Public servants and public interest

Average public servants in Sri Lanka are usually a beleaguered lot. They are often under-resourced, lack authority, and criticised for not doing their work, but when they step up in the public’s interest they run afoul of their employer. Gampaha Division Wildlife Officer Devani Jayatilaka is once again in the centre of this interesting quandary for attempting to protect a rare tree and underscore the need to empower public servants to act in the public’s interest.   

If a government is serious about combating corruption, then one of the most effective ways is to encourage whistle-blowing and implement a policy that protects whistle-blowers, particularly in the public sector. But the Government has been more focused on creating a group of people who unquestioningly follow its orders and has increasingly limited space for public officials to dissent and engage in inclusive policymaking. Prolonged shrinking of such space arguably worsens governance and is against public interest. 

Most State or Government-linked organisations in Sri Lanka attempt to muzzle their employees, particularly when they attempt to engage with media, even though whistle-blowers are a powerful weapon against corruption. In fact, in 2016, a school teacher who was penalised for speaking to the media won her case at the Supreme Court and received compensation from the school principal who attempted to fire her for her perceived “disloyalty”. The case underscores the need for public servants to be allowed to play the role of whistle-blower without being penalised, as it is an essential function of good governance.

Governments have a responsibility to facilitate whistle-blowing, and in so doing protect public servants who become whistle-blowers for public interest. Laws which recognise the right of those who act in the public interest not to suffer harm or threats of harm and which build on the democratic principles of free speech and freedom of information are critical. They provide individuals a safe alternative to the silence that allows negligence and wrongdoing to take root.

In this instance, it is appalling that the officer may have to face a disciplinary inquiry and has even been censured by the Environment Minister. This is completely unfair and undermines the possibility for other public servants to come forward with evidence of corruption, mismanagement and wastage. Punishing whistle-blowers will only protect those responsible from being held accountable.   

While it is incumbent on governments to facilitate safe and effective channels for whistle-blowing and to protect whistle-blowers, civil society has a complementary role in advocating for the protection of those who come forward to safeguard public interest, particularly when it challenges Government authority. An engaged civil society can ensure that the legal and practical responses to whistle-blowing are effective and appropriately applied over the long-term. 

A Government that wishes to view itself as genuinely accountable needs to stop crushing its dissenters. In Sri Lanka’s deeply-politicised public sector, top posts are often decided by politicians. Ministry secretaries, for example, are an important part of ensuring transparency and accountability, but could be appointed through political influence. 

Many other public servants, especially those engaged in procurement and tender proceedings, hold just as high if not higher positions of responsibility. Reducing corruption means giving these honest people a chance to speak in an environment of safety and acceptance. Public servants should be allowed to stand for public interest.