The Hon. Dilith Jayaweera

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I thank my friend, the Minister of Justice and National Integration, Harsha Nanayakkara, for bringing this Bill to Parliament.

¶ 02 For decades we have debated corruption linked to politics. As a country that values fair wealth creation and religious ethics, we reject theft and fraud. Together with my friends in the JVP, we worked to bring President Mahinda Rajapaksa to power in 2005—even coining the name “Mahinda Chinthanaya” and the tagline “A New Sri Lanka.” We laboured to end the war. However, by 2008, as the Leader of the House said, attempts were made to defeat the Budget. Regardless, we expected post-war development. Though some achievements were made, massive corruption by politicians and their associates also occurred. We rejected it then and do so now. It is due to that corrupt, self-serving approach that today the NPP has come to power.

¶ 03 We must also note that this NPP Bill is substantially the same as a draft prepared earlier with UNP involvement, with only minor changes. Our concern then as now is good faith—will it be applied fairly?

¶ 04 There are allegations that the JVP does not pay taxes and lives off party funds—erecting large buildings and spending heavily on politics without transparent accounting. If we accept that politics is corrupted, and if we seek good faith, first all political parties and politicians must be subject to audit under ordinary law. As far as I know, party finances are not audited transparently. We accuse those in Government of taking bribes from racketeers, yet say our parties receive “fraternal donations.” What is the difference? Both are transactions outside public revenue.

¶ 05 This is a good Bill, though with legal gaps, but we must start somewhere. I urge my friend the Justice Minister to also bring a law on auditing political parties: source transparency for contributions, and transparency in expenditure. Otherwise, it becomes a threat to business—politicians get domestic and foreign funds under the guise of politics and live off them.

¶ 06 Further, the NPP Government seems to continue its past projects without addressing these issues. Had this law existed in 2004, projects like “A Thousand Tanks – A Thousand Villages” would have been probed. The mansion at Pelawatte—how was it financed? Even now, with this law, we can look into such matters, including who funded the then-candidate President’s Rs. 4.5 million business-class ticket to the USA during the campaign. We cannot brush this aside as a “brotherly donation” from one side while calling the other side’s donors “racketeers.” Both sides are doing the same while preaching otherwise.

¶ 07 I also urge caution against abuse. Both of us are lawyers; the Minister better knows how things can be manipulated outside the law. After the FCID was formed, hundreds were dragged to police units, questioned, and then whisked to the HQ to obtain “fraternal” contributions—and inquiries stalled. That is abuse. The Minister should bring proper corrective measures to prevent such abuse in this Bill. There are also concerns about rule of law language and fundamental rights; I will not go clause-by-clause here but ask that these areas be reviewed.

¶ 08 Finally, my friends from working-class backgrounds—like MP Chamalra Sampath Dissanayake and another Anuradhapura MP—are now remanded. Using the “public property” label to multiply charges against them is something we have long argued against; the mere label should not trigger disproportionate punishment.

¶ 09 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, please allow me one more minute.

¶ 10 Hon. Minister, today it is you; tomorrow it may be another. Please consider these matters.

¶ 11 I am also disappointed we did not receive the India agreements signed in advance. When we go back, people ask us about them. We must be able to answer whether we have seen those agreements.