Corruption: Promises and Results

Sri Lanka should not have a system in which corruption becomes a political weapon used against opponents while the same standards are not applied to one’s own political allies. Nor should the country depend on the personal courage of one politician, one investigator or one judge

Sri Lankans have heard these promises many times: corruption will be defeated, those responsible will be brought before the courts, and money taken from the public will be recovered and many more.

It is these promise that resonates strongly, particularly in the minds of the ordinary people. After all, when public money is lost, it is ultimately the public that carries the burden through higher taxes, higher prices, reduced services and increased Government debt.

The present Government came to power on the solemn promise, prior to the General Election in 2024 among other things, investigating complaints within six months, establishing special arrangements for financial-crime cases, revisiting cases previously withdrawn by the Bribery Commission and the Attorney General, and establishing an independent Directorate of Public Prosecution, these are ambitious commitments. Governing a country is very different from making promises prior to a General Election.

The Governing party was aware that they were inheriting institutions with considerable weaknesses. Investigations can take years. Financial transactions can cross borders. Evidence has to meet the requirements of a criminal court. Prosecutors have to establish individual responsibility rather than simply demonstrating that a Government project or policy resulted in a loss.

There is therefore a legitimate argument that some cases cannot be resolved quickly. But that explanation cannot become an excuse for endless delay. The question ordinary citizens ask is simple: What has been actually achieved?

An investigation and or arrest is not a conviction. A court case is not recovery of public money.  A press conference announcing action against corruption does not, by itself, put a single rupee back into the Treasury. This is particularly important when very large sums of public money is involved.

Sri Lanka’s highest Court has already made an important distinction. In its 2023 judgment concerning the economic crisis, the Court found that several senior officials, including former Presidents and a former Finance Minister had breached the public trust in their management of the country’s economy. That was a significant judicial finding, but it was not a criminal conviction that those individuals personally stole a particular amount of money.

This distinction matters because Sri Lanka must not replace one injustice with another. People accused of corruption are entitled to due process, just as ordinary citizens are. At the same time, the public is entitled to expect serious allegations involving public money to be investigated thoroughly and without unnecessary delay.

Uncomfortable issue

There is another uncomfortable issue.

The longer a case takes, the more difficult it can become to establish what happened. Documents disappear, memories fade, witnesses become unavailable and financial assets can move between jurisdictions. This is why an effective anti-corruption system must be designed to act expeditiously, independently and professionally.

The Government has taken some steps in this direction. Parliament approved the referral of several COPA and COPE findings to the Attorney General and CIABOC in July 2026. The Government has also introduced reforms relating to asset declaration and beneficial ownership, while CIABOC has launched an electronic asset-declaration system. 

The IMF has noted these reforms as part of Sri Lanka’s broader governance. These developments should be acknowledged.

But there is also evidence of continuing difficulties. In September 2026, CIABOC’s Director General publicly questioned whether some of the NPP’s manifesto commitments could be implemented because of existing legal and institutional constraints.

This raises an important question: Were the difficulties underestimated when those promises were made? Perhaps they were. The reforms of the Govt. machinery are more complicated than many people surmised. But if that is the case, the Government should explain this honestly to the public.

Citizens understand that institutional reforms take time. What is much harder for them to accept is hearing promises of swift action and then watching important cases continue for years without seeing convictions or significant recovery of public assets.

This is not an argument against the present Government. It is an argument for accountability regardless of who is in power.

Sri Lanka should not have a system in which corruption becomes a political weapon used against opponents while the same standards are not applied to one’s own political allies. Nor should the country depend on the personal courage of one politician, one investigator or one judge.

We need institutions strong enough to withstand political pressure. We need professional investigators who can follow the money. We need prosecutors who can act independently. We need courts capable of dealing with complex financial cases without delay. The Govt. should make available to the Prosecutors and the Courts all resources and facilities on time to reduce the time taken to conclude cases. 

We need mechanisms capable of freezing and recovering assets when the law permits it, including assets transferred overseas. And above all, we need transparency.

The public should be able to see, case by case, what was alleged, what was investigated, what evidence was found, what happened in the courts and perhaps most importantly how much public money was actually recovered. The last figure deserves far more attention than the number of arrests.

The poor citizens do not benefit merely because somebody is arrested. The taxpayer does not recover money merely because a case is filed. Justice is not complete simply because a politician is questioned by an investigating agency. The ultimate test is whether the law establishes the truth, holds people accountable where wrong doing is proved, and returns the unlawfully obtained public assets to the people.

Sri Lanka has already paid an enormous price for weak governance. We should therefore demand something more lasting than another promise to fight corruption.

We need a system in which no Government can easily protect the powerful, and in which public money is treated as exactly what it is: the people’s money.