Tackling the Scourge of Corruption
Photo courtesy of Blue Lanka Tours
Sri Lanka was ranked as the 121st least corrupt nation out of 180 countries according to the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International. Sri Lanka scored a 32 on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The country ranked number one is perceived to have the most honest public sector. Sri Lanka’s score has declined every year since the 2020 Index, in which it scored 38.
Corruption is a critical development issue that has been discussed widely during the last two to three decades. It directly affects the welfare of citizens by decreasing public investments in health, education, infrastructure, security, housing and plantations. One of the more recent forms of corruption is through public procurement because of the lack of transparency with transactions that happen within the government.
The IMF’s governance diagnostic report provided convincing evidence of widespread corruption. It acknowledges that “governance and corruption issues have imperiled national and social well-being”.
One simple way to define corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gains by political leaders or public officials. It is a form of dishonesty or criminal activity undertaken by a person or organization to acquire illicit benefits. Forms of corruption include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft and embezzlement. Corruption occurs in both the public and private sectors.
Corruption undermines economic development and threatens state security. It also undermines democratic values. UN member states acknowledged the threat of corruption to the development process and have included Goal 16 into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calling on states to substantially reduce corruption in all its forms.
In the public sector, politicians distort the order of public spending, disregarding economic principles applied to prioritise projects and allocate budgets for activities that lead to larger bribes or commissions. Corrupt politicians support large infrastructure developments such as roads, power plants and harbours because of opportunities for larger commissions or personal political gains. The Lotus Tower, the Magam Ruhunupura International Convention Centre, the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport, the Hambantota International Port, the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium and many highways in the country are examples of such worthless projects.
The IMF governance diagnostic report gave 89 recommendations to fight corruption with 16 being priority recommendations including improving the legal frameworks for anti-corruption, asset declaration by political leaders and higher ranking government officials, strengthening the role of the Auditor General, investigation of corruption cases and money laundering, transparent and accountable public investment management, state-owned enterprise reforms and management, transparency and accountability in tax policy reforms and rule of law.
As part of its series on Assessing the Key Issues Facing the NPP Government, Groundviews spoke to Dhewni Dias, Advocacy and Research Officer at Transparency International Sri Lanka about tackling the scourge of corruption.
What is your assessment of the government’s progress on anti-corruption so far?
It’s good to keep in mind that it has only been six months. But in terms of rhetoric and narrative, it’s all the right things that you want to hear. From the inception of the election campaign, they have been running on a very strong anti-corruption and clean governance party line. That is hopeful in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time or ever before. We have seen certain things such as the president’s promise to keep 22 cabinet ministers to prevent misuse of funds and to prevent wastages. We have seen things like the initiation of an independent prosecution office, which is a huge step forward and is a critical reform that is needed. We have seen the first steps to establishing such an office. We have heard from police and law enforcement that they feel freer from political influence and they feel there’s more political will that enables them to do their jobs and investigate free from influence. This is also a big step forward. We have seen a lot of revelations coming out in reports, especially parliamentary committee reports, about alleged corruption and mishandling of funds. But on the other hand, we also need to see follow up action, which is crucial in the coming months. We have seen concerning things as well, such as a conflict of interest regarding the president’s senior economic advisor with vested interests in the private sector and how he has access to sensitive information in his advisory role. Would it give him an unfair competitive advantage? Then we have the Clean Sri Lanka Initiative, which again in rhetoric and narrative is encouraging, but there is a lack of information and clarity and visibility in terms of what it actually entails, what the anti-corruption measures are and what steps are being taken. We have this vague and broad initiative that looks good for messaging but what are the objectives and the activities that will actually lead to a clean Sri Lanka, clean governance as it claims to? Another concerning revelation was to do with Sathosa. We saw allegations of corruption there that a procurement process was violated where a tender was withdrawn to favour a specific supplier. The allegation was refuted in parliament but what’s needed is more tangible evidence to show the public that through transparency and documentation made publicly accessible there are tangible efforts towards anti-corruption as opposed to simply in rhetoric or narrative.
How can the mindset that corruption is normal be changed?
What we have now, what we probably didn’t have before, is a top down approach stemming from the president himself, who has a very strong anti-corruption and clean governance stance. It is a big step forward that it comes from the top, that high level is relatively cleaner and will trickle down to low level and mid level public officials. In terms of society and that idea that corruption is normal, I think that stems from a severe deficiency of public trust in the government. Since independence Sri Lanka has only known that corruption is essential to get things done in this country. That cannot be changed overnight and cannot be changed by just a change in the administration. There needs to be changes in the public sector, in how public institutions operate and there needs to be accountability. The public needs to see high level accountability, prosecution and punishment for actual corruption and financial crimes for people to actually believe and change that mindset of corruption being normal. It takes a lot of capacitating of public institutions and public sector to remove resistance that exists in the public sector to be more transparent and accountable. We often see that when there are calls for transparency and accountability such as through RTIs, which is a huge anti-corruption tool, there’s a lot of resistance by the public sector because they feel like it’s an indictment on them. That change needs to come through changing the understanding why transparency and accountability is important for governance and not as an indictment on the public sector or public officials. That change needs to be made by capacity building or knowledge sharing in terms of making the connection between transparency and better governance. It’s a lot to do with public trust. They need to see that people are being held accountable and that corruption will be punished as opposed to rewarded. When that tangible change is seen and trust is built is when the idea that corruption is normal in Sri Lanka can change.
There are many corruption cases that are brought before the courts and they are dismissed because of lack of evidence. How can this situation be changed?
What we see is more than cases being dismissed by the courts; we see is cases being withdrawn. Two main entities for prosecuting corruption cases are the Attorney General and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CABOC). We have consistently seen them citing lack of evidence to withdraw cases that they have already initiated. This is contradictory because when deciding whether to prosecute a case, evidence that exists is always taken into account. It’s analysed and based on that evidence, the decision to prosecute is taken. Once the decision to prosecute is taken, citing lack of evidence in terms of withdrawing it is deeply problematic. It can either be because of gross mismanagement of the investigation that has fallen apart or political influence and interference that has resulted in the withdrawal. Both of those things need to be addressed in order for cases to see progress. In the case of the Attorney General, there is an inherent conflict of interest in his role because he acts as the chief prosecutor in the country as well as the chief legal advisor to the government. That hamstrings the Attorney General in prosecuting high level corruption cases. He cannot operate independently. Judicial reform needs to happen where we establish an independent prosecutor’s office. There have been steps being taken for the first time to do this. The second entity is the Bribery Commission. The bribery commission has powers to prosecute cases and initiate investigations on their own volition. We haven’t seen these powers being use to full effect. We have seen cases being instituted and withdrawn due to a lack of evidence. This has been a recurring issue with the CABOC. They have cited issues such as lack of capacity and lack of resources as reasons for this. In the 2025 budget the CABOC has been allocated significantly more funds than it has had in the previous years. That’s a good sign from the current government.
We always talk about the government but isn’t the private sector also responsible for the level of corruption?
The private sector is definitely responsible for the level of corruption. Usually the private sector takes on the roles of either enabler or perpetrator of corruption. Recently and progressively, we have seen that it is more a perpetrator rather than simply an enabler of corruption. There are loopholes that exist not only in the public sector but also in the private sector that are manipulated and taken advantage of for private gain. The onus is on the private sector as much as it is on the public sector to curb corruption and to not engage in corrupt activities. We’re expecting new laws and new mechanisms such as a beneficial ownership register through a Companies Act amendment, which will document and make public the true individual behind any company or any entity. The private sector has to enthusiastically comply with these provisions, with these mechanisms of transparency and accountability. We have new procurement guidelines and a new procurement law coming up. These need to be complied with by the private sector just as much as the public sector. You can’t bypass procurement protocols and you can’t use connections in terms of getting government tenders. There needs to be high compliance and enthusiastic compliance by the private sector.
Should there be stronger legislation to bring people who steal public funds to justice?
There has to be stronger legislation for the recovery of stolen assets. It’s actually a commitment that the government has made under the IMF programme, and a Proceeds of Crime Bill was gazetted. This bill creates the mechanisms and the landscape that is needed to initiate investigations and recover and bring back stolen assets. Either it is a direct victim or it is the Treasury, which means the beneficiary is the people. There are various mechanisms. When you find an asset that can be a proceeds of crime, the investigation officers conduct fact findings. They have the power to seize and freeze assets through judicial orders. The law gives the state the power to forfeit assets. There are two types of forfeiture. There’s non-conviction based forfeiture as well as conviction-based forfeiture. Non-conviction based forfeiture is integral to successful asset recovery because the focus of a law like this has to be on the property as opposed to the person. A criminal conviction isn’t necessarily needed for a property to be seized if it can be proven to be a proceed of crime. The law establishes international cooperation, which is integral if we are to recover stolen assets that have been laundered and stashed in other countries. What’s needed it to work is political will because with no political will, there cannot be the recovery of stolen assets. Mutual legal assistance agreements have to be signed and that only can come from the highest level of governments. Without that asset recovery is just not possible. A true test of this government’s political will be the fast implementation of this law, signing mutual legal assistance agreements as soon as possible and initiating proceedings.
