By Tharumalee Silva
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) said the organisation would object the appeal made by the Presidential Secretariat to refuse the disclosure of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration.
The Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka (RTIC) made its landmark decision in December 2018 by ordering the Presidential Secretariat to make public Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration.
The inquiry for the asset declaration was submitted under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 of Sri Lanka which declares that members of Parliament are eligible to declare their assets to the public.
However, the Presidential Secretariat refused to disclose information regarding the Prime Minister’s assets.
Filed motions
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, TISL Right to Information Manager Sankhitha Gunaratne stated: “According to the asset declaration law, the asset declaration of the Prime Minister is in the possession of the President. Therefore, TISL earnestly requested the Presidential Secretariat to disclose the Prime Minister’s asset declaration.”
“The first asset declaration request was inquired from the Presidential Secretariats and Prime Minister’s Office respectively, following which both offices refused to divulge information. Then, we appealed to the designated officers instead of the secretariats, according to the RTI procedure. The officers refused to disclose the information yet again,” she said.
In light of this matter, TISL adopted the next level of inquiry and made an earnest request to the RTIC of Sri Lanka, which informed the organisation that: “Firstly, the President must disclose the Prime Minister’s assets to TISL. Secondly, because the document handed over regarding the President specifically requested the President’s asset declaration, the request was deemed invalid as the President, by law, is not required to divulge his assets to the public.”
“Therefore, to combat this, TISL requested an asset declaration of SLFP Leader Maithripala Sirisena as opposed to His Excellency, President Maithripala Sirisena,” Gunaratne continued.
However, in contemporary international politics, presidents of nations and world leaders have been inclined to disclose their assets to gain public certitude and prevent corruption and conjecture.
According to an appraisal conducted by the World Bank in 2012, of 176 jurisdictions, 78% had financial disclosure systems, 93% had disclosure with regards to cabinet ministers, 91% with regards to members of Parliament, and 62% with regards to high-ranking public prosecutors.
“On 4 December, TISL queried the Presidential Secretariat, and was assured that they would take the necessary measures by way of their verdict of submitting the asset declaration of the Prime Minister to the public. But we did not receive any information whatsoever. Similar circumstances were endured by the RTIC as well,” Gunaratne said.
Accordingly, on 5 April, through informal notice, TISL and the RTIC received knowledge that the Presidential Secretariat appealed against the order of the RTIC in the Court of Appeal.
TISL was then misinformed that the appeal would be brought to courts on 4 May, only to be informed that the case has not been registered by the Presidential Secretariat.
Following this, Gunaratne stated that TISL received knowledge that the case would be taken up before the court on 28 June after the returnable notice, where the Presidential Secretariat would oppose the appeal made by the RTIC to make public the Prime Minister’s asset declaration.
Thereafter, the Presidential Secretariat had informed TISL that the Prime Minister’s asset declaration would be disclosed under an affidavit of secrecy, which would hinder TISL’s primal objective of being transparent.
Regardless, according to Gunaratne, TISL refused to accept the proposed suggestion.“This is not about the TISL obtaining the Prime Minister’s asset declaration. It’s about asset declarations becoming available to the public. The purpose of TISL’s appeal to the Presidential Secretariat was public and political accountability to their constituents,” Gunaratne said.
She further informed that since February, seven members of Parliament came forward and unilaterally submitted their asset declarations to the public. The MPs included Tharaka Balasuriya, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, and M.A. Sumanthiran.
Speaking on the matter, RTIC Chairman Mahinda Gammanpila stated: “When an order is given to disclose information by the RTIC, it is mandatory to adhere to it. The only way to refuse an order given by the RTIC is to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka”.
The Chairman also noted: “However, even though we have informally been notified that the Presidential Secretariat has refused the disclosure of Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration, we are yet to receive a formal notice.”
Ethical responsibilities
Following the declaration of his assets and liabilities to the public, MP Tharaka Balasuriya stated to The Sunday Morning that the disclosure of assets and liabilities to the public gains their confidence.
“All MPs are required to hand over their assets and liabilities to the President. However, it remains that the President cannot disclose these documents to the public without the consent of the individual in question. This is a parliamentary privilege,” he explained.
The MP also called attention to the massive dose of corruption Sri Lanka endures politically. He stated if ruling parties declare their assets and liabilities, the accusations brought against them will subside.
He further explained that disclosing information might aid in clearing allegations of bribery among MPs, especially among those who are reputed for switching parties: “In most instances, no such bribery exists. Individual ideologies change with time and ministers and parliamentarians switch parties because of this,” he said.
Balasuriya drew upon similarities between the American President Donald Trump and the Prime Minister, as President Trump refrained from disclosing his tax returns to the public as well, which resulted in a media network publishing a decade worth of tax returns.
To avoid similar situations of embarrassment, Balasuriya stated that it would be advisable for the Prime Minister to personally declare his assets and liabilities to the eyes of the public.
Asked whether the general public may view the Prime Minister in a pessimistic light as an outcome, Balasuriya stated: “We should not assume what the Prime Minister may resort to as an outcome of this issue. We should also not make assumptions as to why the Prime Minister remains hesitant to make public his assets.”
Constitutional reforms
A report published by the World Bank stated: “Limitations on the privacy of public officials by requiring them to disclose their income, assets, and liabilities serves the public interest. Academic studies have shown that public access to information that has been declared is associated with lower levels of perceived corruption”.
The state of Ukraine recently adopted a new “corruption prevention law” on this regard, which requires MPs and other public officials to make a comprehensive declaration of their assets and liabilities.
It should also be noted that 70% of countries in Europe and Central Asia and 97% of organisations for economic co-operation and development have adopted similar laws pertaining to anti-corruption.
Speaking in this regard, Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) Secretary and Senior Attorney-at-Law Kaushalya Nawaratne affirmed that reforming asset declaration laws will be of vital importance in preventing political corruption.
“One of BASL’s primary objectives remains to uphold and make representations to the legislature or other authorities on behalf of the interests of the profession as well as the public,” he said.
When asked whether the BASL will make recommendations to reform the existing asset declaration laws pertaining to public officers, Nawaratne eagerly stated: “In the near future, after conducting a comprehensive analysis, the BASL will look into publishing a report to amend the existing laws pertaining to anti-corruption and asset declaration of public officers”.
Relevant laws
According to the declaration of assets and liabilities law, No.1 of 1975
2. (L) the provisions of this law shall apply to every person belonging to any one of the following classes or descriptions of persons:-
(a) Members of Parliament;
(b) Judges and public officers appointed by the President, public officers appointed by the Cabinet of ministers, judicial officers, and scheduled public officers appointed by the Judicial Service Commission and staff officers in ministries and government departments;
Denial of information according to the Right to Information act no. 12 of 2016.
5.
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection
(2) A request under this Act for access to information shall be refused, where –
(a) the information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information or the person concerned has consented in writing to such disclosure;
(b) Disclosure of such information –
i. would undermine the defence of the State or its territorial integrity or national security;
ii. would be or is likely to be seriously prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s relations with any State, or in relation to international agreements or obligations under international law, where such information was given by or obtained in confidence;
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) said the organisation would object the appeal made by the Presidential Secretariat to refuse the disclosure of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration.
The Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka (RTIC) made its landmark decision in December 2018 by ordering the Presidential Secretariat to make public Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration.
The inquiry for the asset declaration was submitted under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 of Sri Lanka which declares that members of Parliament are eligible to declare their assets to the public.
However, the Presidential Secretariat refused to disclose information regarding the Prime Minister’s assets.
Filed motions
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, TISL Right to Information Manager Sankhitha Gunaratne stated: “According to the asset declaration law, the asset declaration of the Prime Minister is in the possession of the President. Therefore, TISL earnestly requested the Presidential Secretariat to disclose the Prime Minister’s asset declaration.”
“The first asset declaration request was inquired from the Presidential Secretariats and Prime Minister’s Office respectively, following which both offices refused to divulge information. Then, we appealed to the designated officers instead of the secretariats, according to the RTI procedure. The officers refused to disclose the information yet again,” she said.
In light of this matter, TISL adopted the next level of inquiry and made an earnest request to the RTIC of Sri Lanka, which informed the organisation that: “Firstly, the President must disclose the Prime Minister’s assets to TISL. Secondly, because the document handed over regarding the President specifically requested the President’s asset declaration, the request was deemed invalid as the President, by law, is not required to divulge his assets to the public.”
“Therefore, to combat this, TISL requested an asset declaration of SLFP Leader Maithripala Sirisena as opposed to His Excellency, President Maithripala Sirisena,” Gunaratne continued.
However, in contemporary international politics, presidents of nations and world leaders have been inclined to disclose their assets to gain public certitude and prevent corruption and conjecture.
According to an appraisal conducted by the World Bank in 2012, of 176 jurisdictions, 78% had financial disclosure systems, 93% had disclosure with regards to cabinet ministers, 91% with regards to members of Parliament, and 62% with regards to high-ranking public prosecutors.
“On 4 December, TISL queried the Presidential Secretariat, and was assured that they would take the necessary measures by way of their verdict of submitting the asset declaration of the Prime Minister to the public. But we did not receive any information whatsoever. Similar circumstances were endured by the RTIC as well,” Gunaratne said.
Accordingly, on 5 April, through informal notice, TISL and the RTIC received knowledge that the Presidential Secretariat appealed against the order of the RTIC in the Court of Appeal.
TISL was then misinformed that the appeal would be brought to courts on 4 May, only to be informed that the case has not been registered by the Presidential Secretariat.
Following this, Gunaratne stated that TISL received knowledge that the case would be taken up before the court on 28 June after the returnable notice, where the Presidential Secretariat would oppose the appeal made by the RTIC to make public the Prime Minister’s asset declaration.
Thereafter, the Presidential Secretariat had informed TISL that the Prime Minister’s asset declaration would be disclosed under an affidavit of secrecy, which would hinder TISL’s primal objective of being transparent.
Regardless, according to Gunaratne, TISL refused to accept the proposed suggestion.“This is not about the TISL obtaining the Prime Minister’s asset declaration. It’s about asset declarations becoming available to the public. The purpose of TISL’s appeal to the Presidential Secretariat was public and political accountability to their constituents,” Gunaratne said.
She further informed that since February, seven members of Parliament came forward and unilaterally submitted their asset declarations to the public. The MPs included Tharaka Balasuriya, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, and M.A. Sumanthiran.
Speaking on the matter, RTIC Chairman Mahinda Gammanpila stated: “When an order is given to disclose information by the RTIC, it is mandatory to adhere to it. The only way to refuse an order given by the RTIC is to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka”.
The Chairman also noted: “However, even though we have informally been notified that the Presidential Secretariat has refused the disclosure of Wickremesinghe’s asset declaration, we are yet to receive a formal notice.”
Ethical responsibilities
Following the declaration of his assets and liabilities to the public, MP Tharaka Balasuriya stated to The Sunday Morning that the disclosure of assets and liabilities to the public gains their confidence.
“All MPs are required to hand over their assets and liabilities to the President. However, it remains that the President cannot disclose these documents to the public without the consent of the individual in question. This is a parliamentary privilege,” he explained.
The MP also called attention to the massive dose of corruption Sri Lanka endures politically. He stated if ruling parties declare their assets and liabilities, the accusations brought against them will subside.
He further explained that disclosing information might aid in clearing allegations of bribery among MPs, especially among those who are reputed for switching parties: “In most instances, no such bribery exists. Individual ideologies change with time and ministers and parliamentarians switch parties because of this,” he said.
Balasuriya drew upon similarities between the American President Donald Trump and the Prime Minister, as President Trump refrained from disclosing his tax returns to the public as well, which resulted in a media network publishing a decade worth of tax returns.
To avoid similar situations of embarrassment, Balasuriya stated that it would be advisable for the Prime Minister to personally declare his assets and liabilities to the eyes of the public.
Asked whether the general public may view the Prime Minister in a pessimistic light as an outcome, Balasuriya stated: “We should not assume what the Prime Minister may resort to as an outcome of this issue. We should also not make assumptions as to why the Prime Minister remains hesitant to make public his assets.”
Constitutional reforms
A report published by the World Bank stated: “Limitations on the privacy of public officials by requiring them to disclose their income, assets, and liabilities serves the public interest. Academic studies have shown that public access to information that has been declared is associated with lower levels of perceived corruption”.
The state of Ukraine recently adopted a new “corruption prevention law” on this regard, which requires MPs and other public officials to make a comprehensive declaration of their assets and liabilities.
It should also be noted that 70% of countries in Europe and Central Asia and 97% of organisations for economic co-operation and development have adopted similar laws pertaining to anti-corruption.
Speaking in this regard, Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) Secretary and Senior Attorney-at-Law Kaushalya Nawaratne affirmed that reforming asset declaration laws will be of vital importance in preventing political corruption.
“One of BASL’s primary objectives remains to uphold and make representations to the legislature or other authorities on behalf of the interests of the profession as well as the public,” he said.
When asked whether the BASL will make recommendations to reform the existing asset declaration laws pertaining to public officers, Nawaratne eagerly stated: “In the near future, after conducting a comprehensive analysis, the BASL will look into publishing a report to amend the existing laws pertaining to anti-corruption and asset declaration of public officers”.
Relevant laws
According to the declaration of assets and liabilities law, No.1 of 1975
2. (L) the provisions of this law shall apply to every person belonging to any one of the following classes or descriptions of persons:-
(a) Members of Parliament;
(b) Judges and public officers appointed by the President, public officers appointed by the Cabinet of ministers, judicial officers, and scheduled public officers appointed by the Judicial Service Commission and staff officers in ministries and government departments;
Denial of information according to the Right to Information act no. 12 of 2016.
5.
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection
(2) A request under this Act for access to information shall be refused, where –
(a) the information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information or the person concerned has consented in writing to such disclosure;
(b) Disclosure of such information –
i. would undermine the defence of the State or its territorial integrity or national security;
ii. would be or is likely to be seriously prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s relations with any State, or in relation to international agreements or obligations under international law, where such information was given by or obtained in confidence;