“No Level Playing Field”

By Nirmala Kannangara

The political bias of certain quarters within the opposition has clearly emerged once again recently with accusations levelled against the Director General (DG) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABC) while three high-profile public officials who were likely guilty of the same conduct were left unscathed.

Although three UPFA Parliamentarians Mohan P. de Silva, Janaka Wakkumbura and Ranjith Soyza lodged a complaint against the Bribery Commission Director General in question Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, on corruption charges; questions have been raised as to why the same three MPs conveniently forgot to level the same allegation against the other three senior legal practitioners who supposedly obtained a second salary from the Telecommunication Regulation Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) together with Wickramasinghe whilst working at the Attorney General’s Department way back in 2003.

Although the three UPFA MPs charged that Wickramasinghe obtained a second salary from the TRCSL, The Sunday Leader has in its possession a letter dated July two, 2003, issued by the then Attorney General K.C. Kamalasabayson P.C. requesting the approval of the then Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, Law Reform and National Integration Dhara Wijetilake, to authorise the following officials to work as consultants to the TRCSL. (See graphic)

 

1.  D. Dias Wickramasinghe (Then) Senior State Counsel

2.  Susantha Balapatabendi  (Then) State Counsel

3.  N. Wigneshwaran (Then) State Counsel

TRC has informed me that they wished to pay a monthly allowance to the officers. I have recommended a payment of Rs. 15,000 for the Senior State Counsel and Rs. 10,000 for State Counsel, since they work after office hours.

You are kindly requested to grant permission in terms of paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of Chapter XXX and paragraph 2 of Chapter IX and of the Establishment Code for the above officers to receive the aforesaid payment.

In reply to the Attorney General’s request, the Additional Secretary (Administration), Ministry of Justice, Law Reform and National Integration Swarnapali Wickremasinghe on behalf of the Ministry Secretary in a letter dated July 18, 2003 to the AG states, “ This refers to your letter dated July two, 2003 and I hereby give permission to your request in accordance with Paragraph 1.4 of Chapter XXX of the Establishment Code subject to the condition that 10% of the said allowance has to be remitted to Government Consolidated Fund”.

 

Desparate / Discriminatory treatment

 

“My question is why has she been singled out and treated less favorably than others in a similar situation. Why couldn’t these three parliamentarians, if they were really public-spirited as they claim to be; lodge complaints against Justice Sathya Hettige who is now the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Deputy Solicitor General Susantha Balapatabendi and Senior State Counsel Nirmalan Wigneshwaran on the same charge? By lodging a complaint only against Wickramasinghe shows that these MPs possibly had an ulterior motive to remove the DG from Bribery Commission as she has been perceived as a threat to politicians who are accused of bribery or corruptions. This shows that certain quarters of the opposition alarmed by the actions of the new DG as she has started solid investigations into complaints lodged against all those allegedly involved in bribery or corruption be it a politician or a normal citizen, as law is equal to anyone of us,” a legal luminary who wished to remain anonymous told The Sunday Leader.

 

To stop the witch hunt

 

Meanwhile UNP dissident and Galle District Parliamentarian Manusha Nanayakkara who acted as spokesman to the group that lodged the complaint; when contacted as to why allegations were not levelled against other three but only against the Wickremesinghe, said that they have an issue only with Wickramasinghe as she has embarked on a witch hunt against opposition MPs. “We have the issue with Wickramasinghe. We are not aware of the other three whom you are referring to,” Nanayakkara said.

When asked on what grounds the UPFA MPs lodged the complaint, Nanayakkara said that it is illegal for a government servant to obtain two salaries at a time which is strictly against the Establishment Code.

“By violating the government rules and obtaining two salaries Wickramasinghe can be charged on corruption. How can a corrupt person work as the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption? After our complaint, we were told that the Bribery Commission has held an investigation and the outcome of the report says that it is a baseless allegation. How can the Bribery Commission hold an inquiry against its own DG while the accused is still a sitting member of the Commission? Is this Yahapalanaya (good governance)? If there is an allegation against any officer, the Commission should have interdicted her and then hold the investigation. There is no transparency into the investigation,” Nanayakkara added.

 

Second salary without due approval

 

He alleged that Wickramasinghe has obtained the second salary without the approval of the subject Ministry Secretary.

“As she was attached to the Attorney General’s Department, she had to take the Justice Ministry Secretary’s permission if she wanted to obtain the second salary. Unless with the Ministry Secretary’s approval, it is illegal to draw a second salary at the same time,” Nanayakkara alleged.

However, Nanayakkara was dumbfounded for a while when asked as to why the same UPFA MPs failed to request former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to remove the Bribery Commission Chairman Jagath Balapatabendi and to hold an investigation when Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) MP Sunil Handunnetti lodged a complaint against Balapatabendi for obtaining a car allegedly as a kickback for delivering a court ruling in favour of a certain vehicle spare part importer.

“Was there a complaint against the Bribery Commission Chairman? We did not know about it,” Nanayakkara told The Sunday Leader.

Our sources meanwhile accused the three UPFA MPs and UNP MP Manusha Nanayakkara who extended his support to President Rajapaksa later, for following double standards and queried whether they are satisfied with the Bribery Commission report on its Chairman Balapatabendi.

“When questions were raised even in the parliament about Balapatabendi’s conduct, the UPFA government turned a blind eye and never took any action against the Commission Chairman. Unlike how Wickremasinghe’s case was investigated, the Bribery Commission did not even hold an inquiry about Balapatabendi’s complaint but dismissed the charges claiming that there was no proper evidence to even start an investigation,” sources added.

 

Since I have been proven innocent

 

Meanwhile Director General Bribery Commission, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe when contacted said that she has not violated any government regulation nor has misused her position to carry out any witch hunt against any person as claimed by certain politicians.

“When the allegations levelled against me for corruption I did not want to go before the media to prove my innocence until the Bribery Commission concluded the investigations. Since I have been proven innocent from all charges against me, I am now free to give my side of the story,” Wickramasinghe said.

According to Wickramasinghe, she has not received two salaries at the same time as claimed by certain parliamentarians but added that when she was appointed as a Consultant to the TRCSL while working at the Attorney General’s Department she was paid an allowance of Rs.15,000.

According to Wickramasinghe, while working as a Senior State Counsel, she has been appointed as a Consultant to the TRCSL by the then Attorney General K.C. Kamalasabayson P.C.  with the approval of the then Additional Secretary Ministry of Justice, Law Reform and National Integration Swaranapali Wickremasinghe on behalf of the Ministry Secretary Dhara Wijetilake.

“Not only I but two more State Counsels were nominated by Attorney General Kamalasabayson as Consultants for TRCSL and got the Ministry Secretary’s approval for the appointments and for the suggested allowance. The present Deputy Solicitor General Susantha Balapatabendi and Senior State Counsel Nirmalan Wigneshwaran who were State Counsels at that time were appointed as Consultants to TRCSL. After a short stint, Wigneshwaran left TRCSL and the Attorney General appointed Sathya Hettige to fill the vacant post,” Wickramasinghe said.

Refuting allegations that the investigation carried out against her by the Commission was biased and had no transparency, Wickramasinghe said it was she who wanted the Commission to take up the complaint in question at the earliest as she wanted to get her name cleared.

 

Exonerated from all allegations

“Once the Commission Secretary received the complaint it was I who wanted to accelerate the investigation and I stayed away from investigations into my conduct and the Commissioners appointed one Deputy Director General to act on my behalf during my absence and carried out the investigation. After a full investigation, the commission was satisfied that I have not violated any government regulation and accordingly exonerated me from all allegations. So how can anyone point a finger at me for interfering with the investigation? Despite several officers from Attorney General’s Department provided this service to the TRCSL, these three MPs single out only me and made a false complaint to purely to defame me,” Wickramasinghe said.

Speaking further, Wickramasinghe said that it is a shame for parliamentarians to lodge baseless complaints against any person in the country when they have the privilege to check with relevant State agencies whether there is evidence to back up such allegations.

“For an instance, take my case, these three parliamentarians could have easily double checked with the Attorney General’s Department to find out as to who gave permission to appoint me to the TRCSL as a Consultant and whether I have got the Ministry Secretary approval to obtain an allowance. Without following any of these procedures these three MPs went before the press purely to create a media hype.  They told the world that they have unearthed a top secret allegation against the DG Bribery Commission who according to them was carrying out a witch hunt to harass ‘innocent’ politicians of the opposition.

As there were instances where the Bribery Commission has taken action against certain parties for lodging false complaints, I too requested the Commission to take action against these three MPs who defame me,” Wickremasinghe claimed.       Meanwhile Wickramasinghe accused the parliamentarians who levelled baseless allegations against her and her family for encroaching on a 25 acre land in the Knuckles Reserve which is a world heritage site allegedly using the power of her office while serving at the Attorney General’s Department and that the Laggala police have initiated legal action for developing the said land.

 

Fresh round of allegations

“Unlike certain patriots in this country who speak high about them and call them-selves real patriots but have acquired wealth illegally in the name of their kith and kin, neither myself nor any of my family members own any land in the Knuckles range as alleged by certain politicians in Parliament.  I challenge these bankrupt politicians to prove that any member of my family owns a land at the Knuckles reserve and if they prove me wrong I will tender my resignation as the DG Bribery Commission forthwith,” Wickramasinghe added.

 

Dilrukshi Puts MR, Tissa on Notice

Despite the opposition’s strong agitation in parliament to stop the Bribery Commission from recording a statement from the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Director General Bribery Commission, Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe said that the former President and former Health Minister Tissa Attanayake’s impending interrogation has not been withheld, but will be carried out shortly although there was a high drama in the House claiming that the Bribery Commission has no right to get the former President to come to the Commission for a statement.

Wickramasinghe said that the delay in getting the statements from the former President and MP Attanayake was not due to certain opposition parliamentarians’ agitation in the parliament but due to number of government holidays in the month of May.

Referring to the allegations levelled against her by the Opposition that she has no mandate to ask the former President to come to the Bribery Commission for a statement, Wickramasinghe stated that each and every citizen of this country irrespective of their status or positions is equal before the law of the land. “If the parliamentarians think that the law of this land cannot be imposed on rich and powerful but only against poor and frail then it is up to the legislative council that should pass that law. So then I can investigate the complaints made only against the poor and frail not the rich and powerful,” Wickramasinghe said.

According to Wickramasinghe in the event the Commission receive complaints, it will follow the normal procedure to find out whether there is concrete evidence to carry out further investigations or not which is decided by the three Commissioners including the Commission Chairman but not the Director General.

“The allegation is that I, on my own have informed the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and MP Tissa Attanayake to come before the Commission to obtain statements. When we receive a complaint it goes to the Commission where the three Commissioners including the Chairman that gives directions in terms of Section 4 of the Bribery Commission Act to carry out the investigations. I as the DG forward the files to the investigative officer to conduct a primary investigation. If the file is sent back seeking a full investigation I send it back to the Commission. If the Commissioners order to conduct a full investigation and when it comes to me I direct the file to the Director Investigation for compliance,” Wickramasinghe claimed.

According to Wickramasinghe bribery investigations are different from police investigations and she as the DG to the Commission has been vested powers under Section 5 of the Act. “This power is delegated to everyone in the Commission. We call the witnesses and the subjects (person in question) for the inquiries. The investigation Officers are independent and carry out independent investigations as neither the Commission nor the DG gets involved in any investigation. The only instance where the DG gets involved is to sign the Section 5 document,” Wickramasinghe said.

Referring to the Parliament Order Paper, Wickramasinghe said that the fourth allegation levelled against her in the Order paper has stated that she has violated the Bribery Act maliciously by calling the former President before the Commission. The Order Paper states as thus, “And whereas, the Constitution and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No:19 of 1994 have been violated by maliciously calling the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa before the Bribery or Corruption Commission for an investigation by making an intimation to the former President by the Director General of the Commission on or without an order from the Commission to appear before the Commission alleging that appointing a Minister by acting on such power is an act of bribery or corruption”.

According to Wickramasinghe, the individuals that are informed to come to the commission are not suspects and added why certain section of parliamentarians are worried when the former President was informed to appear before the Commission for a statement.

“There is no necessity to get agitated just because the former President was asked to give a statement to the Commission. The law is equal to each and every citizen of this country. It is not the Director General that informs the witnesses and the subjects to appear before the Commission but by the Investigation Officers,” Wickramasinghe stated.

She further requested the Parliamentarians who have levelled allegations against her that she has no authority to issue an order to the former President which is in contravention under Section 8(1) of the Act, to study the said Act thoroughly before making statements in the House as people of this country are wise enough to determine their representatives’ knowledge.

The Order Paper state as thus, “And whereas the Section 8(1) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No: 19 of 1994 has been violated by issuing an order to the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa under the signature of the Director General of the Bribery and Corruption Commission in contravention of the order under Section 8(1) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No: 19 of 1994 which specifies that ‘every summon issued by the Commission should carry the signature of the Chairman of the Commission’”.

“True, under Section 8(1), if a summon is issued then it is the Chairman of the Commission that has to place his/her signature but not the Director General. It is the Director General under Section 5 of the Bribery Act that places his/her signature to a notice to ask any individual or party to come to the commission to give a statement. If those who receive this notice do not comply with the order then summons are issued by the Chairman of the Commission. If this too is not heeded, the Commission files action against them for contempt of Bribery Commission in Supreme Court. In this case, I have sent notices under my signature to the former President and MP Tissa Attanayake. In case they failed to comply with my notice, then the Commission Chairman will issue summons to them. If the parliamentarians say that I have violated the Act by issuing such an order, the general public can gauge their knowledge about the country’s law and order,” Wickramasinghe said.

Wickramasinghe further said that the Speaker of the parliament has no authority to summon a public servant to the parliament to question. “I was out of the country when I heard that Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa has summoned the Commission Chairman to parliament to find out why the President has been asked to appear in Bribery Commission. No sooner I heard this, I immediately telephoned Chairman Balapatabendi and since he was unable to be contacted I sent him an SMS asking him not to go parliament as he is the Chairman of the Commission and that the parliament has no mandate to question public officers,” she added.

According to Wickramasinghe, before leaving the country she has gone to meet the Commission Chairman in his office on April 17 together with the Deputy Director General Sunethra Jayasinghe to discuss certain other matters. It was at this juncture that when she formally informed Commission Chairman Jagath Balapatabendi that the former President’s and MP Tissa Attanayake’s investigations have now come to an end and that both of them will be asked to appear before the Commission to record their statements, Balapatabendi has got panicked and wanted to speak to the Investigation Officers.

“Since it is not ethical for us to interfere with the Investigation Officers, Commissioner 3, Dr Jayantha Wickramaratne said that it was not proper to speak with the Investigation Officers and said that they can decide what to do once the report comes to the Commission – whether to file a case or not to. The three Commissioners which include the Chairman were fully aware as it was the three Commissioners that sat together and gave their consent for the preliminary investigations,” Wickramasinghe said. Wickramasinghe further said that she had no clue what was going on in the Commission after she left the country and it is her bounden duty by the general public and her own officers in the Commission to tell what has really happened as she have been tainted as such high level.

She further said when she telephoned Commissioner 3 Jayantha Wickramaratne to find out whether he knew that Chairman Balapatabendi was summon to parliament, she was told he was not aware of it.

“Upon my return to the country on April 22, I immediately called for a Commission meeting as I had a directive from the Chairman relating to a different matter. At this occasion I raised this issue and asked the Chairman whether he went to which he said yes. He then said on April 21, whilst he was at his residence, the Secretary General Parliament has informed him to come to the Parliament together with the DG to meet the Speaker. When he told that the DG is out of the country the Speaker has then spoken to him and has wanted him to come to the parliament. Since the Chairman has told the Speaker that he cannot come as his driver is not available, the Speaker has sent him a parliament vehicle,” Wickramasinghe added.

It was at this point Commissioner 3 Jayantha Wickramaratne informed the Chairman that it was inappropriate for him to have gone to the parliament as Bribery Commission is an independent Commission. “When Chairman made excuses it then created a heated argument between the Chairman and the Commissioner 3. The gist of Commissioner 3’s argument was why the Chairman failed to call or inform him about the Speaker’s request. It was then Commissioner 2 Justice L.K. Wimalachandra confirmed that he too was not aware of this and he too was not informed. They said that the Chairman should not have gone to meet the Speaker when the Commission was the subject matter of discussion in the House. Commissioner Wickramaratne however was in a position that the Chairman has compromised the independence of the Commission,” she added.

According to Wickramasinghe, it was at this point Commission Chairman has stated that he did not go to meet the Speaker as the Chairman but as a classmate and a friend to meet the speaker only to help him out who was in a difficult situation.

“He simply said ‘Bala met Chamal in an unofficial chat over a cup of tea at his chambers in Parliament. It was only then I asked him whether he gave an assurance that he was willing to send bribery officials to the parliament to record statements of suspects in the future as the Speaker has stated in parliament. The Chairman denied of giving such an assurance and accused Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa of making such statement in parliament,” Wickramasinghe said. Wickramasinghe further said as to how the Commission Chairman has told her when she informed him that the parliament has made several allegations against her that she as the DG is arbitrarily conducting investigations and the Commissioners had no knowledge of them especially in Tissa Attanayake’s investigation, that he cannot recollect about Tissa Attanayake’s matter.

“When I reminded him whether he cannot remember that he wanted to bring the Investigation officers before the Commission when he was told that the former President and Attanayake’s evidence would be recorded in few days as their investigation was at the tail end, Chairman Balapatabendi was able to recall his memory,” she said.

Meanwhile a legal luminary on condition of anonymity accused the MPs who have accused the Bribery DG of breaching the duty of preserving the confidentiality as set out in Section 17 of the Bribery Act by giving wide publicity to the issuance of a summon to the former president through all national papers and electronic media, queried why they could not question Bribery Commission Chairman Jagath Balapatabendi’s suitability to stay in his post when he violated the provisions relating to secrecy which he is bound to comply with as a member of the Bribery Commission.

“According to Section 17 of the Bribery Commission Act No: 19 of 1994, every member of the commission, the Director General, every officer or servant appointed to assist the commission shall before entering upon the duties of his office, sign a declaration that he will not disclose any formation received by him, or coming to his knowledge in the exercise and the discharge of his powers and functions under this Act except for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Although Balapatabendi is bound to protect the confidentiality of the commission work, he has disclosed some of the secret details about former CJ Shirani Bandaranayake’s investigations to the media, by violating provisions related to secrecy.

According to Section 22 of the Bribery Commission Act, any person who breaches the secrecy provisions in Section 17 of the Act is liable to imprisonment. Every officer who acts in contravention of the duty imposed on him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be convicted after summary trial before a magistrate and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding hundred thousand rupees or both such fine and imprisonment,” sources added.