Sri Lanka’s latest attempt to strengthen its anti-corruption machinery risks producing an extraordinary contradiction: a law introduced in the name of transparency could restrict how citizens access, scrutinize and use information about public officials.
The proposed amendment to the 2023 Anti-Corruption Act is being presented by the Government as a technical and institutional upgrade designed to remove enforcement obstacles and bring the legal framework closer to international standards and IMF commitments.
But Transparency International Sri Lanka’s constitutional challenge suggests the more important story lies beneath those stated objectives.
The proposed legislation could significantly expand the discretionary authority available to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption while simultaneously narrowing public access to information contained in asset declarations.
That combination deserves far greater scrutiny.
One of the most contentious proposals would allow CIABOC to redact “any other information” it considers a violation of an individual’s privacy. While protecting genuinely sensitive personal information is legitimate, the absence of a clearly defined boundary creates the possibility of excessive redaction.
Asset declarations are not ordinary private documents. Their purpose is to expose unexplained wealth, conflicts of interest and potential corruption.
If crucial financial information disappears behind an excessively broad privacy exemption, the public may be left with documents that technically remain available but are practically incapable of meaningful scrutiny.
The problem becomes even sharper because the proposed amendment would criminalize the use of redacted asset declarations for purposes other than formal submissions under Section 86.
According to TISL, citizens could face a fine of up to Rs.100,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, if they use such public information for other purposes.
That provision could have significant implications for journalists, civil society organizations, researchers and ordinary citizens investigating possible conflicts of interest.
The fundamental question is simple: if information is legally made public, should the Government then criminalize how the public uses it?
There must, of course, be limits. Personal information that has no legitimate relationship to corruption investigations should not become material for public exploitation. But those limits need to be precise, objectively defined and proportionate.
TISL argues that an overly broad restriction could create a chilling effect on journalism and civic oversight, particularly when investigative reporting often depends on comparing public declarations, corporate records, government contracts and other publicly available information.
The proposed increase in the State ownership threshold for asset declarations also raises another transparency concern.
Moving the threshold from 25% to 50% could exclude senior officers of companies in which the Government owns less than half the shares, despite those companies potentially exercising public functions or controlling substantial public resources.
TISL argues that this conflicts with the broader logic of Sri Lanka’s Right to Information framework, which recognizes a lower ownership threshold.
The amendment also proposes removing requirements concerning assets and liabilities held by certain cohabiting household members. Critics fear this could unintentionally create a loophole through which illicit wealth can be transferred to individuals sharing a household but falling outside conventional definitions of spouse or dependent.
The final warning concerns bail and remand provisions. TISL says the proposed framework could make bail the exception and remand the norm, while lacking sufficient precision and proportionality.
The Government has a legitimate responsibility to make CIABOC more effective. But effectiveness cannot be measured solely by the number of powers granted to investigators. It must also be measured by the safeguards preventing those powers from being abused.
The Supreme Court has now been asked to determine whether the challenged provisions are constitutionally consistent and, if not, whether they require a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a referendum.
That judicial scrutiny may ultimately determine whether Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption reform becomes a genuine transparency upgrade or a dangerous expansion of state discretion dressed as reforms.
The post Anti-Graft Reform Risks Turning Transparency into Secrecy appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
