ACCS fate?

The Anti-Corruption Committee Secretariat (ACCS) is waiting on the Government to decide its fate after its tenure lapsed at the end of last month. Appointed by a Cabinet paper presented by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, during 28 months it has received 1,243 complaints and underpins the Government’s anti-corruption drive. 

The ACCS was established to funnel anti-corruption cases to investigative departments including the Financial Crimes Investigative Decision (FCID) and the Bribery and Corruption Commission. The step came after the Joint Opposition charged that the investigation of corruption allegations were done on the order of top members of the current Government and the process needed to be “depoliticised”. 

Be that as it may, the ACCS has amassed a significant number of complaints over the last two years with reports indicating that 29 ministers of the former Government, 15 ministers of the present Government and 50 public officials that served under both have had complaints lodged against them. Given that anti-corruption measures have been languishing and few steps have been taken to implement the pledges made by the Government on this front, it is imperative that the ACCS is empowered to continue its work and deliver substantial gains on improving good governance to the public.        

Earlier this year Transparency International ranked Sri Lanka at 95 on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2016, dropping down the rank by 12 slots when compared to 2015. The report ranks countries according to the perceived level of public sector corruption. Sri Lanka was ranked 95 out of 176 counties with a poor score of 36 when compared to 2015 when the country was ranked 83 among 168 countries.

Despite the passing of the Right to Information Act and the adoption of the Open Government Partnership National Action Plan, Sri Lanka is yet to see anti-corruption rhetoric become converted into strong action. Sri Lanka sliding down the CPI index in 2016 is a strong message to policymakers and the top officeholders of this Government. 

The public have also clearly become disillusioned by this Government’s inability to push forward reforms in the Judiciary and other law enforcement mechanisms to try key corruption cases and put powerful offenders behind bars. 

Public disappointment is not just limited to completing investigations and seeing an end to judicial hearings. The Government has also failed to set up systems that would protect against the abuse of public funds, improve transparency and allow the pubic to have access to Government decision-making processes. 

Even disaster management, waste disposal systems and fighting dengue have become embattled in this process, as bureaucracy, red tape and institutional inertia have enveloped key public services. It is only when political will is applied to specific areas that things get moving but often they are slow, overlapping and fail to use resources efficiently.    

Whether it is having garbage collected or the more serious mitigating attacks on religious institutions, the public simply wants the Government to implement the law. Where the law is either too narrow or inadequate they expect it to be reformed progressively and directed swiftly. The public had high expectations for anti-corruption and have been dealt a very poor hand. They may just return the same when the next election comes around.