As billions of rupees and millions of dollars flow into the “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” initiative following Cyclone Ditva, unanswered questions about its legal status, governance structure, and oversight mechanisms continue to surface. While publicly presented as a national recovery fund, official responses indicate that it has yet to be formally established in law. The discrepancies between media statements, website information, and Right to Information replies underscore a critical need for transparency, accountability, and clear parliamentary oversight to safeguard public trust in disaster recovery efforts.
Three months after Sri Lanka was struck by Cyclone Ditva, the government announced the creation of a new fund titled “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” to support national recovery and reconstruction efforts. The initiative was presented as a mechanism to mobilize both local and international donations to rebuild infrastructure and assist affected communities. A management structure was also publicly referenced, suggesting a coordinated and transparent approach to post-disaster recovery.
However, the establishment of this new fund quickly became controversial. Sri Lanka already has a Disaster Management Act in place since 2005, which provides for the collection and disbursement of funds during national emergencies. Critics questioned why a separate fund was necessary when an existing legal framework and disaster-related funding mechanisms were already operational. Concerns were raised about duplication, legality, and financial oversight.
Amid these concerns, the national “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” program was ceremonially launched in Colombo on January 13 under the patronage of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The event emphasized national unity and coordinated rebuilding efforts. Nevertheless, questions regarding the fund’s legal status and operational transparency remained unanswered.
In order to clarify these issues, a Right to Information (RTI) request was submitted on January 23, 2026, to the Presidential Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development under Sri Lanka’s RTI Act No. 12 of 2016. The request sought clarification on several key matters, including the legal basis of the fund, its administrative structure, audit procedures, and the total funds collected.
The first response came from the Ministry of Finance on January 30. The Ministry stated that matters related to the “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” fund fell under the purview of the Presidential Secretariat and accordingly transferred the request. This indicated that the fund was not operating under the Ministry of Finance.
On February 24, the Presidential Secretariat responded, stating that steps were “being taken” to establish the fund under the Presidential Secretariat. This response implied that, at the time of inquiry, the fund had not yet been formally or legally established.
When asked about the legal provisions under which the fund was created, the Presidential Secretariat stated that draft legislation was being prepared. However, the official website established for the initiative (rebuildingsrilanka.gov.lk) described the fund as already set up under the Presidential Secretariat. This discrepancy between public representations and official RTI responses raised further questions about transparency and consistency.
Additional questions regarding audit mechanisms, staffing, salary payments, and expenditures were met with the same response: that necessary steps were being taken to establish the fund. No specific operational details were provided.
According to information published on the official website, by February 10, 2026, the fund had reportedly collected LKR 6.072 billion and USD 10.29 million in donations. However, the Presidential Secretariat did not confirm the amount collected as of the date of the RTI request. This gap in official confirmation further intensified concerns about oversight.
The government had earlier issued a media statement announcing the appointment of a management committee composed of representatives from both the public and private sectors. However, the RTI response clarified that, according to a Cabinet decision dated January 1, 2025, what had been appointed was a governing board rather than a management committee.
Public statements suggested that the committee would have authority over fund allocation, needs assessment, prioritization, and the disbursement of funds for recovery projects. However, the RTI response limited the board’s role to providing strategic guidance, coordination, and promoting public confidence and participation. This inconsistency in describing the committee’s powers added to the ambiguity surrounding the fund’s governance.
The issue was also discussed at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Finance. During the session, it was revealed that all collected funds had been deposited into an account operated by the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury (DST account), and that no specific legal framework had yet been enacted for the “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” fund. The Committee Chair emphasized that public funds must remain subject to parliamentary oversight and called on the government to clarify whether the funds would remain under existing treasury mechanisms or whether a legally established separate fund would be created.
In summary, while the “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” initiative has been publicly promoted as a national recovery fund, official responses indicate that it has not yet been formally established under law. Discrepancies between media statements, website content, and RTI responses have raised concerns about transparency, legal validity, financial oversight, and public accountability. The situation highlights the urgent need for a clear legal framework and transparent governance structure to ensure public trust in post-disaster recovery efforts.
(Summarised and translated from a longer article published in BBC Sinhala Service)