Two recent reports in the Sri Lankan press (see Daily Mirror, 7th March 2006) have brought to light statements made by the Director General of the Commission of Bribery and Corruption and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) on the issue of corruption.
The Director General on the Commission of Bribery and Corruption is quoted as saying that:
“Some 68% of those in the government service appear to be involved in bribery and corruption (and) that if the increasing trend of bribery and corruption continued; it might also spark more terrorism in the country.”
While the IGP, referring to the Auditor General’s latest report on the Police Department, is quoted as saying:
“…that corrupt officers were liable to be blacklisted, taking into account the corruption and fraud cases pending against them.”
In the same article he went on to say:
“One of the shocking revelations highlighted in the AG’s report was where certain senior officers had swindled thousands of rupees in the police cash reward scheme. Cash rewards of Rs. 1,500 were regularly paid to individuals or groups of police officers for outstanding service in the field but reportedly, the audit report highlighted occasions where the figures were altered to read Rs. 15,000.”
And the IGP went on to remark that:
“…the audit report on individual police stations were so serious that if action was to be taken, then most officers would be liable to be sacked.”
Both reports will not come as any surprise to the average Sri Lankan citizen, as he or she has always been aware of such corruption as a way of life in the country. The comments of the Director General and the IGP will also likely not give rise to great expectations from the average citizen or close observer of institutional functioning in Sri Lanka, as such statements are often made, but typically no concrete action then follows.
It may be relevant to ask why Sri Lanka has failed to develop an effective anti-corruption system. Hong Kong, for example, which is also a former British colony, has developed one of the world’s best known anti-corruption agencies: the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC). Similar statements to those made by the Director General on the Commission of Bribery and Corruption and the IGP would not be made in Hong Kong. Any sign of the re-emergence of serious allegations of corruption would lead to popular uproar, calling for strong counteraction, including the resignations of such high-level officials for their failure to implement effective anti-corruption policies.
Sri Lanka’s failings in this regard are intrinsically linked to inefficiencies in the administration of justice in the country. The World Bank, in an appraisal report published in 2000, detailed the causes of this inefficiency and has even provided US$ 18.2 million to try to address some of these problems. The appraisal report in particular pointed to the delays in the adjudication process. It stated that a delay of five years or more is quite normal in Sri Lanka. In fact, five years is a very conservative estimate. Such delays are known to everyone, including the main arms of the administration of justice: the police, the Attorney General and judges. However, nobody appears to be proposing any solutions to this situation: one High Court judge has even mournfully referred to having to deal with such delays as his karume (karma).
What interests us here is that widespread corruption and delays in the justice system are causally linked. There cannot be any effective process for the elimination of bribery and corruption without making significant progress in the area of the elimination of delays in adjudication.
Hong Kong’s success with the ICAC is linked to legal reforms that created a speedy process of adjudication. In this system, a trial in a criminal case takes approximately one year, with the appeal process taking only a few months. This is now the norm in most countries where there is a credible system of administration of justice.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is of the view that the elimination of corruption begins at the level of measures taken to eliminate delays in the adjudication process. Today, in Sri Lanka, the adjudication process in criminal trials favours the perpetrators at all levels. Long delays before the filing of a criminal case often allow hardened criminals to escape through a range of means. Thereafter, the process of corruption enables and engenders victim intimidation and the harassment of complainants. Added to this is the problem of frailty. When people forget details concerning crimes after long years, it can only assist a shrewd counsel for the defence in making the victims and their witnesses appear as liars. An atmosphere of cynicism hovers over the criminal justice process in the country. This permits criminals to all too often challenge the system with a “catch me if you can” attitude.
The Director General on the Commission of Bribery and Corruption has warned that terrorism may become even worse if corruption continues unabated. The IGP, for his part, has warned that there may be nobody left in the police if serious action is taken against corruption. If this bewildering situation is to be resolved, the mind of any sincere policy-maker should tackle the issue of delays in adjudication. If no progress is made in this area, the prediction of both these senior officers risks coming true sooner than anyone expects.
