• CIABOC DG highlights need to strengthen financial independence and staffing mechanism
• Plans to establish 23 district offices for CIABOC teams by early next year
• Prosecutions based on complaints to be heard at high courts in the said districts
• Dissanayake describes red tape and institutional pushback on improving watchdog
• Plans to recruit over 900 staff, including transfers from State sector

Sri Lanka has embarked on an anti-corruption drive, with the National People’s Power (NPP) Government steadfast on ‘cleaning up’ the nation, with its stated goal of shedding Sri Lanka’s image of being a nation where corruption is rife. 

With new legislation introduced – some controversial – The Sunday Morning had an exclusive interview with anti-corruption watchdog, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) Director General (DG) Ranga Dissanayake, to discuss the challenges faced by the CIABOC in the pursuit of combatting corruption and bribery.

Institutional independence

Dissanayake, a High Court Judge appointed to the office by the President, told The Sunday Morning that when he took on duties, he needed to ensure the watchdog’s independence by strengthening the CIABOC’s financial independence and staffing mechanism.

“When I assumed duties, I understood the situation the institution was in. In the Anti-Corruption Act, the Legislature wanted to establish a 100% independent institution. Also, there is a need for dedicated and specialised staff for the role we are tasked with. I observed that practically it has not happened.”

He opined that the act had a provision under Special Section 26.1 to appoint its staff, stressing that for the institution to be sustained as an institution which had the public’s trust and maintain its efficiency, financial independence and hiring the right staff were paramount.

However, the CIABOC DG complained that some elements within the broader bureaucracy were creating bottlenecks and dragging their feet in allowing the watchdog to effectively recruit the kind of personnel needed for its operations. This, Dissanayake claims, even after the President had given the nod for the CIABOC to recruit personnel and pay them a wage befitting the service which is expected.

“The intention is that the Department of Management Services and the Finance Ministry do not control the corridors of this commission, that is to ensure the CIABOC’s independence. After I came here, I struggled with these sections… I feel that they are not willing to give such independence to these institutions. Afterwards, they actually made an objection under the Public Financial Management Act,” he charged. 

He further stated that the resistance faced by the CIABOC from within the bureaucracy was stiff, that he had strongly objected to resistance from the bureaucrats, and that advice from the Attorney General had supported the fact that the CIABOC was empowered to pick its own cadre. “Actually, we can solve these problems with the President. But we cannot do so with the Management Services Department,” he opined.

On remuneration for the specialised staff needed, Dissanayake said that he was satisfied with what had been agreed upon, although there was room for improvement. “Now, we have to make new Schemes of Recruitment (SORs) for recruiting purposes and a new manual for these officers. My view is that not even an establishment code will be applicable to this,” he added.

Dissanayake argued that the CIABOC was a unique institution and had been empowered by legislation to have investigative and prosecutorial functions. “The CIABOC is unique, especially since it possesses investigative and prosecutorial powers.”

He opined that specialist staff for investigations, forensic services, and legal analysis were needed as corruption and bribery were complex crimes. “As a first step, I am planning to get a small number of people from outside, new faces – perhaps around 50–100 investigation officers – and integrate them with others already here. I feel that we can start with that and build on it. We can increase the numbers gradually.”

When asked whether the CIABOC had a strong vetting system to ensure the institution was not compromised when new recruitment happened, Dissanayake stated that the watchdog relied on a series of Police background checks and intelligence reports for privacy vetting of applicants and transfer staff.

“We have that process in place. We call for reports from the Police and State Intelligence Service (SIS). This is the vetting process we are following,” he said, adding that the CIABOC intended on obtaining input from the National Police Commission and Public Service Commission as well in the future.

Investigative powers

According to Dissanayake, CIABOC officers have broad powers for investigating corruption and bribery. 

“We have all the powers. We don’t want to amend what is in the act. If you look at special investigation techniques, check Section 55. The commission may, in an investigation under Section 42 of the act, use any investigation technique including the following: surveillance and observations; undercover operations; photographic, audio, or video recording; using a bugging device; or even conducting controlled deliveries to map the network of perpetrators. 

“We are also training our investigators to use skills such as Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT), as there is bribery and corruption taking place now in the digital domain and on social media platforms.”

When asked whether the CIABOC was planning to build in-house forensic capacity, especially as the current judicial system was facing significant bottlenecks due to delays in the Government Analyst’s Department, Dissanayake said: “We don’t have such plans, but actually we should. In Hong Kong and Singapore, anti-corruption agencies have developed systems in-house. People who are working here, especially investigators, are Police officers who are trained by the Police Department; they don’t have specialised forensic skills. But we are planning to improve our situation by recruiting graduates. We can train them and most international organisations are ready to help in doing so.”

He stated that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Governments of South Korea, Japan, and others had been supportive in funding training activities and upskilling CIABOC staff.

Cybersecurity and data protection

When asked about the safety of the data the public was entrusting to the CIABOC, which now collects data on asset declarations of persons, including assets held by family members, Dissanayake acknowledged that they were taking data security and cybersecurity seriously.

The Director General acknowledged that the CIABOC website had suffered a malicious cyber attack last month and was now being updated. He stressed that the asset declaration servers and databases were not compromised. 

“The attack has not harmed or affected the asset declaration system, because otherwise it will be a big problem,” he said, adding that effective and safe digitalisation of State services and public access to them was important to reduce corruption and bribery. He added that the CIABOC was working with cybersecurity agencies to review and improve their digital infrastructure.

Privacy of data

Dissanayake also opined that there were concerns about how asset declarations would impact the privacy of people. With asset declarations including those of spouses and children, in some cases, granting public access to such information could lead to privacy issues.

He argued that some segments of the public were not using such information in a responsible manner and that if those who abided by the law and submitted their details found themselves being judged in the public domain instead of in a court of law, especially on platforms like social media by using the information they submitted in good conscience, many may be discouraged from continuing to submit asset declarations.  

Decentralisation and better access

Dissanayake told The Sunday Morning that CIABOC services and investigations needed to be decentralised if the mechanism was to deliver what was expected from it and for the public to be comfortable to complain about what they saw and experienced.

As such, under the governance action plan for 2026, the watchdog has planned to establish 23 district offices which will be staffed by over 400 personnel over the coming months. The DG said that the staff that worked at the new offices would include legal, investigations, and prevention officers.

“Through these district offices, we plan to improve efficiency, accessibility of our service to the public, and anti-corruption enforcement,” he said, adding that he was hopeful to get the decentralisation going by the end of the year. 

“I would like to ensure that the district offices are established by the end of December. We need to think of citizens. A person who faces bribery or corruption must come to Colombo to lodge a complaint. Then we have to dispatch an investigation team to the individual’s locality, which may be in Ampara or Kilinochchi, to inquire and gather evidence. The team has to find accommodation, stay for extended periods, and report back to Colombo,” Dissanayake explained. 

He added that once a case was filed before courts in Colombo, complainants, accused, witnesses, and lawyers had to make long journeys to Colombo to appear before the court.

Furthermore, Dissanayake stated that the move to decentralise the anti-corruption watchdog’s offices was also supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and that the move was part of the 2025–’26 strategic plan. 

He noted that the district offices and their staff, once established, would be able to register complaints from their district, conduct investigations and raids, coordinate and file cases in the courts in those districts, and build awareness amongst the public. He added that the CIABOC was in discussion with the judicial apparatus to create the necessary jurisdictions so that the courts in the district could take up cases filed by the district office.  

Building awareness and a culture of integrity

When asked about long-term goals of anti-corruption, Dissanayake opined that it should be prevention over prosecution. He stressed that Sri Lanka, like South Korea and Japan, should push for a culture of integrity where those in the public sector and private sector alike found resorting to bribery and corruption unthinkable and criminal.

“We are going to work with the universities. We had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University Grants Commission and we have an MOU with the Education Ministry as well. We want to minimise corruption. We wish to enhance integrity among the people, so it has to start from the school level. 

“We are now planning to conduct programmes with schools, and we plan to set up integrity classes within schools. We need to target the youth and empower them to resist corruption and bribery. We need to create such a culture in Sri Lanka, and therefore, we have to change the attitude of the people.”