Corruption has long plagued Sri Lanka’s public sector, draining state coffers, undermining governance, and contributing to the catastrophic economic bankruptcy that gripped the nation by 2022.
The rise of the National People’s Power (NPP) Government, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, was driven in large part by a national outcry against impunity, misuse of public funds, and political nepotism.
Upon assuming office, the NPP Government promised a sweeping transformation of the country’s governance ethos, with a laser focus on anti-corruption.
Key anti-corruption laws
The NPP administration has been forced in rolling out legislative and institutional reforms aimed at combatting entrenched corruption.
The promises the NPP made during the election platform are ambitious and some of them need more years than expected given Sri Lanka’s judiciary process.
Among the flagship reforms by the NPP is the Anti-Corruption Act of 2025, a landmark piece of legislation that expands the definition of corruption to include not just bribery, but also conflict of interest, political patronage, abuse of discretion, asset concealment, and misuse of state resources.
This law empowers the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to conduct proactive investigations, freeze assets, summon financial records, and collaborate with international agencies for asset recovery.
It also provides for special corruption courts, staffed with trained judges to fast-track cases and reduces delays that have historically plagued the judicial process.
Another key reform is the Public Procurement Transparency Framework, which mandates real-time digital tracking of public tenders and contracts.
This is supported by a Digital Disclosure Portal requiring all public officials and parliamentarians to declare their assets annually in a public-access format.
The Whistleblower Protection Bill, although still under debate, promises robust safeguards for informants and will be essential in unearthing misconduct hidden by fear and complicity.
Despite the presence of anti-corruption laws dating back decades—such as the Bribery Act (1954), the CIABOC Act (1994), and the Assets and Liabilities Disclosure Law—Sri Lanka’s fight against corruption remained largely symbolic. Several systemic flaws prevented effective implementation:
Successive Governments used CIABOC selectively, shielding allies and targeting political foes. High-profile corruption cases were routinely dropped or stalled once political alignments shifted.
For decades, political interference has been a major roadblock in Sri Lanka’s fight against corruption and bribery, shielding powerful individuals from accountability and eroding public trust in justice institutions.
Successive Governments, regardless of party, have often used State machinery to protect allies and selectively target opponents, leading to a culture of impunity.
Investigations by the CIABOC and other agencies were frequently delayed, quietly shelved, or derailed due to pressure from influential figures within the political establishment.
Prosecutors and investigators faced threats, transfers, or were discouraged from pursuing high-profile cases.
As a result, despite the existence of strong anti-corruption laws, very few high-level convictions were ever achieved, and corruption continued unchecked, contributing significantly to Sri Lanka’s financial mismanagement and eventual economic collapse.
The lack of institutional independence also has critically undermined Sri Lanka’s ability to address corruption and bribery, with key agencies often functioning under the shadow of political influence.
Bodies such as the CIABOC, the Attorney General’s Department, and law enforcement were frequently hamstrung by a lack of autonomy, making them susceptible to manipulation by those in power.
Appointments to top positions were often politically motivated, and institutional decision-making was shaped by loyalty rather than legality.
As a result, investigations into high-profile corruption cases were delayed, diluted, or entirely dismissed.
Without a firewall between political power and the justice system, these institutions struggled to function as impartial watchdogs, allowing systemic corruption to thrive while weakening public confidence in the rule of law.
Legal ambiguities and loopholes in Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption framework have long provided safe passage for corrupt actors to escape accountability.
While the country possesses a range of laws aimed at curbing bribery and misuse of public funds—such as the Bribery Act, Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, and the Penal Code—vague definitions, outdated provisions, and procedural gaps have often allowed suspects to exploit the system.
Weak enforcement mechanisms and overly technical legal requirements have led to the collapse of several high-profile cases in court, not due to lack of evidence, but because of procedural missteps or interpretive uncertainties.
Moreover, delays in updating laws to reflect modern financial crimes and international standards have further hampered efforts to prosecute white-collar corruption.
These legal shortcomings have created a landscape where accountability is elusive, and justice is often outmanoeuvered by legal technicalities.
Sri Lanka’s weak enforcement capacity has been another significant barrier to effectively tackling corruption and bribery, allowing many serious allegations to go unpunished.
Key investigative and prosecutorial bodies, including the police and the CIABOC, have historically suffered from chronic underfunding, lack of skilled personnel, and inadequate training in handling complex financial crimes. Many enforcement officers were ill-equipped to trace sophisticated money laundering schemes, offshore transactions, or hidden assets, especially when dealing with politically connected suspects.
This lack of capacity not only led to sluggish investigations and poorly constructed cases, but also undermined the credibility of law enforcement in the eyes of the public.
In several instances, by the time cases reached court, vital evidence had been lost or mishandled, further weakening prosecution efforts.
Without a strong, independent, and well-resourced enforcement apparatus, Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption drive has remained more symbolic than substantive.
A deeply entrenched culture of impunity has been one of the most formidable obstacles to addressing corruption and bribery in Sri Lanka.
Over the years, powerful politicians, business elites, and bureaucrats have operated with the belief that they are above the law, emboldened by a system that rarely holds them accountable.
Even when evidence of wrongdoing was overwhelming, convictions were rare, reinforcing public cynicism and sending a clear message that connections mattered more than justice.
The normalisation of impunity created an environment where corruption was not only tolerated but also often rewarded, undermining efforts to build a transparent and accountable state.
As long as this cycle of protection and privilege remains intact, meaningful reform and deterrence will continue to face serious resistance.
A reformed bribery commission
One of the early victories for the current governance is a bold overhaul of CIABOC. The new leadership was appointed through a rigorous vetting process overseen by an independent selection panel. For the first time, career prosecutors, forensic accountants, and retired judges form the core of the commission’s staff.
The CIABOC is now accountable to Parliament, not the Executive, and is protected under a Constitutional amendment from undue political influence.
It can now initiate investigations suo motu, work with international bodies like the UNODC and INTERPOL, and recommend policy changes to improve accountability.
With a new digital forensics unit, CIABOC can track illicit financial flows, analyse large data sets, and coordinate with the Central Bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) for deeper probes.
A CIABOC dashboard provides real-time updates on ongoing investigations, prosecutions, and asset declarations, allowing the public to monitor progress.
The reinvigorated CIABOC has already initiated proceedings against over 20 former ministers and officials, including figures associated with major procurement scandals, infrastructure kickbacks, and misuse of emergency relief funds during the 2022 crisis.
Sustaining anti-corruption measures
While the early momentum is promising, sustaining this drive will require more than arrests and court cases. The Government must continue to resist pressures from everyone who may seek to dilute reforms once power is consolidated. This needs to be backed by commitments from courts to upholding these laws and avoiding delays that allow accused persons to escape justice.
Investigations into high-level corruption are complex and resource-intensive. Continued investments in training, technology, and international collaboration are critical while civil society must keep pressure on the Government to maintain transparency. Periodic public reporting and civic oversight mechanisms must be institutionalised.
An independent media, another factor the Government should ensure to expose wrongdoing and prevent backsliding. The Government must refrain from targeting journalists who uncover corruption.
If these pillars remain strong, the NPP’s anti-corruption drive has a genuine chance of transforming Sri Lanka’s governance landscape.
Risks of failure and consequences
If the NPP Government fails to deliver on its anti-corruption promises, the political and socio-economic fallout could be severe.
The risks include loss of public trust, economic setbacks, resurgence of corrupt networks, and fragmentation of the reform coalition.
Given that anti-corruption was the NPP’s primary electoral promise, failure would be seen as a betrayal, leading to mass protests and a rapid erosion of political legitimacy. International creditors and investors, including the IMF, World Bank, and key bilateral partners, are closely monitoring progress on governance reforms. Perceived failure could result in the withholding of aid, trade penalties, and increased borrowing costs.
Should the momentum wane, old political and bureaucratic patronage systems could reassert themselves, reversing institutional gains and reintroducing kleptocratic practices. This might dilute the NPP’s diverse alliance—comprising progressives, civil society activists, and technocrats—may fracture if internal corruption or inaction is exposed.
A nation demands justice
Perhaps the greatest pressure on the NPP Government comes from the electorate itself. Having endured years of rising costs, crumbling public services, and economic despair—made worse by revelations of how political elites enriched themselves—Sri Lankans demand accountability.
Public expectations from the new Government’s anti-corruption efforts are both high and multifaceted.
Foremost among these is the demand for speed and visibility in action—people want to see tangible results such as high-profile convictions of prominent figures and the visible seizure of illicit assets.
Such outcomes serve as powerful proof that justice is not an abstract ideal but a living reality being actively pursued.
This demand stems from years of frustration with delayed or stalled cases, where corrupt individuals seemed untouchable.
Alongside swift action, there is a strong call for non-partisan enforcement of laws.
Citizens expect the Government to hold everyone accountable equally, without shielding members of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) party or its allies.
This impartiality is crucial for restoring public trust in institutions and ensuring that anti-corruption efforts are seen as genuine rather than politically motivated.
Beyond enforcement, Sri Lankans increasingly demand greater transparency in governance.
This includes transparent budgeting processes, digitised service delivery systems that reduce opportunities for graft, and open access to Government records to enable public scrutiny.
Many also emphasize the importance of decentralising anti-corruption oversight, advocating for localised units that monitor spending at Municipal and Provincial levels where corruption often thrives unchecked.
Such grassroots monitoring could bring greater accountability closer to communities and prevent the misuse of public funds on a smaller scale before it escalates.
Finally, there is a growing recognition of the need for civic education to foster a culture of integrity from an early age.
Citizens expect the Government to institutionalise anti-corruption education in schools and integrate it into civil service training programs, aiming for a long-term cultural shift that discourages corrupt practices and promotes ethical behaviour throughout society.
