Local media outlets report that President Ranil Wickremesinghe and Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe have jointly presented a draft law that provides for the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, marking a significant step in the government’s efforts aimed at combating crimes, especially corruption.

This step comes in a context where the country has accepted serious anti-corruption obligations as part of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Extended Fund Facility programme for Sri Lanka. The move is one among many other steps, which require that the country curbs corruption as it remains one of the key issues in the context of the economic downturn. As per the media reports, this law is proposed in a context where the country is yet to fill the lacuna of not having adequate laws to forfeit properties acquired through the commission of crimes, and provides for the establishment of an agency to protect, manage and preserve known as the Proceeds of Crime Management Authority.

While this is an admirable step in the right direction, we need to acknowledge that the number of anti-corruption efforts under successive governments have failed to yield the expected outcomes. As such, we should also understand that this law alone will not save the country from corruption. The primary concern in Sri Lanka is not only the rampant low-level corruption, but also corruption which occurs at higher levels of the State and political level, where those who abuse their power and loopholes in laws to get away with corruption, have long been out of the reach of the law.

Therefore, one aspect that requires the adequate ‘attention and will’ which enforcement authorities will need to deal with corruption at such levels. They need to be aware of their powers, obligations to the law and the public, and their roles in relation to the proposed law. Earlier efforts of countering-corruption include institutions; the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), Police force, Police Financial Crimes Division (FCID), and in addition, the Central Bank’s units dealing with matters such as money laundering. There are questions as to what these mechanisms have delivered thus far. This is particularly important because last year, Sri Lanka passed the Anti-Corruption Law, which was also welcomed by many parties. As the country keeps introducing newer laws against corruption and related offences, it is crucial that the relevant institutions are made aware of their roles and responsibilities in the scope of these laws. Multiple agencies, and instruments of countering corruption, may lead to overlap of Jurisdiction, scope and conflicts in authority, all of which create more bureaucratic hurdles for effective law enforcement.  The Government must consider streamlining the existing systems and clearly demarcating who does what, and under what circumstance, to avoid confusion, delay and incidentally a possible miscarriage of justice.  

At the same time, Sri Lanka should pay special attention to enforcing these laws to deal with corruption-related issues that have stemmed in the context of the economic downturn, because, during the past few years, black markets and various forms of scams including online ones have emerged and grown. One such pressing issue is mushrooming fake or illegal foreign job agencies which continue to rip people off. While there are ongoing legal actions against these rackets, steps such as confiscating illegally gained properties of scammers will send a message about what scammers would lose if caught.

Moreover, the proposed law provides for civil remedies under which victims of crime can demand damages and compensation, about which the people should know in order for them to benefit from the legal provisions. That is why it is important to give wide publicity to the enforcement and provisions of these laws.

Above all, political authority must be prevented from influencing the enforcement of the proposed law, and it is a key concern that has almost always emerged in the discussion on whether Sri Lanka benefits from the existing laws. The Government should allocate adequate funding and make arrangements to provide the necessary expertise for the relevant institutions, and oversight by a robust, well-regulated parliamentary body.  Most importantly, there need to be checks and balances to ensure politicians and senior public officials refrain from unnecessarily interfering in the enforcement of the law. At the same time, these measures should not be viewed as fulfilling obligations to the IMF, but as fulfilling the Government’s obligations to the people and resuscitating the economy. Given the strife the public has been subjected to due to poor governance, it’s an obligation the State must uphold.