Using the momentum against corruption

Those who elected the current administration demanding action against corruption, at least for a moment, can take heart. The country has climbed 14 places in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) published by Transparency International, rising to 107th out of 180 countries. Perceptions do matter and they influence foreign investment, development assistance, and, most importantly, domestic confidence in State institutions. Sri Lanka’s upward movement suggests that, at least externally, the country is seen as taking some steps in the right direction.

It would be disingenuous to deny that there has been movement on the anti-corruption front. Several high-profile cases have been investigated and prosecuted. For a political culture often criticised for impunity and selective justice, this signals that the current administration has made some effort to demonstrate accountability. However, the celebration must be measured. A rank of 107th still places Sri Lanka in the lower half of countries assessed. Improvement does not equal transformation.

Foremost among these weaknesses is the chronic slowness of the judicial system. Corruption cases, especially those involving politically exposed persons, drag on for years. Delays are not mere administrative inconveniences, but they undermine justice itself. When proceedings stretch endlessly, public confidence erodes. Compounding this problem is the perceived lethargy or selectivity of the Attorney General’s Department in prosecuting certain emblematic cases. There have been instances in the past where high-profile indictments were withdrawn under dubious reasoning.

The result is a troubling pattern where individuals accused of serious corruption continue to wield political and economic power while their cases crawl through the courts. Sri Lanka does not have a strong tradition of those accused of corruption stepping aside until their names are cleared. Instead, many remain in office, contest elections, or maintain influence at State level.

The lesson from the Yahapalana era is particularly instructive. What began with promises of good governance and accountability faltered as political legitimacy weakened. As cases dragged on, some judges, even at the Supreme Court, recused themselves from politically sensitive matters after delaying and dragging cases against the Rajapaksas. In the end, several cases collapsed or were withdrawn, allowing alleged perpetrators to walk free and grab power, and some judges to be richly rewarded. The perception that political pressure could bend the judiciary did lasting damage to institutional credibility.

The current Government cannot afford a repetition of that trajectory. The modest vote of confidence reflected in the CPI could prove fleeting if momentum stalls. Anti-corruption efforts cannot be episodic or symbolic but they must be systemic and sustained.

The most urgent reform is procedural. Corruption cases should be fast-tracked through specialised courts or dedicated benches with strict timelines. Expediting proceedings would reduce opportunities for political interference and limit the ability of defendants to exploit technical delays. Swift justice would also signal seriousness, both to citizens and to the international community.

Simultaneously, the independence and capacity of prosecutorial authorities must be strengthened. Transparent criteria for indictments, clear communication on case withdrawals, and institutional safeguards against political pressure are essential. The credibility of the system depends not only on prosecution and convictions, but on the fairness and consistency of the process.

The people have heard promises on anti-corruption for years. What they now demand is delivery. If justice is facilitated and delivered swiftly, the improvement in perception can translate into genuine institutional renewal. If not, today’s encouraging statistic may soon become another missed opportunity in the country’s long struggle against corruption.