by then and he did not want Jane to marry another. But after teasing Martin, Poirot says that Jane was in fact the murderer, and she got Carlotta to impersonate her at the dinner while she went to the house and killed her husband. After meeting Carlotta later and checking with her through a call that she had not been rumbled, Jane had gone ahead with the murder – she put veronal into her drink and the case with veronal into the handbag. She forgot to take out the pince-nez she had used earlier to imitate an American. Carlotta had registered as the American in a hotel and Jane had gone to see her, and there they exchanged identities. After seen the letter, she made use of it by tearing off the page that referred to her, and the S of She, so that the person who had challenged Carlotta to impersonate her seemed to be a man.

There is a coda in which Jane, condemned to death, writes to Hastings, still full of pride at her ingenuity hoping she will be remembered.

Continue Reading

Features

Desilt reservoirs, learn from our ancient irrigation systems

Published

on

Polgolla

by Prof. O. A. Ileperuma

Silting of reservoirs is a major problem today affecting our hydropower production and irrigation systems. The main Mahaweli reservoirs are silted to a considerable extent reducing the water holding capacity of them. Due to poor soil management practices, floodwaters deposit large amounts of silt in these reservoirs. When the Polgolla reservoir was fully drained about two years back, one could see mountains of silt in the lower reaches of the reservoir. A rough estimate is that 50% of the total capacity of these reservoirs has been lost to siltation. This is a serious issue which affects not only power and agriculture but also flood control.

Our ancient irrigation systems ensured that desilting of reservoirs took place under royal decree where all users of the reservoirs were ordered to carry out desilting of reservoirs during the dry season. The clay thus collected was used in making bricks for the construction of great stupas which dot the landscape of our ancient kingdoms. This ensured that the reservoirs had their full capacity filled with water for the next cultivating season. Our ancient kings were clever enough not to construct reservoirs by blocking main rivers such as the Mahaweli. A classic example is the Minipe left canal where they tapped only the surface water of Mahaweli. Even the bigger tanks such as Nuwara Wewa and Parakrama Samudraya were fed with minor rivulets. There were also other ingenious features in the cascade irrigation systems built by the ancient kings, such as mud sluice canals and forest reservations between the reservoirs in the cascade system. These reservations helped trap silt and remove excess nutrients, which could otherwise contribute to increasing salinity as water flowed from one reservoir to another.

Victoria

Moragahakanda

A classic engineering marvel is the former Yoda Ela, which carries water from Kalawewa to Nuwara Wewa and Tissa Wewa. It is 87 km long although the straight distance between these points is only about 40 km. The gradient of this canal is about 10 cm per km or 6 inches per mile. Yodha Ela functions as a moving reservoir and feeds about 4,600 hectares of paddy lands. It is a winding canal with about 120 smaller reservoirs on its way. It was constructed during the reign of King Dhatusena around 459 AD and later expanded by King Parakramabahu by connecting more reservoirs to the network. Unfortunately, during the Mahaweli project our modern-day engineers constructed a concrete canal replacing the winding path of this Yoda Ela also called Jaya Ganga. This effectively removed the ability of the old Yoda Ela to remove silt and nutrients. The bank of this Ela has wet zone trees such as jak and areca nut growing well. They take up the nutrients from the flowing stream making the water suitable for irrigation later.

Ancient Mesopotamian civilisations depended on dams constructed along the two main rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. After continuous irrigation of their fields over several thousand years, salinity of the irrigated lands increased making them unsuitable for agriculture. People died due to famine and this clearly illustrates the danger of blocking main rivers for agriculture. There is scientific evidence that the salinity of paddy soils in the Mahaweli C area is increasing.

We saw the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. The sluice gates of the Kotmale Reservoir were opened, and Kandy and Peradeniya were flooded. If the reservoir had had greater storage capacity, couldn’t the opening of the gates have been delayed? This may not be an argument that modern-day engineers would readily accept, and I am not an irrigation expert. These ideas may well be naïve. But most of us tend to think of reservoirs mainly in terms of hydropower generation and irrigation, while their role in flood control receives much less attention. The question therefore deserves serious consideration. Could restoring lost reservoir capacity through desilting help improve our ability to manage extreme rainfall and reduce flood risks?

Desilting our reservoirs should be considered a national priority.

Continue Reading

Features

Losing out to Ethiopia

Published

on

From Trailblazer to Tailender

Export diversification – Missing the wood for the trees – Part III

by Gomi Senadhira

In Sri Lanka, the word “Ethiopia” is often used as disparaging slang to describe individuals or areas experiencing extreme poverty, starvation, or severe economic hardship. This linguistic habit originated in the 1980s with the Western media coverage of the devastating Ethiopian famine of 1983-85. That media coverage shocked the world but also left an outdated and offensive global stereotype that the country is permanently starving. Much has changed since then. By now, with an annual growth rate of around 9%, it is the fastest-growing economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia has also emerged as a highly competitive exporter and is challenging not only its competitors in the region but also countries like Sri Lanka. This article is on how Sri Lanka has lost ground to Ethiopia (and a few other countries) in the GCC markets for agricultural and floricultural products.

Sri Lanka – A Pioneer in the Agriculture and Floricultural Market in the GCC

As discussed in Part II of this article, by the mid-1980s Sri Lanka had established a strong foothold in the GCC’s fruit, vegetable, and floricultural market. Geographical proximity and well-established shipping and air links gave Sri Lanka a strong comparative advantage over Southeast Asian and African nations. Thailand, Vietnam, and Kenya were not even in the market. At that time, Ethiopia was experiencing (as BBC news reports described) “a biblical famine”.

The market was not very large, but it was lucrative and growing. Trade Minister Lalith Athulathmudali as well as the Chairman of the Export Development Board, Victor Santiapillai, who visited Kuwait (and the GCC countries), recognised the market potential for these products and encouraged us to continue with our work. The minister was particularly keen to further develop links between the market for these products, exporters, and his Export Production Villages (EPVs). So, it was becoming a successful case not only for export diversification but also for transferring gains from exports directly to rural households.

From Trailblazer to Tailender

As a result, even by the beginning of this century Sri Lanka had a larger market share than most of its competitors from Asia or Africa. But since then, our competitiveness has weakened significantly. The tables below provide a comparative snapshot of Sri Lanka’s performance vis-à-vis Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya and Ethiopia in the GCC market for vegetables, fruits and floricultural products. As illustrated therein, in 2001 Sri Lanka was ahead of Thailand, Kenya and Ethiopia in this small but rapidly growing market. Since then, we have fallen behind Thailand, Kenya and many other countries in that lucrative market. If this trend continues, Sri Lanka will fall behind Ethiopia within the next few years. (See Table 1)

In the GCC market for vegetables (covered in HS chapter 07), Sri Lanka was ahead of most other competitors in 2001. As illustrated in Table 1 , Sri Lanka had failed to develop this market, while Thailand, Kenya, and even Ethiopia had very efficiently increased their market shares. The GCC is a market to which Sri Lanka can supply some vegetables, like cabbages, by sea. It appears Sri Lanka had also failed to exploit this mode of supply.

We can see a similar trend in the market for fruits. Vietnam, Kenya, and Thailand have emerged as major players, while exports from Sri Lanka have staggered on slowly. In this segment, Vietnam has emerged as a leading player during the last twenty years and the GCC imports from Viet Nam have shot up from US$44 thousand in 2001 to US$346 million by 2024. In part one of these articles, I discussed the remarkable increase of jackfruit exports from Vietnam “…just $3 million in 2015 to an impressive $236.8 million in 2023” while most of our jackfruit production rots under the trees. This explains how countries develop their markets, geographically and product-wise. (See Table 2)

Sri Lanka’s performance has been weakest in the market for floricultural products (HS Chapter 06), which groups live trees, cut flowers, and ornamental foliage. When we first entered the market in the 1980s, the market was dominated by the Netherlands, and Kenya and Ethiopia were not even in the market. At that time, we identified the Gulf states as a market where Sri Lanka could have a dominant presence due to geographical proximity. Even in 2001, Sri Lanka was ahead of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Thailand. But by now, Kenya has emerged as the dominant supplier. Ethiopia is also expanding its market share and is the third-largest exporter. (See Table 3)

Missing the Wood for the Trees

In the mid-1980s, Sri Lanka first established its foothold in the GCC market. Since then, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya, and even Ethiopia have moved well ahead of us and have become leading players. Why did we lag behind in our export diversification efforts in general and, more particularly, in the GCC market?

The reasons are very clear. After the initial attempts in the 1980s and early 1990s, Sri Lanka has not been proactively involved in identifying, developing, and promoting new products and markets, or protecting and further developing new markets already established. The focus has simply been on traditional exports: tea, coconut, cinnamon, and garments, while other products were almost ignored. In essence, we have been and continue to focus intensely on a narrow group of products and markets, and we have lost sight of the bigger picture.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Trending