By Maheesha Mudugamuwa Courtesy The Morning

The Government’s recent move to revisit allegations of corruption and asset concealment involving politically exposed persons has reignited discussions on Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption efforts, including the failures of the now-defunct Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID).

Established in early 2015 to investigate large-scale financial crimes and corruption associated with the previous regime, the FCID was disbanded, leaving a void in the country’s institutional framework for tackling such crimes. 

Now, with a fresh wave of investigations on the horizon, many are asking what went wrong with the FCID and whether the country is ready to address financial crime more effectively.

The FCID’s ineffectiveness

The FCID was created with a mandate to investigate complex financial crimes, unauthorised projects, corruption involving public funds, and the misuse of official powers. It was one of the key steps taken by the ‘Yahapalana’ Government, which came to power in 2015, to deliver on its promises of good governance and accountability. 

Initially, the FCID took up several high-profile cases, including investigations into members of the Rajapaksa family and other officials from the previous administration.

Despite its promising start, the FCID faced persistent challenges. Allegations of political interference in its operations began to surface, with some accusing the division of being used as a tool for political witch-hunting rather than genuinely addressing corruption. The slow pace of investigations and a lack of significant convictions further fuelled these criticisms. 

By the time the government changed in 2019, the FCID’s reputation had eroded, leading to its eventual disbandment.

One of the main criticisms of the FCID was its inability to effectively prosecute high-profile cases. For instance, allegations of financial mismanagement and illegal overseas assets involving prominent politicians were not brought to court. The investigations into suspected financial crimes, including the alleged Central Bank bond scam and questionable projects linked to the previous regime, often stagnated without clear outcomes.

The failure to bring these cases to a conclusion left a significant section of the public disillusioned. 

A senior Government official familiar with the anti-corruption efforts, who wished to remain anonymous, pointed out that while the relevant officials must bear responsibility, the political leadership was equally accountable for the delays in investigations. 

The leadership should be questioned as to why it took so long to recognise that the FCID was not delivering results. The delay in prosecutions reflects poorly on the Government’s commitment to justice,” the official noted.

Learning from the past

The current Government, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, has signalled its intent to renew efforts to investigate allegations of corruption. The focus will be on tracing and investigating assets held by key political figures abroad and determining whether existing international legal frameworks can aid in recovering such assets. 

However, Police Spokesman DIG Nihal Thalduwa has indicated that there has been no official communication from the Government regarding the establishment of a new division specifically to replace the FCID.

Thalduwa said: While discussions on pursuing overseas assets are ongoing, there is no formal plan to re-establish a unit like the FCID. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has been assigned to handle some financial crime cases, but a decision on creating a specialised division has not been made.”

Efforts to obtain comments from Public Security Ministry Secretary Ravi Seneviratne and Minister of Public Security Vijitha Herath regarding the Government’s plans were unsuccessful, as they were not available for immediate response.

Learning from the FCID’s shortcomings, there is a pressing need to strengthen Sri Lanka’s institutional mechanisms for investigating financial crimes. This includes providing adequate resources, training, and legal backing to investigators while minimising opportunities for political interference. Additionally, legal reforms may be necessary to ensure that investigations can progress without being derailed by procedural delays or external pressures.

Another lesson is the importance of maintaining public trust. The FCID lost credibility due to perceived selective investigations and the inability to secure convictions in high-profile cases. 

In order to avoid a repeat of this, any future anti-corruption efforts must be transparent and demonstrate concrete results. Establishing an independent anti-corruption commission, equipped with the power to investigate and prosecute financial crimes without political influence, could be a step in the right direction.

Civil society organisations and activists played a significant role in bringing about the political changes in 2015 that led to the formation of the FCID. As the country revisits its approach to tackling corruption, these groups can once again be instrumental in advocating for stronger anti-corruption measures. Holding political leaders accountable and pushing for reforms that ensure the independence and effectiveness of investigative bodies will be crucial.

The anonymous official emphasised the need for vigilance: We must learn from the past and ensure that new anti-corruption efforts are not just political gimmicks. There must be genuine progress in holding the corrupt accountable, regardless of their political affiliations.” 

Commenting on the dissolution of the FCID, Thalduwa clarified that the division had been established by the previous Government as part of a policy decision. When it was later disbanded, its functions were transferred to the CID as a separate branch. He denied any claims of failure associated with the FCID. 

However, when questioned about the potential application of new anti-corruption laws to ongoing investigations, Thalduwa stated that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) had not issued any official communication on the matter, leaving the Police unaware of the specific cases that might fall under the new legislation.