There are allegations that the Parliament’s committees on Public Accounts (COPA) and Public Enterprises (COPE) are toothless tigers at a time when corruption has engulfed the entire state machinery from top to bottom of almost all pubic institutions. We read about frauds involving millions if not billions of rupees in national newspapers everyday but rarely hear about follow-up actions taken by the authorities to penalize the culprits or to recover the defrauded money that belongs to the public coffers.  

It was revealed at the COPE a few days ago that nepotism has cost the National Housing Development Authority a staggering Rs 10 billion in 2011 and during the Yahapalana Government. We hear and read hundreds of similar frauds of mind boggling amounts. With the past experience we cannot expect any action on the part of the authorities to recover these plundered funds from those responsible.   
Against this backdrop, the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chairman Harsha de Silva on Friday had told Parliament that having a representative from the Attorney General’s Department present during meetings of the Parliament’s committees on Public Accounts (COPA) and Public Enterprises (COPE) would facilitate the utilization of the evidence uncovered in court proceedings.   
The MP requested Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to amend the standing orders accordingly, while pointing out that despite the COPE and COPA with the backing of the Auditor General, revealing numerous irregularities, there have been public grievances about the absence of subsequent action.  
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena then told the Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP to submit a written request on the matter in his capacity as the Chairman of COPF, while claiming that he was not previously informed of such a request.   
Absence of follow-up actions is a serious issue at a time when the country has gone bankrupt mainly because of mismanagement and corruption taking place at the upper echelons of the society. The International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva had told in May last year that the economic crisis in Sri Lanka is a result of mismanagement. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had gone a further step to call it “economic crimes” committed by those responsible for running the country’s economy.  
Despite the government having appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee to look into the causes of the country going bankruptcy in July, the general perception is that the same government must take the responsibility to the situation. In an interview held last year, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa also had acknowledged that all governments – present and past - and leaders including him have to be held responsible for the current economic downturn.  
A major precondition for the bailout package offered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Sri Lanka was a strong anti-corruption mechanism being in place. Accordingly, the government on July 19 passed the Anti-Corruption Bill in Parliament. However, the leniency and impunity towards corrupt politicians and officials are continuing. Requests have been made for follow-up action on the large-scale frauds, mismanagement and waste of public funds for a long time during the sessions of the COPE and Parliament, but to no avail.   
Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Eran Wickramaratne on October 25, 2021, questioned in Parliament the purpose of the COPE if it cannot take punitive action against frauds and corruption in State-owned entities. Prof. Charitha Herath as the Chairman of the COPE last year suggested during proceedings of his committee to take up the matter in Parliament and create a mechanism for action against the culprits.  

Although the Speaker having said that no request was made previously to him for the Attorney General’s presence in the COPE, former COPE Chairman Professor Charitha Herath had told during a recent newspaper interview that two requests made by him for the amendment of Parliamentary Standing Orders to permit the COPE to call for Attorney General’s interventions as and when necessary and to allow the AG to participate in the COPE proceedings were turned down. Crux of the matter is that whatever the mechanism is, there must be follow-up actions to tame the fraudsters.