Senior retired state official and former Auditor General Sarath Chandrasiri Mayadunne in an interview with our sister paper ‘Deshaya’ aired his views on the proposed Audit Bill, the incident relating to Anusha Palpita and Lalith Weeratunga and issues relating to state officials. Following are the excerpts of the interview.
Q President Maithripala Sirisena had also expressed his regrets over the delay in the Audit Act. Even the Auditor General had mentioned about this matter. What is the cause of this delay?
The Audit Bill is a very significant one that would greatly assist the forward march of the country. The audit procedure covers mainly the Ministries and state institutions coming under its purview. If corruption is exposed in an institute, politicians attached to them believe such revelations would make them inquire a loss or cause them harm. I see this as the primary cause in the delay in implementing the bill. If one is clean and not involved in corruption, this Act will help such people clear themselves from allegations levelled against them.
- The Audit Bill is a very significant one that would greatly assist the forward march of the country
- If corruption is exposed in an institute, politicians attached to them believe such revelations would make them inquire a loss
- There is no reason for them to object to the Audit Bill
- Recovery of surcharges is based on directions given to officials to act outside the stipulated regulations
- The recovery of surcharges could be implemented only in the face of a legal issue
- Some officials engage in Acts that flout the law to enrich themselves or help friends and relatives
- An Audit Bill ensures the rights and duties of the Auditor General as provided by the Constitution
Q Do you think that state officials have any reason to object to the Audit Bill?
There is no reason for them to object to the Audit Bill. With the Auditor General including a provision to recover surcharges, state officials receive strong protection and strength. Recovery of surcharges is based on directions given to officials to act outside the stipulated regulations. Therefore there are requests to remove this clause or have it regularized. The recovery of surcharges could be implemented only in the face of a legal issue. If a transaction has been done legally then the application of the clause to recover surcharges will not be applicable.
Q What happens through this recovery of surcharges?
Some officials engage in acts that flout the law to enrich themselves or help friends and relatives. Individuals engage in these type of Activities in order to obtain promotions, perks, or to please politicians. This recovery of surcharges process would put an end these types of activities.
If the Audit Bill with the clause for the recovery of surcharges was in existence they could have avoided facing this predicament. If the former President wanted funds allocated for this purpose he could have Acted in two ways. One is to include it in the Manifesto or include it in the Budget proposals and get it passed
Q Is there someone in the ruling party attempting to halt this Bill from being implemented? Why are politicians so afraid of this Bill?
I have no knowledge of who is against and who is in support of this Act. There is now an unjustifiable delay. This was a matter included in the 100 days programme. Now more than two years have lapsed. Anyway it is apparent that someone or a group is thwarting the attempt to bring in this bill for reasons best known to them.
Q What are the main differences in the new bill and the bill in existence?
There is no Audit Act now in operation. This is the first time an Act is to be implemented. An Audit Act ensures the rights and duties of the Auditor General as provided by the Constitution. The proposed Act interprets these duties more clearly and strengthens the powers of the Auditor General.
Q Is there a provision to prevent misuse of state property, treasury funds etc under this Audit Act?
I think that with the implementation of this Audit Act they could expect transparency and financial discipline regarding state revenue. Everyone feels the establishment of the Rule of Law as the need of the hour.
If the existing laws are obstacles to the forward march of the country, such impediments could be removed or special approvals can be obtained for implementation. Such Acts aren’t obstacles to the progress or the development of a country
Q In the verdict against Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpita it was clearly evident there was misuse of state funds during an election period. Leaving aside this verdict, if we take the incident as an example what have you got to say?
I think in this instance the public has been deceived. The message is clear that public funds shouldn’t be used in this manner. Not only the officials, but all citizens should obey the laws of the land. No one is above the law. The message is very clear that political decisions taken by flouting the law shouldn’t have been implemented. The officials should have the courage and strength not to carry out decisions which are illegal.
Q Don’t you think that such moves would pose obstacles to the forward march of the country?
If the existing laws are obstacles to the forward march of the country, such impediments could be removed or special approvals can be obtained for implementation. Such acts aren’t obstacles to the progress or the development of a country. The message that originates from this is that everything should happen within the frame of the law. If the law is absent then the law of the jungle would prevail..
Q If there was an Act like the proposed Audit Act these secretaries could have been saved without falling into difficulties. Could you comment?
If the Audit Act with the clause for the recovery of surcharges was in existence they could have avoided facing this predicament. If the former President wanted funds allocated for this purpose he could have Acted in two ways. One is to include it in the manifesto or include it in the budget proposals and get it passed. He could have also included the proposal in a supplementary estimate. What was important from a law perspective wasn’t whether this act was justifiable, but whether it was acceptable by law. If this was passed in Parliament there wouldn’t have been any issue because under clause number 148 of the Constitution the absolute power on finances rests with the Parliament. It is also pertinent to note that under clause number 150(4) subsection the President has the power during a dissolution of the Parliament only to incur state expenditure and hold a General Election.
I have no knowledge of who is against and who is in support of this Bill. There is now an unjustifiable delay. This was a matter included in the 100 days programme. Now more than two years have lapsed. Anyway it is apparent that someone or a group is thwarting this attempt to bring in this bill for reasons best known to them
Q Is what has happened legal?
They could have made it legalized. Under clause number 52 (2) of the Constitution, the Secretary of a ministry should Act according to the directions and authority of the Minister. But however an official or a citizen is duty-bound not only by the constitution, but also by all the regulations. When one merely adheres to the constitutional requirements and Acts in violation of other regulations there emerges an issue of legality.
Q Now the MPs of the joint opposition and some MPs of the ruling Government are now stating that because of this verdict, they are unable to get official duty done through the state officials. Is there any truth in this statement?
It is a wrong allusion that by doing your duty you will fall into difficulties. It is a complete misinterpretation. If state officials become inactive it would be a severe disadvantage. The officials don’t face obstacles. There is provision for them to point out if there are any legal implications regarding any matter. By doing so they can have them sorted out. When matters that can’t be sorted out emerge officials are free not to Act. This isn’t aimed at weakening or discouraging an officer. Under Financial regulation 156 sub-section the officers can request for an order in writing or have the authority to decline stating that if they implement such decisions they would face difficulties.
Q During the elections, what are the changes in the duties of state officers in keeping with the election law?
The Elections Commission has been given the power by the Act to conduct elections in an independent and acceptable manner. There are special powers invested in state officials under this Act. During a general election and when the Parliament remains dissolved, clause number 47 of the Constitution specifies the manner in which a minister should hold office and act according to the directions provided by the Elections Commissioner and not engage in acts of intimidation during the elections. State officials are bound by these regulations.
Q It is a common belief among the general public that there is no point in voting for anyone because when people assume power they start stealing. What is the remedy for this?
The solution is to create awareness among the general public regarding corruption. Votes were cast in large numbers in favour of the corrupt. From among the 45 who exceeded one hundred thousand preferential votes a considerable amount of individuals elected had a history of being corrupt. If the people favour corruption, whichever Government that comes into power will honour the aspirations of the people. Therefore the public must have a sincere feeling that they wish to defeat corrupt candidates.
Today the public tends to protect those who breached the law. If the people believe that corrupt people are needed and there is no point in obeying the law, the people will have to bear the consequences. Actually it’s the public that has helped create this platform for the corrupt to be in power
Q Due to these frauds millions of public money have been lost. Who should be held responsible for the theft of public funds?
This is a loss for the people and they should have got involved. Today the public tends to protect those who breached the law. If the people believe that corrupt people are needed and there is no point in obeying the law, the people will have to bear the consequences. Actually it’s the public that has helped create this platform for the corrupt to be in power.
Q What can be done to rectify this set-up?
This scenario can be changed only when the people demand the establishment of the rule of the law. No one is above the law. Everyone should obey the law and face punishment when the law is violated. There should be no opportunities to bypass the law. There were politicians in the former Government who acted as they were above the law. There are some politicians in the present Government who think that whatever the law, they can get away with anything they do. If there are politicians and individuals who are going against the law they must be stopped.
