Font size: 
Regarding the undeclared assets of Rs 450 million, the officer in charge of the Investigations Unit of the Bribery Commission filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court. According to this affidavit, Inspector of Police Nihal Amarasiri and Inspector K.A. Sugatha Kumari were transferred from their positions as investigators under the Bribery and Corruption Commission in order to prevent them from further investigating the case against the minister’s undeclared assets.
According to the affidavit, the two inspectors were summoned by the head of the commission to dissuade them from pursuing their inquiries. The minister, who had been summoned to come before the commission, failed to do so on two occasions. Instead the two officers were transferred.
In the case of the construction worker, Sarath Kumara Naidos, the value of the gold items he allegedly stole from a house has not even been confirmed. Naidos was brought to the Moratuwa Police Station and held from July 5 to 13. During that time he was severely assaulted, sometimes after being hung by the wrists, while the investigating officers demanded that he return the gold he had allegedly stolen.
The man’s denial of the charges, even after many days of severe assault, did not deter the investigators. When on July 13, due to complaints that had been made to the outside, Naidos was produced before a magistrate, the police officers added further charges, one of which was a fabricated charge of the possession of 2,300 milligrams of heroin. This was done to prevent the magistrate from granting bail to this unfortunate man.
From the point of view of the gravity of the two offenses, the purported offense of the minister’s undeclared assets amounting to Rs. 450 million would probably outweigh the offense of the construction worker by almost a million times. However, from the point of view of the treatment of the two alleged criminals, the one charged with the much smaller offense was subjected to punishment of the most severe kind at the stage of the inquiry itself, while in the other case it was the inquiring officers who were punished.
We are not for one moment suggesting that the minister should have been hung by the wrists and beaten like the construction worker, but there is certainly a disparity in the manner in which the two “criminals” have been treated. There is something terribly strange and comical about the way inquiries into criminal offenses are being conducted in these instances.
Even in many Asian countries, for example in Hong Kong, if the officers were conducting an inquiry into undeclared assets of any amount, leaving aside such a large amount such as Rs. 450 million, the inquiry would have been conducted mostly on documentary evidence and if there was sufficient evidence the alleged culprit would be arrested. After arrest he would be politely treated and given a chance to make a statement if he wished to. Thereafter the case would have been brought before the court. The fate of the alleged culprit would have depended entirely on the law meted out by a competent and impartial judiciary.
In the case of the construction worker the investigating officers would have checked the information before he was arrested. Forensic evidence such as fingerprints and other forms of evidence would have been collected. As for any direct or indirect witnesses, their statements would also have been recorded and evaluated. The alleged culprit would have had the opportunity to make a statement and then the case would be decided according to the law, again by a competent and impartial judiciary.
A further case of special treatment for ministers in criminal inquiries came to light in the case where the notorious minister, Mervyn Silva, and some of his goons attempted to grab a television camera from a cameraman of the well-known channel Sirasa. The entire episode was videotaped by other cameramen and aired on television. On the basis of a report made by the police the magistrate ordered all those who had violated the law in this incident to be arrested.
Although this happened a week ago, Minister Silva has not been arrested. Perhaps the unwritten law today is that it is not only the president who enjoys impunity but also his ministers. Perhaps police officers fear that any apparent lack of respect for ministers may have a disastrous impact on their careers as was manifest in the earlier case of the two officers inquiring into alleged corruption of another minister.
The way these inquiries have been conducted manifests not only a criminal justice system that has gone horribly wrong but also a political system that can only be described as pathetically flawed. If both investigations had been comic scripts this could have provided ample opportunity for amusement. However, when these situations are real there is very little to laugh about. This reminds us of a popular saying in Kerala, India, which goes, “If a dog is mad it can be tied with a chain, but what if the chain itself goes mad?”
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia. His blog can be read at http://srilanka-lawlessness.com.)
