Parliamentarian Ali Sabri Raheem, allegedly attempting to smuggle gold and mobile phones into Sri Lanka, misusing his very important personal status, is not just a matter of Raheem’s conduct or the illegal entering of goods into the country. While legal actions were taken against the MP, although many felt that they were inadequate especially considering the value of the goods that he allegedly tried to smuggle into the country, this incident has pointed out some deep-rooted issues in the existing system that deals with MPs’ conduct.

Although Raheem’s incident pertains to the overall image of the Parliament and of the public representatives that enter the Parliament, at present, there seems to be no adequately strong legal provisions for the Parliament to take actions, especially removal, of MPs with questionable conduct. This has been pointed out in the discussions that followed Raheem’s incident, and MPs of both the Ruling and Opposition parties have come forward in unison to stress the importance of the Parliament being adequately empowered in the said manner. According to Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP and Chief Opposition Whip, Attorney Lakshman Kiriella, although certain MPs have been removed from their positions in the past for misbehaving, the existing provisions provide for the removal of MPs only in cases of criminal charges. The solution, according to Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna MP and General Secretary, Attorney Sagara Kariyawasam, is the introduction of the necessary provisions through a Constitutional amendment.

The solution is clear. If there are no adequate legal provisions to rid the Parliament of MPs who have failed to uphold the trust that the public have kept in them, necessary laws should be introduced. It is the responsibility of the MPs as public representatives and lawmakers, and this endeavour should not concern political or other biases. Needless to say, although it was following Raheem’s incident that the need for such Constitutional and legal reforms emerged, in a context where MPs engaging in questionable, including illegal and immoral acts, is not uncommon in Sri Lanka, such reforms are a long term measure that could be used against any MP that disrespects the public’s trust or the Parliament’s image.

Raheem’s incident could actually be the starting point of progressive changes in the manner in which the Parliament deals with MPs with questionable conduct. The first step, that is introducing the necessary legal reforms, could be achieved through either an Act of Parliament or a constitutional amendment. In fact, the Constitution already recognises the concept called ‘moral turpitude’ which the Oxford Dictionary refers to as “some level of depravity, infamy or grossness in wrongdoing”. In fact, one of the grounds on which a request could be made that the Executive President of Sri Lanka be removed is if the President has been found guilty of “any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude and setting out the full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seeking an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court.” It is concerning as to why a state of behaviour that is applicable to the Executive President of the country is not applicable to a MP. However, actions against MPs with questionable behaviour should not be based on assumptions or allegations, and such actions should be taken through a proper mechanism, which involves a multi-stakeholder approach and explicitly stipulated criteria.

It is also important to recognise that this is a matter of the MPs’ role in upholding the Parliament’s dignity and the public’s trust, and therefore, the country could even go beyond empowering the Parliament through the said legal reforms to empower voters. The most scientific way of doing it is establishing a system for the electorate of a certain area to recall the MPs with questionable conduct for whom they voted. While the world has provided ample examples of such mechanisms, it is reasonable to allow the voters to decide the fate of the MPs that they elected, if the latter has not met the expectations.

Incidents such as Raheem’s are lessons from which political and public authorities as well as the public could learn. While penalising offenders is the immediate solution, the proper solution is preventing the emergence of more offenders.