A debate has recently emerged in the legal field regarding the legality of the appointment of High Court Judge Ranga Dissanayake as the new Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently appointed former High Court Judge Ranga Dissanayake to the vacant post of Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council.
However, lawyers point out that the appointment is illegal under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 09 of 2023.
Explaining this, human rights activist and lawyer Namal Rajapaksa said that the appointment of the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption is clearly outlined in the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.
“Section 17 of this Act clearly mentions the qualifications that the Director General must have. In addition, Section 19(c) of the relevant Act states that the person appointed as the Director General must be a lawyer with at least 15 years of experience and good knowledge in handling criminal cases. This section was included in the new Anti-Corruption Act for a very important reason. In the past, the Bribery Commission has suffered a serious setback in handling bribery cases. The Director General of the Bribery Commission must appear before the court to handle cases in certain instances. Therefore, when drafting the new Anti-Corruption Act, the expert committee had decided that the person appointed as the Director General should have experience in handling criminal cases. That is why a clause was included in the new Act stating that the Director General should be a lawyer with at least 15 years of experience and good knowledge in handling criminal cases. However, we know that Mr. Ranga Dissanayake, who has been appointed as the Director General, is a person who has served as a High Court Judge. There is no dispute that he is a competent and honest High Court Judge. However, he does not have 15 years of experience in handling criminal cases,” the lawyer stated, asserting that the appointment is not legal.
But this argument is unacceptable, said Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa, a legal analyst and former Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.
“It is true that under Section 19(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act, the Director General appointed to the Bribery Commission must have at least fifteen years of experience in handling criminal cases. However, the new Director General is a former High Court Judge. Before being appointed as a High Court Judge, he worked as a Magistrate for many years. One cannot just become a Magistrate. To be appointed as a Magistrate, one must have experience in handling cases as an attorney. Only a person with such experience is appointed as a Magistrate. Therefore, we cannot say that just because the new Director General is a High Court Judge, he lacks knowledge in handling criminal cases. Every Magistrate is first and foremost an attorney. Moreover, he is performing his duties with the support of a large legal team at the Bribery Commission. Therefore, I do not see any fault in this appointment,” Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa stated.
Another group has expressed the opinion that since Ranga Dissanayake has served as a Magistrate for a long time, he has good knowledge of handling complaints.
Responding to this, Attorney Namal Rajapaksa stated, “It is true that he has done very good service as a Magistrate. But a Magistrate is not an officer who handles complaints. A Magistrate cannot be someone who handles complaints. That is a wrong argument,” he stated.
Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa stated that this claim is also unacceptable.
“A large number of criminal cases are heard before the Magistrate every day. The police present criminal cases before the Magistrate, and in some cases, the Magistrates even provide necessary guidance for the investigation of those crimes. Similarly, institutions such as the Attorney General’s Department also present facts before the Magistrate. It should be noted that through this, a Magistrate gains good knowledge and experience in conducting criminal cases,” he said.
However, Attorney Namal Rajapaksa, who raises a counterargument to this, states that the appointment of the new Director General of the Bribery Commission could be challenged before the law.
“There is a possibility of filing a case against this appointment. Any citizen who is not satisfied with this appointment has the option of filing a writ petition or a fundamental rights petition before the Supreme Court. Kanishka Wijeratne, who served as the former Director General of the Bribery Commission, also faced a similar case in the Supreme Court. The main issue in that case was that the appointment of Mr. Kanishka Wijeratne as the Director General while serving as a High Court Judge was illegal. Later, when this case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Kanishka Wijeratne decided to resign from the post of Director General. The main reason for that resignation was that he had served as a judge and did not meet the qualifications specified in the Act for handling complaints. So, if Mr. Kanishka Wijeratne had to resign in that situation, how can we say that the appointment of Mr. Ranga Dissanayake is legal?” the lawyer questioned.
Attorney Namal Rajapaksa pointed out that since the appointment of the new Director General of the Bribery Commission has become problematic in the eyes of the law, the indictments he presents against defendants on bribery or corruption charges can also be challenged in court.
“The Director General signs the charge sheets presented against the accused by the Bribery Commission and forwards them to the court. So, when the appointment of the Director General is not legal, the charge sheets presented by him can also be challenged before the law. A case filed by the Bribery Commission against former Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal and others in connection with the Greek bond scandal is currently being heard before the Colombo High Court. The charge sheets related to that case were signed by the resigned former Director General Kanishka Wijeratne. Accordingly, the defense lawyers have raised preliminary objections before the court, stating that since the appointment of Director General Kanishka Wijeratne was not legal, the charge sheet presented by him is also not legal. If the court somehow accepts that preliminary objection in the future, the case may be dismissed. Therefore, there is a risk of a similar situation arising regarding the indictments presented by the new Director General,” Attorney Namal Rajapaksa further stated.
