The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law - Minister of Justice and National Integration

¶ 01 Thank you, Hon. Member. I will respond.

¶ 02 This is exactly what I began to clarify. Whether what COPE uncovers amounts to admissible evidence must be investigated. Often more investigation and Q&A are required—especially in money laundering cases. When a complaint is filed, the other side has a right to respond; those answers must be obtained and then countered by the complainant, without which the defense will prevail. Technically, we must first determine whether the offence lies under the Penal Code, the Bribery Act, or other law—COPE does not have that capacity. Therefore, COPE should forward the report to the AG.

¶ 03 At the AG’s Department, they must peruse and decide whether to prosecute, refer to CIABOC, seek information from another authority, or conduct further investigation—this can take three to four months. The public sees the COPE process live on TV, but it can take months for follow-up to start. I do not blame officials; the AG’s officers have heavy workloads.

¶ 04 My proposal is to provide technical support to COPE—have an AG’s observer, a police investigator/observer, and a CIABOC officer attached. Then, legal interpretation can be provided on the spot; if a wrong is revealed, the committee can preliminarily classify it and make direct referrals, cutting delay. The obstacle is not legal but procedural—this predates this government. COPE became a media circus without a pipeline to swift action. That is not COPE’s fault.

¶ 05 This government’s approach is to build that mechanism. We will discuss with relevant officials to give COPE “teeth.”