Twenty-two questions. None of them trivial. All of them unanswered.

That is where this controversy now stands. Nearly a week after a suspected cyber heist involving $ 2.5 million in State funds, a set of pointed queries from the Free Lawyers organisation has cut through the noise and placed the burden squarely where it belongs, on the Government.

The questions go to the heart of the matter. Does the State acknowledge the money has been lost or stolen? When was President and Finance Minister Anura Kumara Dissanayake informed? Was there an earlier cyber intrusion into the Finance Ministry’s systems, reportedly around September last year, and if so, what action followed? These are not peripheral concerns. They speak directly to competence, oversight, and honesty at the highest levels.

And it is that silence which is now most troubling.

A Treasury-linked payment connected to a bilateral transaction with Australia is alleged to have been diverted after official email communications were compromised. The intended recipient did not receive the funds. That alone should have triggered an immediate, transparent response across Government. Instead, what has emerged is a slow, uncertain reaction that has done little to reassure a sceptical public.

More concerning still is what has not happened. The facts of the incident have yet to be placed before a Magistrate’s Court. Investigators have not, at least publicly, recorded statements from the suspended officers linked to the transaction. These are not minor procedural delays. They are fundamental steps in any credible inquiry. Their absence invites the question whether the system is faltering or being held back.

There is also the unavoidable issue of responsibility. The President is not a distant observer in this matter. He holds the Finance portfolio. He is also responsible for National Security. If there has been a breach within the General Treasury, it sits squarely within his domain. Authority and accountability cannot be separated when they are so clearly concentrated.

The Government came to power promising system change, transparency, and accountability. Those words carried weight at the time. They helped secure public confidence in a period of deep economic and political uncertainty. But promises are not measured in speeches. And at present, the gap between rhetoric and response is becoming harder to ignore.

Meanwhile, the political pressure is building. Several opposition parties have staged protests outside the Treasury, demanding answers and a full accounting of what has taken place. It is easy to dismiss such actions as routine politics. That would be a mistake. These protests reflect a broader public anxiety about the safety of State finances and the credibility of those entrusted with managing them.

There are wider implications that cannot be brushed aside. If a Treasury-linked transaction can be diverted through compromised email communication, it suggests vulnerabilities that extend beyond a single incident. Questions arise about cyber security protocols, internal controls, and the speed at which threats are identified and contained. In an era where financial systems are increasingly digitised, such weaknesses carry real and immediate risk.

The concerns surrounding the Finance Ministry Secretary add another layer to an already troubling picture. Allegations have been raised about possible interference with evidence, including changes to appointments and preliminary investigative findings. These claims may yet be disproven. But they cannot simply be ignored or downplayed. The integrity of any investigation depends on independence, both in fact and perception. If that is compromised, public trust is the first casualty.

What is required now is neither complicated nor unreasonable. The Government must move swiftly to place the facts before the courts. Parliament and the public must be informed in a manner that is clear, consistent, and complete.

This is not merely about recovering lost funds, important though that is. It is about restoring confidence in the institutions that manage public money. It is about demonstrating that when a breach occurs, the response is immediate and transparent.

Anything less will only deepen suspicion.

A responsible Government does not behave like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, hoping the moment will pass unnoticed. It confronts the issue directly. It answers the questions put before it. And it accepts responsibility where responsibility lies.