Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) filed a petition on 31st of August 2026, in the Supreme Court challenging the proposed “Anti-Corruption (Amendment)” Bill placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the 19th of August 2026. The Bill proposes concerning amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. The petition has been filed in the public interest.
The principal Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 was a landmark reform designed to strengthen Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption enforcement framework in line with international standards. However, TISL warns that the proposed amendments introduce severe policy regressions, create major loopholes, restrict civic space and violate Fundamental Rights. Far from strengthening anti-corruption efforts, they threaten transparency, accountability, and public trust by undermining the asset declaration regime, meaningful right to information and stripping off judicial oversight on the Authority’s discretion to refrain from prosecuting.
TISL’s petition outlines several key areas of constitutional challenge against the proposed Bill:
Clause 4 – Removing Judicial Oversight on Accomplice Prosecutions
The proposed amendment to Section 70 of the principal enactment authorizes the Commission to empower the Director-General of Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to decide whether to refrain from prosecutions of accomplices in exchange for full disclosure, completely bypassing the requirement for Magistrate authorization. This proposed amendment concentrates discretionary decision-making authority in the position of the Director-General without judicial oversight and accountability, exposing the office to potential manipulation, external threats, political pressure and corruption vulnerabilities. Eliminating judicial oversight threatens the integrity of corruption prosecution and the credibility of the Commission’s enforcement mandate.
Clauses 6 and 18 – Raising the State Shareholding Threshold to 50%
The Bill proposes to amend Section 80(1)(x) of the principal enactment by raising the threshold of State or public-corporation shareholding from 25% to 50% for officers to be required to submit asset declarations. This change would exempt senior officers of state-linked companies where the State holds less than 50% shares. These entities exercise public functions and manage substantial public assets and contracts. A fixed 50% threshold ignores the reality of effective control through board appointments or voting rights and directly conflicts with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which uses a 25% ownership threshold.
Clause 7 – Creating a Loophole by Excluding Cohabitants
The proposed amendment seeks to repeal Section 81(e) of the principal enactment, removing the requirement for public officials to declare the assets and liabilities of cohabitants who share their common household for at least six months prior to the declaration. Repealing this provision with no justification, allows corrupt officials to conceal illicit wealth by registering assets in the names of cohabiting household members who are not spouses or dependents. This hampers effective verification and cross-checking.
Clause 11 – Broad Redaction Powers and the Criminalizing the exercise of Freedom of Expression
Alarmingly, the Bill proposes to amend Section 88 of the principal enactment:
- It grants the CIABOC broad, undefined and arbitrary discretion to redact “any other information” it considers violating an individual’s privacy. This open-ended power risks excessive redaction of key financial details that are vital for identifying conflicts of interest or unexplained wealth.
- It inserts a new subsection that criminalises citizens from using redacted asset declarations for any purpose other than making formal submissions under Section 86. It criminalizes any other use of public information, making it an offence punishable by summary trial with a fine up to Rs. 100,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
Policing what the public can do with public information creates a severe chilling effect on civic space, journalism, and free media. The freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to receive and impart information.
The Bill also proposes to repeal and replace Section 149 of the principal enactment, making bail the exception and remand the norm. The petition highlights that this provision is vague, constitutionally overbroad, lacks clarity, and fails to provide adequate guidelines, violating the principles of proportionality and fundamental rights.
TISL’s petition asserts that the said amendments represent a major policy regression and violate Sri Lanka’s international commitments and that the challenged clauses are inconsistent with Articles 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14(1)(a), 14A, 126, 140, and 156A(1)(c) of the Constitution. They infringe upon the Sovereignty of the People and fundamental rights, restrict the Right to Information Act, and impinge on the judicial power of the People.
Accordingly, TISL’s petition urges the Supreme Court to determine that the relevant clauses of the Bill are inconsistent with key provisions of the Constitution and requests the Court to determine that these provisions cannot become law unless they are passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the People at a Referendum.
( TISL Press Release)