Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

'Whistle-blower' Elmore Perera interviewed by staff writer Asiff Hussein

Senior Lawyer Elmore Perera is perhaps Sri Lanka's best known whistle-blower. A former Surveyor General who has held important positions in the state sector for over three decades and exposed the fraudulent activities of many a so-called public servant, he today uses his functions as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court to champion the cause of those who have been victimised or penalised by powerful interests in the course of performing their duties.

As Vice-President of the Citizen's Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG), he was responsible for introducing an amendment to its constitution to defend the rights of officers in the public, corporation or private sectors who are being wrongfully victimised or penalised and to engage in public interest litigation where necessary. Here he speaks on his past experiences, his unrelenting campaign against injustice and how he survived it all.

Q: As one who has engaged in numerous instances of whistle blowing, what would you say prompted you to expose scandals taking place in the public domain?

A: All I could say is that the values I imbibed at home and at school have no place for corrupt activity wherever it may be. Everything has to be open because I believe that everything is open to God, and anything short of that is corrupt practice. I feel it is my bounden duty to expose corrupt practice and I expose it openly. To my father, from whom I imbibed much of these values, it did not matter who it was, if he knew a wrong had been done he would freely say so and that is perhaps why he ended up as a poor school teacher while there were others among his peers who went on to achieve high positions.

The fact is that when one stands up against what is wrong, particularly when there are important people on the other side or giving patronage to it, then you can become very unpopular. To me however, such consequences do not matter. I would say what was right come hell or highwater, because that is what is important to me. First experience

Q: Could you give us some of your past experiences where you engaged in whistle-blowing and how you survived it?

A: My first experience of whistle-blowing in the public domain was at the monthly District Co-ordinating Committee meeting in Polonnaruwa in December 1959 where the heads of all departments in the area were represented. Fresh from Cambridge my first station was at Polonnaruwa as Assistant Superintendent of Surveys. I was 26 years old at the time and full of zeal. It was around this time that one of my surveyors chanced to stumble upon a ganja plantation in the jungles of Manampitiya and when he reported this to the police, they first took their share of the crop before setting it on fire. I was furious that public officers could act in this manner.

During this time many other public servants told me that similar malpractices were taking place at such and such a place. They were very frank with me about the frauds that were taking place, and when I raised the issue at that particular meeting I expected all the other officers to support my views and rally round to put matters right.

However to my astonishment not one of them expressed any views on the matter. It was evident that they would not express in public what they freely expressed to me in private. What was surprising is that in those days, there was not as much as political interference as we find it today.

For instance, C. P. De Silva, the then Minister of Agriculture and Lands used to tell us "If I send you a note through a voter saying 'do this', then simply disregard it, because I am giving it merely to satisfy the voter". C.P. De Silva, being a former civil servant was aware of these values. He simply wanted them to do the right thing.It was against such a backdrop that I expected my colleagues to join in, but to my dismay I found that not one spoke up. I resolved that although I could not as it were put the world right all by myself, I would at least ensure that I would not permit wrongdoing in any activity coming under my purview.

My resolve to root out malpractices in my department was however not taken too kindly by the powers that be and it was as a result of this uncompromising stand that I was transferred out of Diyatalawa. However, not long after I was recalled to serve in Diyatalawa once again. Nevertheless the victimisation did not end here.

It merely waxed and waned with the entry and exit of successive governments and reached a peak in 1984 when as Additional Director SLIDA, I incurred the displeasure of the then Minister of Public administration in a matter totally unrelated to my official duties, whereupon I was transferred to a non-existent reserve and thereafter compulsorily retired, purportedly for inefficiency and incompetence.

Sarath Silva then Deputy Solicitor General who was officially involved in the dispute had not the slightest doubt that my compulsory retirement was a direct result of my actions that had displeased the Minister and urged me to institute legal action against him for violation of my fundamental rights.

The only defence raised by the state when I alleged that my fundamental rights had been violated was that I was abrasive. Mr.H.L.De Silva P.C. countered this with the observation "Abrasiveness is the quality of a cleanser". The case was heard on eight consecutive days by a Full Bench comprising of all nine judges of the Supreme Court but was dismissed with regret by Chief Justice Sharvananda with three dissenting judgements by Justices Wanasundera, Wimalaratne and Colin Thome.

I was however subsequently reinstated as Additional Surveyor General without loss of seniority and with all back wages in 1989 and appointed Surveyor General in 1991. I was compulsorily retired again at 58 years in October 1991 as a result of blowing the whistle on fraudulent tender procedures and a sinister attempt to compel my surveyors to carry out surveys according to the dictates of certain administrators who knew nothing of surveying. It was however after taking my oaths as an Attorney-at-Law in 1992 that I resumed my whistle-blowing in earnest by championing the cause of those officers who like me had fallen into disfavour with the authorities for merely doing what was right. Abuses of superiors

Q: Many are the public officers who are reluctant to bring the abuses of their superiors and sometimes even their subordinates to light as they feel they would be victimised. What are the steps we could take to ensure that such officers come out with the truth while at the same time ensuring that they are not victimised or penalised in any way?

A: It is indeed a pity that when you blow the whistle against the small man everybody would rally round you, but when you blow the whistle against people in authority who are the biggest culprits, then they often tend to gang up against you, and that is where it takes courage. Leading legal luminaries such as Justice Mark Fernando are agreed that it is the duty of the citizen to blow the whistle if he sees something corrupt taking place, but many administrators would not agree with this. Even the Establishments Code seeks to discourage whistle blowing by requiring that permission be obtained from the relevant authorities before releasing information to the media, which is of course a ridiculous situation.

It is unfortunate that it is usually the people who are 'yes men' who are appointed to top posts and naturally they are the most reluctant to change regulations such as these. Fortunately for us, the fundamental rights provisions supersede these restrictions. Some of my clients have been heavily penalised for blowing the whistle against abuse of power or corrupt practice. Charge sheets have been served against them for fabricated misdoings. Some have been interdicted and others sent on compulsory leave.

There was a time when the Supreme Court appeared to be reluctant to give judgements against high ranking public officers as they took the view that the court cannot be running the administration. Such cases were often rejected on a strictly legalistic basis or on technical grounds. What happened as a result was that corrupt public officers thought that they were above the law while the victimised public officers were thrown to the wolves.

However it did not take the court long to realise that the country was being led astray by corrupt officers and the old view has now changed for the better. The court is now receptive to the plaints filed by victims of arbitrary administrative action and this is a positive development. Such cases usually end in a settlement such as the reinstatement of the victimised officer or the award of damages or compensation.

Some victims of administrative abuse even go to the extent of specifying that a part of the compensation should be paid personally by the violating officer,instead of the state. The court is now more disposed towards penalising the offending officer which is also a positive development.

The problem however is that victimisation takes place in very subtle ways and it is difficult to define victimisation in legal terms. It is left to the court to decide whether the individual concerned has indeed been victimised or not and this is not an altogether easy task. Besides, litigation is a costly affair and certainly not an attractive propect to a potential whistle blower. But it does not need to remain so.

The Citizen's Movement for Good Governance of which I am a founder member recently amended its constitution to incorporate a provision that the association would actively support and defend the honour, dignity, integrity and rights of any officer in the public, corporation or private sectors who is being subjected to unlawful and unfair pressures and harassment for refusal or reluctance to engage in or condone unlawful, unfair and irregular acts, and engage in public interest litigation in appropriate situations.

Here we have made it clear that we are prepared to shoulder the responsibility of litigation as long as the individuals concerned have a genuine grievance. The ball is now in their court.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager