Former Civil Aviation Minister Piyankara Jayaratne has been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment over the use of SriLankan Catering money for meals for political supporters. The amount may appear comparatively small. The principle certainly is not.
Former Civil Aviation Minister Piyankara Jayaratne has been sentenced by the Colombo High Court to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment after being found guilty of corruption involving money belonging to State-owned SriLankan Catering.
The case concerned approximately Rs. 330,000 used in 2014 to provide meals for political supporters attending a United People’s Freedom Alliance May Day rally.
According to the prosecution, Jayaratne used his position as Civil Aviation Minister to influence an executive of SriLankan Catering to make the payment from company funds. The prosecution maintained that the transaction caused a loss to the State.
Colombo High Court Judge Mohamed Mihail found the former Minister guilty.
Two seven-year sentences were imposed but ordered to run concurrently, producing an effective prison term of seven years. Jayaratne was additionally fined Rs. 200,000.
He is reportedly expected to appeal the judgment.
The amount involved immediately invites comparison with the billions of rupees that feature in some of Sri Lanka’s larger corruption allegations.
That would miss the point.
The significance of this case lies not simply in whether Rs. 330,000 was improperly spent. It lies in the proposition that money belonging to a State enterprise cannot be treated as an extension of a Minister’s political wallet.
SriLankan Catering was not a political party fund.
Its money belonged to a State-owned commercial enterprise. Ultimately, therefore, the public had an interest in how that money was spent.
Sri Lanka has for decades lived with an unhealthy blurring of the boundary between the State and whichever political party happens to control it.
Government vehicles have appeared at political events. State employees have been drawn into political activity. Public buildings, institutions and resources have repeatedly become entangled with the machinery of electioneering and party organisation.
The sums involved can sometimes appear trivial beside the enormous budgets of Government.
But public accountability cannot operate according to a rule under which taking a little is somehow permissible while taking a great deal becomes corruption.
The principle must be considerably simpler.
Public money is public money.
If a Minister can lawfully direct Rs. 330,000 belonging to a State enterprise towards feeding political supporters, where precisely would the line be drawn? At Rs. 3 million? Rs. 30 million? Rs. 300 million?
That is why the size of the transaction should not distract from the institutional importance of the case.
There is another reason the judgment matters.
Sri Lanka has heard countless allegations of corruption. Far fewer travel the entire distance from investigation through indictment, trial and judgment.
Justice also requires an important qualification. Jayaratne retains his appellate rights, and a conviction at first instance should not be reported as though the judicial process has necessarily reached its final destination.
But unless and until a higher court determines otherwise, there is now a High Court judgment carrying an unmistakable message for those exercising public power.
A Ministry is not a political party office.
A State company is not a party treasury.
And the taxpayer is not obliged to buy lunch for anybody’s political supporters.
Be that as it may.
The High Court imposed an effective seven-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence, with the two seven-year terms running concurrently. Contemporary reports put the transaction at about Rs.320,000-Rs.330,000 and say Jayaratne is expected to appeal.
