The Latimer House Principles

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne

( February 19, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) From current news reports and essays in the media, one gets the distinct impression that some are dissatisfied with the new regime in Sri Lanka – that it is dragging its feet in bringing to justice miscreants guilty of corruption, cheating and abuse of power of the former regime. The Daily News of 19th February, in a refreshingly balanced editorial says: “They (the public) want the government to go after the big fish rather than net in the sprats. The public naturally feel let down and justifiably so. There is little doubt that a sizable portion of the overwhelming mandate received by President Maithripala Sirisena was for putting to an end the large scale corruption and financial profligacy that was witnessed on an unprecedented scale in post Independence Sri Lanka These segments would naturally feel angry because this mega corruption was at the expense of the public by way of additional taxes and levies on essential items. These feelings are naturally exacerbated when the nature and scale of the corruption is being unraveled in the media almost on a daily basis.”

The overall message the reader receives is that over a month has lapsed since the new regime took over and only the “sprats” are being investigated and that the government is dragging its feet in bringing the guilty sharks to justice.

What is needed to be investigated, if indeed top officials of the previous government were guilty of corruption (for which the proof is yet to come) is an investigation by a body trained to deeply probe, alleged corruption.  The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is a good analogy.

There is also the claim that the new government is doing things that are inconsistent with the rule of law and are quite the opposite of their criticisms of the former government. Kishali Pinto Jayawardene, in an eloquently argued essay in this newspaper calls this The Rule of Law Paradoxes of the Sirisena Presidency and says inter alia: “Indeed, we see unpleasant and worrying paradoxes where observance of the Rule of Law is concerned at other levels. The President’s calling out of the armed forces to exercise police powers under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO) is another case in point. Heavily critiqued during the Rajapaksa tenure, this emphasizes the continued militarization of law enforcement which the Sirisena campaign promised to redress”.

The Daily News has advised in this context that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe has promised the establishment of an Anti Corruption Secretariat to investigate the sharks of corruption.  This is a valid and democratic measure.  However, where the writer gets confused is that to Mr. Wickremasinghe is attributed, as justification for this measure, the Latimer House Principles, on the basis that Mr. Wickremasinghe is reported to have reminded the previous regime of these principles during their tenure of office. It is also claimed that since Sri Lanka’s President is the Chair  of the Commonwealth of Nations Sri Lanka is obligated to abide by  the Latimer House Principles which are guidelines that drive and direct nation members of the Commonwealth in their governance.

The formal title of the Latimer House Principles is  Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability

of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (as agreed by law ministers and endorsed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja, Nigeria, 2003). The three branches of government are the legislature; the judiciary; and the executive, and the principles are mere principles – nothing less, nothing more-  that offer guidelines on how to keep these three branches separate in their functions without overlapping.  The legal term for this practice is separation of powers.   The objective of the Latimer  Principles is to provide, in accordance with the laws and customs of each Commonwealth country, an effective framework for the implementation by governments, parliaments and judiciaries of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values.  Principle IX says that  the promotion of zero-tolerance for corruption is vital to good governance. A transparent and accountable government, together with freedom of expression, encourages the full participation of its citizens in the democratic process.

Steps which may be taken to encourage public sector accountability include: (a) the establishment of scrutiny bodies and mechanisms to oversee Government, enhances public confidence in the integrity and acceptability of government’s activities. Independent bodies such as Public Accounts Committees, Ombudsmen, Human Rights Commissions, Auditors-General, Anti-corruption commissions, Information Commissioners and similar oversight institutions can play a key role in enhancing public awareness of good governance and rule of law issues. Governments are encouraged to establish or enhance appropriate oversight bodies in accordance with national circumstances.

This principle is applicable to government oversight and not to retrospective investigation and certainly not to anti corruption bodies that would look into past corruption activities of defeated regime. It is therefore inconceivable as to how general principles of governance of a body of States  that are irrelevant to the investigation and punishment of  past crimes  can be linked to the investigative process of a sovereign State.

What is needed to the proof is yet to come) is an investigation by a body trained to deeply probe, alleged corruption.  The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is a good analogy.  The FBI’s approach is:  “Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year”.

On this sensible note, the Criminal Investigations Department seems the only logical way to go.  If an Anti Corruption Secretariat is established, it would apply to current governance.  This is probably what Prime Minister Wickremasinghe, himself a lawyer (both academically and professionally)  meant.