On 19 August, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya tabled in Parliament a proposed amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. Among its most serious changes is a restriction on how asset declarations may be used once accessed by the public. The proposed amendment criminalises speech, unravels a hard-won anti-corruption reform, and asks citizens to place almost complete trust in the authorities rather than in democratic scrutiny to curtail illicit enrichment.
What does the proposed amendment do?
The proposed amendment takes away a critical element of the right to know about asset accumulation by public officials. It takes away the right to speak about what is found out.
The amendment would make it an offence to share, publish or discuss an asset declaration that a person has lawfully accessed, except for the limited purpose of making a complaint to the specified authorities. In practical terms, a citizen may be able to see a declaration but not speak about what it reveals.
This reverses one of the critically important shifts made by the Anti-Corruption Act. It would return Sri Lanka to the outdated approach reflected in the old Declaration of Assets and Liabilities law, which had a draconian secrecy provision attached to it. The new Anti-Corruption Act had dismantled that. The proposed amendment now threatens to bring it back.
Criminalising the freedom to speak
There is a Sinhala saying that asks, if the sword is not available for battle, is it to cut jackfruit? (යුද්දෙට නැති කඩුව කොස් කොටන්නද?) The proposed amendment raises the same question about the right to information – if the public cannot speak about it, does it have a public benefit?
If a declaration is published on CIABOC’s Central Electronic System, or obtained through a Right to Information request, the public should be able to question it, compare it, analyse it and debate it. But under the proposed amendment, those ordinary forms of democratic scrutiny – discussing an asset declaration – may carry criminal consequences.
The result is a gag effect on media, civil society and citizens. Journalists will be barred from reporting on declarations. Civil society organisations will be prevented from carrying out trend analyses or public-interest critiques. Citizens will stop discussing whether a public official’s disclosed assets appear consistent with their known income and public position.
Why does this matter for anti-corruption?
Elected representatives and senior public officials exercise public power. They control and influence decisions involving public funds, appointments, licenses, contracts and other state resources. This is why they are subject to a higher level of public scrutiny than ordinary citizens.
Asset declarations are not merely forms filed in a database. They are accountability tools. They allow the public to ask whether those in power have accumulated wealth that cannot be explained by lawful income. They also allow journalists, citizens, and civil society to connect information across time and to connect asset acquisition to positions held by officials at the time.
The proposed amendment shifts that burden almost entirely onto CIABOC and other authorities. Once a complaint is made, citizens must wait and trust that the state will act. But Sri Lanka’s recent history shows why that alone does not suffice. State institutions have too often been vulnerable to capture, pressure or inaction when powerful interests are involved.
In that context, media and civil society are not optional extras. They are often the best line of defense when it comes to accountability. Sri Lanka has seen public-interest litigation, investigative reporting and civic pressure expose corruption and governance failures, including in relation to the economic crisis and medical procurement scandals. The proposed amendment to silence public discussion of asset declarations targets and undermines precisely those who help ensure that corruption complaints are pursued and power is held to account.
Reversing progressive anti-corruption reform
The Anti-Corruption Act was rightly hailed as a much-needed reform because it changed the suppressive culture that prevailed around asset declarations in the old system of politics that Sri Lankans had come to resent. It recognised that transparency requires more than submission to a closed state process. It requires public access, public use and public accountability.
That reform did not happen by accident. It followed years of engagement by civil society organisations and thinking communities, including Verité Research and Transparency International Sri Lanka, and it reflected the public demand for “system change” that intensified during the Aragalaya. One of the clearest demands was that asset declarations should not be locked away, and that citizens should not be criminalised for discussing information obtained through lawful access.
If the concerns raised by the Government are about the about the ‘misuse’ of information disclosed in asset declarations, the general law can be relied upon to address them. Even countries that have departed from better governance standards on asset declarations such as Argentina and the Philippines, have only chosen to prevent commercial or unlawful misuse of data rather than silencing public debate. Sri Lanka should not race backwards from a modern access regime into one that treats public scrutiny as a criminal risk.
The anti-corruption drive cannot be entrusted to the authorities alone
Anti-corruption systems must be designed so they can survive changes in administration, leadership and political will. They cannot depend on trust in the officials of the day, however well-intentioned they might be. Laws must anticipate the possibility of future capture and build in safeguards against it.
Sri Lanka has been taking early steps towards reform in a context shaped by high-level corruption, an economic crisis and a strong public demand for accountability. The Supreme Court has already recognised the role of bad governance in the country’s economic collapse, and the present government was elected on a powerful anti-corruption mandate. Against this background, this amendment is a reversal, taking several steps backwards against the interest of society and the country.
It does not escape public notice that this amendment is being proposed in the aftermath of public critique regarding the assets of current politicians. This begs the question: whose interests does this amendment serve?
If enacted, the amendment would be an early and deliberate retreat from the gains made by the new Anti-Corruption Act passed in 2023, prior to the election of this government. It chooses secrecy over scrutiny, and criminalisation over public participation. It goes perniciously against the “system change” mandate on which the government was elected.
Sankhitha Gunaratne is Deputy Director and Head of the Governance and Anti-corruption Research Team at Verité Research. She previously served as Deputy Executive Director of Transparency International Sri Lanka.
( Daily Mirror)