When thieves fall out
by Somapala Gunadheera-September 20, 2016
The editorial made the undeniable assumptions that the public perception was that bribery and corruption were rampant under the previous government and that some holding ministerial posts in the current Government had apparently been able to cleanse themselves of their sins to all intents and purposes. In the background of the SC order to take action against Namal Rajapaksha for defying the summons of the CIABOC, the editorial raises the question whether any member of the present Government defying the summons of the same Commission had been similarly dealt with. To clinch its point, the editorial suggestively asks whether any JO worthies would ask in Parliament how many MPs have been asked to appear before the CIABOC and how many have ignored the summons? In this scenario, ‘the coming colour is not good’ for those in power.
To sum up the present deadlock, people are getting tired of seeing VIPs of the last regime being arrested and re-arrested in a row and being remanded. These personages capitalize on their arrests by triumphantly exhibiting their handcuffs on their way to the remand jail and boldly claiming that they are being unfairly victimized as a shield to cover up the failures of the Government in power. Then follows a procession of politicians, displaced by the present regime, visiting the remanded.The privileged visitors make similar claims and carry parcels, immune to regular inspection. The main purpose of remand, which it to keep the prisoner incommunicado, is defeated by this traffic. Strangely, the remand order works far more effectively than the most advanced techniques to discover hitherto for undetected ailments of the remand prisoner and he is placed in a special ward soon after arrival in prison. Some VIPs go through this procedure repeatedly but the Public are yet to see the proof on any guilt attributed to those remanded.
This rigmarole has only resulted in a pantomime that creates sympathy for the arrested and ridicule for those trying to bring them to justice. The ultimate result would be disbelief in the public mind, even if those charged are proved guilty at some remote future date. That makes a fiasco of the tottering efforts of the administration to punish the culprits. This situation underscores the failure of the new regime to handle the processes of governance to an effective end. Most probably this predicament may stem from the lack of experience of the new comers. They have been long in the wilderness. Those they have selected to run the administration may not be the best available. Although these helpers have a favourable political will, they may not have the experience to deal with the situation. Alternatively, the selected experts may be too fossilized by now to rise to the occasion. It is high time that those in power take an informed look at the current management structure and processes. The PM’s attempts to obtain external assistance in this area, though resisted by the left, may be due to his realization of the management shortfall.
The other aspect that vitiates the government’s integrity is the apparent effort to save their supporters who are alleged to have committed offences similar to what their opponents are charged with. One example of this discriminatory approach is the above mentioned charge framed against Namal Rajapaksa. Following this overture, questions raised in Parliament are likely to focus on similar cases in which the CIABOC has acted differently. The answers to such questions may bring out cases in which no such action has been taken against those supporting the government. Simultaneously, the FR jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be invoked to challenge the discriminatory action taken against NR. Such moves would naturally reflect on the bona fides of Yahapalanaya. (Those liable to be charged, after their misconduct is brought to judicial notice, still have a chance of mitigating their offence, by appearing before the CIABOC, before they are arraigned in Court.)
Looking at this problem pragmatically, an impartial observer may see the reason behind the dichotomy faced by those in power. They are dependent on a conglomeration of politicians of different hues and background. Whether they approve of the conduct of their associates or not, the survival of those in power obviously depends on the continued support of their partners. In that scenario action against such persons can lead to the latter’s withdrawal, possibly resulting even in a change of Government with the miscreants joining the opponents to form a Government that may reverse the balance of power. To use a popular native saying, the Government is placed in the predicament of a man who is compelled to cut the branch on which he is sitting. Hence, the reluctance to deal with the supporting wrongdoers.
The ongoing accusations of discrimination against those opposed to the Government stem from the failure of the rulers to deal with their supporters and opponents evenly in the matter of prosecutions. But the Government may be able to eat the cake and have it by resorting to strategy. It will face such a dilemma only if it takes upon itself the task of unilaterally deciding on the Parliamentarians against whom legal action should be taken. They can avoid this embarrassment by outsourcing their function. This can be done by nominating a high-powered committee to arrange and prioritize the list of prosecutions. This committee may be composed of about five members, consisting of retired Superior Courts Judges, outstanding legal officers and top administrators. If appointments made to such committee are made without bias and obligation, in such a way as to make it universally acceptable, prosecutions can be lodged as nominated by the committee, irrespective of the side from which an accused is named. The committee will work on a target and arrange for the speedy clearance of the mandate on a uniform basis, clearing the roadblocks on the way.
Procedure must be so arranged as not to vitiate the atmosphere with arrests, handcuffs and remands that overload the atmosphere with tension and emotion.It is unthinkable that any person likely to be arraigned would resort to conduct that necessitates such measures. In the event of an exceptional situation, government has enough power to deal with it adequately. Every one holding office at the time an indictment is made against him shall be temporarily released from his office with an acting appointment. He will definitely revert to his post if he manages to exculpate himself from the charge/s levelled against him.He would be replaced only if he is convicted, at which point he would be reduced to a nonentity. With the conviction, he would have lost his bargaining power to upset the apple cart and the ends of justice would stand unimpaired in the public eye.
