Appointment of Auditor General: Meritocracy or favouritism?

Last week, Senior Deputy Auditor General Samudika Jayaratne assumed duties as the Auditor General, ending a 10-month-long period of uncertainty regarding one of the key responsible positions in the public administration structure of the country. Jayaratne coincidentally becomes the first woman in the history to take over the distinguished position. Apart from a few, many sectors of the island’s public service are dominated by ladies, particularly at the professional level. In the future, many public agencies could be led by females.

After the retirement of former Auditor General Chulantha Wickramaratne in April 2025, the names of 4 nominees were proposed to the Constitutional Council (CC) by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fill the vacancy, but all those names were rejected by the CC. One such rejection was Jayaratne herself. There were even attempts to appoint individuals outside the audit service to the contentious position, attracting enormous criticism and opposition from many sections of the society. Even a serving military officer who did not possess sufficient acumen and expertise in the practice of auditing was once recommended, raising question marks about the Government’s commitment to establish a professional public service.

Representing an extremely worrying situation, the State was without an Auditor General (either acting or permanent) since 7 December last year. Amidst such adverse scenarios, numerous professional associations urged the President to act decisively by appointing a permanent auditor general to restore public confidence in the state’s financial governance. The inordinate delay to appoint a permanent auditor general was quite puzzling as the NPP championed the virtue of accountability and transparency in public spending before coming into power.

Although the appointment of Jayaratne has ensured that the National Audit Office can now function with clarity, the endorsement of her to the coveted post by the CC raises concerns as she was previously rejected by the same decision-making body last year under a different set of individuals, representing the civil society. The mandate of the CC is to ensure there are proper checks and balances within the governance structure of the state, and not to function as a mere rubber stamp of the Executive. Nevertheless, it could be deduced the Council succumbed to the pressure and did not stand up to the Executive as one would have expected.

The NAO is a crucial independent constitutional office responsible for auditing public finances, ensuring accountability, and reporting to the Parliament and ideally, it should be headed by an individual with an unblemished track record. However, it was alleged that Jayaratne was strongly reprimanded by the higher authorities of the Auditor General Department for engaging in non-official activities during office hours when she functioned as an audit superintendent in September 2014. She was also undermined by other accusations of questionable conduct too.

It is widely felt that Dharmapala Gammanpila, the Senior Deputy Auditor General of the NAO who served as the Acting Auditor General till December last year, should have been selected for the prestigious responsibility as he had an unblemished track record as opposed to the eventual appointee. If he could function in the acting capacity, what did he lack to become the permanent Auditor General? Selecting the best and brightest for the responsible positions in the public service was one of the main themes of the NPP election campaign and the fate suffered by Gammanpila fundamentally contradicts with the very essence of the NPP’s outlook. The Government needs to disclose why Gammanpila was overlooked when there were demands from many influential sections of the society to appoint him as he was seen as less controversial.

The conduct of the Government regarding this entire saga is representative of its penchant for filling the influential positions of the public administration with individuals who are loyal to the administration disregarding the mandate received to put an end to the same-old practice that was observed for decades. Does the Government genuinely aspire for a systemic change?