For President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government, the election slogan ‘A Thriving Nation, A Beautiful Life’ is increasingly becoming more than a campaign promise; it is turning into one of the Opposition’s most effective political weapons.

Nearly two years into the JVP/NPP administration, the Opposition is seeking to change the terms of the political debate. Instead of getting drawn into arguments over International Monetary Fund (IMF) targets, fiscal deficits, and macroeconomic stability, it is asking a question that is far more difficult for any government to evade, which is whether the JVP/NPP delivered the life it promised voters.

The Government can point to economic stabilisation, improved public finances, and progress under the IMF programme. But defending problems inherited from previous administrations is one thing; explaining promises made by the Government itself is another.

That is where the Opposition sees its opening. It has increasingly focused on pensioners facing lower returns on their savings, farmers struggling with rising cultivation costs and uncertain prices, and small businesses weighed down by debt and weak consumer demand. The argument is deliberately simple: if the recovery is reaching ordinary people, why do so many households and entrepreneurs continue to feel financially squeezed?

The Opposition is also bringing back promises that could prove particularly uncomfortable for the JVP/NPP, including the pledge to reduce electricity tariffs by 33% and repeated assurances that the cost of living would become more manageable.

However, the Government is now facing a second and potentially more consequential political battle over its proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and related changes to the Judiciary.

The proposed constitutional changes have triggered strong criticism from sections of the legal fraternity, with concerns being raised over the Government’s approach to the Judiciary, judicial independence, and institutional safeguards surrounding the country’s highest courts. The Opposition as well as the Mahanayakas of the three main Buddhist sects of the country have expressed concerns over the Government’s proposed judicial reforms.

The controversy has placed the JVP/NPP in an increasingly uncomfortable position, where a Government that came to power promising a break from the political practices of the past is now being challenged over whether some of its proposed institutional reforms could weaken the very checks and balances it pledged to protect.

The clash with the legal community therefore carries significance beyond the technical provisions of the proposed legislation. It has become part of a wider political argument over what kind of state the JVP/NPP intends to build and whether its constitutional reforms are consistent with the democratic transformation it promised during its campaign.

Nevertheless, President AKD has taken a firm stance that “no change can be made without taking a risk,” indicating that the Government will proceed with its planned judicial reforms.

Even post-disaster relief has become part of the Opposition’s broader narrative. Despite billions of rupees being announced and parliamentary allocations approved for communities affected by Cyclone Ditwah, the Opposition maintains that many families are still waiting for meaningful assistance.

For AKD and the JVP/NPP, this represents a significant shift in the political battlefield. The Government is increasingly being judged on two fronts: whether its economic recovery is improving the daily lives of citizens, and whether its exercise of political power is consistent with the principles of institutional independence and democratic accountability.

For much of its time in office, the Government’s strongest defence has been economic stabilisation and fiscal discipline. But while primary surpluses may impress international lenders and IMF officials, elections are rarely won on balance sheets alone.

AKD and BASL

On the issue of the proposed judicial reforms, a special meeting was held on Wednesday (12) at 1 p.m. between President AKD and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).

The bill relating to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that has already been gazetted on the instructions of the Minister of Justice and National Integration was the key focus of the discussion. According to the bill, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges will be increased to 67, while the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges will be set at 65.

However, the BASL has maintained that the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges should not be introduced at this stage without broad consultation.

Soon after the meeting with the President, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya struck a cautiously optimistic note, saying the lawyers had presented their position to the President while the latter had also explained his views. “We expressed our views, and the President expressed his views. We hope there will be a change,” Amarasuriya told the media outside the Presidential Secretariat.

The BASL President said that the association had made a detailed presentation to the President on the proposed extension of judges’ retirement age. “This is not a fight against anyone,” he also said, stressing that the association’s opposition was based on its concerns over the proposed constitutional change and not directed at any individual judge or political figure.

The carefully-worded response is significant given that the BASL has been among the strongest voices raising concerns over the proposed changes, particularly given the potential implications for the independence and institutional stability of the Judiciary.

The meeting, therefore, appears to have provided the Government with an opportunity to hear directly from the legal profession before proceeding further with the proposed constitutional amendment.

However, the BASL’s optimism also raises an important political question on whether the President had given any indication that the Government is prepared to reconsider the proposal.

Amarasuriya stopped short of saying that the Government had agreed to withdraw or amend the proposal. Instead, he said the BASL hoped there would be a change following the discussion.

‘The Black Box,’ however, learns that the BASL was represented by about 20 members including past presidents of the association and that the indication from the President’s side was that the meeting had been organised following a request by the BASL. Senior Counsel Upul Jayasuriya and Geoffrey Alagaratnam and Prof. Savitri Goonesekere expressed views during the meeting.

It is also learnt that the President had also stood his ground when explaining the Government’s thought process behind the 22nd Amendment and seemed determined to proceed with the proposed amendment.

Statement before meeting

However, hours before meeting with President AKD, the BASL issued a statement warning that extending the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges could undermine judicial independence.

The BASL called on the Government to withdraw the bill in its present form, questioning the claim that keeping judges in office longer would improve judicial efficiency.

The association also raised a more serious constitutional issue. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Special Determination in SC SD 64-71/2022, the BASL argued that changes affecting the tenure of incumbent superior court judges would impact judicial independence and require approval at a referendum.

There is also a potential constitutional awkwardness waiting in the wings. If the bill is challenged before the Supreme Court, judges could find themselves deciding the constitutionality of legislation that would extend their own tenure.

The BASL has therefore suggested that, if the Government is determined to proceed, it should take the proposal directly to the people rather than leave the Supreme Court to navigate what could become an unprecedented constitutional minefield.

The association says it is not opposing reform for the sake of opposition but is drawing a line where it believes the independence of the Judiciary is at stake.

AKD stands firm

Be that as it may, the President’s Office decided to publicly release the statement made by President AKD to the BASL at Wednesday’s meeting, the following day (13). The statement, which is around 24 minutes, showed AKD explaining in detail the Government’s thinking behind the proposed 22nd Amendment.

The video released to the media further confirmed the information received by ‘The Black Box’ that the President had stood his ground at the discussion.

At the outset, he expresses his displeasure over the BASL’s move to issue a public statement against the proposed 22nd Amendment a few hours before the meeting. AKD noted that he was prepared to sit at the meeting with an open mind expecting the BASL to also do the same, but that the association had issued a statement showing it was not participating in the meeting with an open mind.

“I have made a considerable effort to come here with an open mind and that was my intention from the outset. I believe that, in our country, everyone is free to express their views on any matter following a discussion. However, when a discussion has already been scheduled, I do not believe it is appropriate to issue a statement in the morning setting out the content, substance, and points to be presented at the discussion later in the day. My view is that doing so can constrain the scope for an open discussion.”

The President explained that the Government would at no stage use Executive powers or its power in the Legislature to introduce constitutional amendments.

AKD also responded to a claim made by a senior member of the BASL that the incumbent President might also have to relinquish his office like former leaders who had faced similar situations following controversies with the Judiciary. “I’m ready to leave this post any time. I never came with the intention of holding office. I am also prepared to take the risk of bringing about this change. I don’t think there can be any change without risks,” AKD noted.

Citing an example of the risks he was prepared to take, the President noted that the Easter Sunday attacks investigation targeted Intelligence units in the country. “They (the Intelligence units) are responsible for my security, but still the investigations are continuing,” he said.

BASL responds

However, while the Government may have to take risks to pursue economic and political change, the BASL continues to warn that judicial independence is one line that cannot be crossed.

BASL President Amarasuriya, responding to President AKD’s defence of the proposed extension of judges’ retirement age, said the answer to any perceived risk was to abandon the proposal and not proceed with it. “If the President thinks there is a risk here, the answer is not to proceed with this,” Amarasuriya said, referring to the proposed extension of the retirement age of superior court judges.

“Judicial independence is a noble concept. It is above everything else,” he said, adding that if there was a chance that judicial independence could be harmed or lost, that would be a very serious problem for everyone.

The BASL is still keeping the door open for dialogue, stressing that it is not currently in a confrontation with the Government and that both sides should “agree to disagree” while seeking common ground.

However, Amarasuriya had made it clear that the association would firmly oppose the proposal and use all means within its mandate if it believed judicial independence was at stake.

With AKD insisting that the reform is part of a broader effort to transform the justice system, and the BASL warning against any risk to judicial independence, the dispute is fast becoming a defining test of the Government’s constitutional reform agenda.

Story behind the letter

Meanwhile, the issue of extending the retirement age of judges sparked considerable controversy, with a letter said to have been sent to the President by the Mahanayaka Theras of the three nikayas further compounding it.

The matter was first brought to public attention when BASL President Amarasuriya spoke to the media after meeting the Mahanayaka Thera of the Malwathu Chapter. Amarasuriya said that the Mahanayaka Theras had sent a letter to the President expressing their opposition to the Government’s move to extend the retirement age of judges.

Normally, such a letter would be publicly disclosed after it was sent. However, since neither the President’s side nor the Mahanayaka Theras had issued any official statement on the matter, many began trying to establish whether the reports were in fact accurate.

The controversy over the elusive letter sent to the President intensified with Malwathu Chapter Mahanayaka, Most Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera stating that they did not even know whether the President had received the letter.

Speaking to a delegation of lawyers led by President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne, the Mahanayaka Thera had said that they had received no confirmation from the Presidential Secretariat and had no idea what had happened to their communication.

It is learnt that the letter had indeed been sent to the President by the Mahanayaka Theras.

However, it is also learnt that as soon as the President had been initially informed that such an initiative was underway, steps had been taken to establish direct coordination with the Mahanayaka Thera of the Malwathu Chapter.

The coordination was reportedly handled by a prominent political figure from Kandy who had held an influential position under previous governments and has since retired from active politics. He is also said to maintain a close personal relationship with the President dating back many years.

Once the President had received information about the letter, he had contacted this former Kandy politician and entrusted him with the task of managing the situation and maintaining communication with the Malwathu Chapter.

The former politician is said to have contacted the Malwathu Viharaya several times, conveying messages from the President and working to facilitate communication between the two sides.

Following the success of those efforts, the President had reportedly telephoned the Mahanayaka Thera of the Malwathu Chapter. During the conversation, the President is said to have assured the Thera that he would take steps to find a solution to the issue, while requesting that the letter not be released to the media until then.

It was subsequent to this communication that Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara and Health Minister Nalinda Jayatissa had met with the Mahanayaka Theras of the three nikayas.

Nalinda confirms letter

However, Minister Jayatissa finally confirmed receipt of the letter from the Mahanayakas by saying that he and the Minister of Justice had met with the Mahanayaka Theras afterwards (after receiving the letter) and explained the Government’s position regarding the constitutional amendment proposed to extend the retirement age of judges.

He made these remarks in response to questions from journalists at the Cabinet media briefing on Tuesday (11).

Awaiting AKD’s response

Nevertheless, the issue over the controversial letter sent by the Mahanayaka Theras to President AKD took a new political twist, with Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Sujeewa Senasinghe publicly disclosing the contents of a letter said to be the one sent by the Chief Prelates of the country’s three Buddhist chapters to President AKD.

The letter had directly called on the Government to reconsider its proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which seeks to increase the retirement age of judges of the superior courts. The Chief Prelates had pointed out that the present constitutional provisions required Court of Appeal judges to retire at 63 and Supreme Court judges at 65. They had expressed their view that increasing these limits would not be appropriate.

The intervention is significant because it places the Government’s judicial reform proposal under scrutiny not merely from Opposition parties and the legal fraternity, but also from the country’s highest Buddhist clergy.

Following Senasinghe’s revelation, copies of the letter to the President were widely shared on social media while the Government maintained silence and did not move to deny or reject the letter.

For the Government, the challenge is therefore no longer confined to defending the technical merits of a constitutional amendment. It must also explain why a proposal affecting the senior Judiciary is necessary at this particular juncture and whether the concerns raised by the Mahanayaka Theras have been adequately considered.

Not to be cast aside, the silence from the Presidential Secretariat, as described by the Malwathu Mahanayaka Thera, could also become a political issue in its own right.

UN warning puts pressure

Meanwhile, the Government’s controversial proposal to extend the retirement age of superior court judges has come under fresh international scrutiny, with the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers warning that the move could undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the Judiciary.

In a communication to the Sri Lankan Government, Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite has questioned the decision to apply the proposed increase to sitting judges, rather than only to future appointees. She has warned that, without transitional arrangements and objective safeguards, the amendment could create the perception that it is intended to influence the immediate composition of the superior courts.

The timing of the intervention is politically awkward for the Government. President AKD has insisted that the proposal was not designed with any individual or group in mind and forms part of a wider programme to strengthen the justice system.

The BASL, while not opposing an increase in the number of judges or the retirement age in principle, has called for the retirement age proposal to be reconsidered to build broader consensus.

The UN concerns therefore give added weight to the question now confronting the Government on whether the reform is genuinely about strengthening the Judiciary. If so, why not take the extra step of building the widest possible legal and political consensus before changing the rules governing judges already in office?

Drawing legal battle lines

The Government’s move to gazette the proposed 22nd Amendment has opened another front in its increasingly contentious battle with the Opposition over judicial reform.

At a media briefing in Colombo, former Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris said the Joint Opposition would challenge the amendment through democratic and legal means, arguing that extending the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years went beyond addressing the judicial backlog and could affect the country’s institutional balance.

The Opposition maintains that the case backlog is primarily a problem at the lower-court level and cannot be solved simply by keeping senior judges in office longer. It also argues that the amendment should be subjected to a referendum.

Peiris said that the Opposition would petition the Supreme Court and seek a full bench to hear the case. He also criticised the Government for failing to respond to concerns raised by the Mahanayaka Theras and the BASL.

United National Party (UNP) Chairman Wajira Abeywardena warned that extending retirement ages across the public sector could fuel youth dissatisfaction, while United Republic Front Leader Patali Champika Ranawaka argued that judicial independence required institutional safeguards rather than amendments perceived as targeting individuals.

The Government may have presented the proposal as a solution to the case backlog, but the Opposition is increasingly framing it as a test of judicial independence and another political battle over the limits of Executive power.

GSP+ and the reform checklist

Amidst the ongoing debate over the Government’s judicial reforms, the latest Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) assessment by the European Union (EU) has handed the Government a fairly comprehensive reform checklist, covering everything from the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA) to Police abuse, civil society freedoms, and the death penalty.

The EU has called for the repeal of the PTA and legislation in line with international standards, while urging Colombo to address the alleged intimidation, harassment, and surveillance of civil society by security forces. It has also pressed for accountability over torture, Police abuse, and deaths in custody.

On the death penalty, the EU has called on Sri Lanka to introduce a formal moratorium as a step towards abolition. It has also called for stronger measures against domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence and child abuse, including a ban on child marriage.

The timing is politically significant given that Sri Lanka has been a GSP+ beneficiary since 2017 and remains the EU’s third-largest beneficiary. In 2024, Sri Lankan imports using GSP+ preferences were worth EUR 1.5 billion, generating an estimated EUR 139 million in tariff savings. Yet the country had utilised only 68.9% of its available GSP+ preferences.

The message from Brussels is therefore twofold: there is more economic value for Sri Lanka to extract from GSP+, but there is also a substantial governance and rights reform bill that comes with the arrangement.

For a Government that has placed good governance and accountability at the centre of its political narrative, the EU’s checklist could prove to be an important test of whether those commitments extend beyond rhetoric.

PC Polls conundrum

Meanwhile, the Provincial Council (PC) Elections question is now entering a politically decisive phase as well, with the Government facing growing pressure to clarify when and how it intends to resolve the long-standing electoral impasse.

The issue has also prompted renewed coordination among the Tamil and Muslim political parties, which had met again last week to discuss their next course of action. The parties have reportedly decided to step up their engagement with the diplomatic community, with meetings with several ambassadors expected in the coming days.

According to sources, a number of foreign missions have already extended invitations to representatives of the parties for discussions on the matter. The move signals that the Provincial Council issue is increasingly being taken beyond domestic political negotiations and into the sphere of international diplomatic engagement.

However, the parties appear to be preparing for more than a diplomatic campaign. It is learnt that plans are underway to organise a series of major public meetings across the north and east and in the plantation districts over the next two months. Three issues are expected to dominate these meetings: the proposed new Constitution, the holding of PC Elections, and the resolution of outstanding land issues.

The strategy suggests that the Tamil and Muslim parties are seeking to build pressure simultaneously on several fronts – politically within Parliament, diplomatically through foreign missions, and on the ground through public mobilisation.

Sujeewa’s challenge

Meanwhile, Opposition MP Sujeewa Senasinghe has issued a simple political challenge to the Government. He has claimed that if the JVP/NPP administration genuinely enjoys 75% public support, it should stop talking about its popularity and prove it by holding the long-delayed PC Elections.

Speaking at a media briefing, Senasinghe said he was prepared to resign from Parliament and contest for the post of chief minister of the Central Province if the elections were called. While the declaration is largely symbolic, its political message is clear. The Opposition is increasingly demanding that the Government test its mandate at the ballot box rather than rely on claims of overwhelming public approval.

PC Elections have not been held since they were last due from 2018 onwards, making them one of the country’s longest-postponed democratic exercises. Successive governments have cited electoral reforms and legal complications to justify the delay. However, every postponement has pushed the perception that those in power are reluctant to face the electorate.

The ‘red junta’ charge

Meanwhile, former Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka has launched a sharp attack on the JVP/NPP Government, arguing that the movement that once stood for the JVP’s long-held political principles has now been replaced by what he has described as a small “Bolshevik Lenin” group operating from Pelawatte.

Ranawaka has claimed that this “red junta” has assumed control of the country despite, in his view, having no direct electoral mandate of its own. His message to the Opposition, however, was that there is no reason to be intimidated.

The former Parliamentarian has also accused the Government of attempting to weaken the Opposition while laying the groundwork to extend the terms of both the President and Parliament through a referendum.

Whether Ranawaka’s characterisation resonates beyond the Opposition ranks remains to be seen. But the rhetoric signals how sharply the political battle is beginning to shift – from criticism of Government policy to questions about who is actually exercising power within the JVP/NPP administration.

FSP’s denial

The JVP splinter group, the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), meanwhile, has rejected reported moves between the FSP and JVP to reconcile past differences and reach common ground.

A brief face-to-face encounter between JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva and FSP Leader Kumar Gunaratnam has been enough to revive an old political question on whether the two factions of the radical Left will ever find their way back together.

The encounter took place at an event held at Colombo’s New Town Hall recently and almost immediately, political circles began reading more into the meeting, with speculation that discussions could be taking place behind the scenes about a possible political rapprochement between the JVP and the FSP.

However, at least for now, there appears to be little substance behind the reunion theory.

Sources close to both parties have firmly rejected any suggestion that the JVP and FSP are preparing for a political merger or renewed alliance. The message from both camps is that the meeting was just that, a meeting, and should not be interpreted as the beginning of negotiations for a reunion.

The speculation was also dismissed publicly by former General Secretary of the JVP Lionel Bopage, who described the reports as false in a Facebook post.

Nevertheless, the speed with which the encounter generated political speculation is itself revealing. The split between the JVP and the faction that eventually became the FSP remains one of the defining fractures of the country’s radical Left. Any visible contact between senior figures from the two sides is therefore bound to attract attention, particularly at a time when the JVP/NPP Government occupies the centre of national politics.

For the moment, however, the political message from both sides is clear: there is no reunion on the table. Whether that remains the case in the longer term is, however, a different question.

Firing back at Govt.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser, MP Namal Rajapaksa has slammed the JVP/NPP Government, accusing it of suppressing dissent, abandoning its electoral promises, and shifting the cost of its failures onto ordinary citizens through an increasing tax burden.

Addressing a meeting in Attanagalla, Gampaha, Namal also sought to revisit the SLPP’s conduct during the 2022 Aragalaya, arguing that the party had deliberately chosen not to use the military and Police to violently suppress the mass protests.

“We could have used the military and the Police during the Aragalaya, killed thousands, and tried to protect the Government. We did not do that. If we had, there is a possibility that Namal Rajapaksa would not even be here today,” he said.

Namal argued that the decision to step back and confront political reality should not now be portrayed as cowardice. “We faced reality. If the Government or those associated with it think that stepping back, standing with the people, and protecting the country’s youth from a social catastrophe was cowardice, they are mistaken,” he said.

Turning to the recent unrest in the prison system, Namal mocked what he described as the Government’s tendency to attribute such incidents to him. “‘This is definitely Namal’s work.’ That is what they are saying. They say it is the work of the Opposition; they say it is Namal’s work. Perhaps the President and the Government see me as such a powerful figure,” he said sarcastically.

He then broadened his attack, accusing the Government of attempting to suppress political opponents, civil society groups, voluntary organisations, and Buddhist clergy critical of its policies.

According to Namal, the Government is simultaneously failing to deliver on the promises made to voters while attempting to move the country towards an authoritarian style of governance. He also targeted the Government’s economic policies, claiming that ordinary workers, salaried employees, and daily income earners were being subjected to an increasingly heavy tax burden while selected groups were receiving tax concessions.

Another twist to political tensions

Meanwhile, the arrest of SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam by the Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB) has added another twist to the increasingly tense political landscape.

Kariyawasam was arrested after appearing before the CCIB to provide a statement over remarks he had allegedly made concerning the Inspector General of Police. He was subsequently produced before Kaduwela Magistrate Aruna Indrajith Buddhadasa, who ordered his release on two surety bail bonds of Rs. 2 million each and imposed a travel ban on him.

The episode is likely to draw political attention, particularly given Kariyawasam’s position as a senior SLPP figure. His arrest comes amid heightened exchanges between Opposition politicians and State institutions, raising questions over where political criticism ends and legal accountability begins.

For the SLPP, however, the case is unlikely to be viewed simply as a legal matter. Kariyawasam’s arrest could become another point of confrontation between the Opposition and the Government at a time when political tensions are already rising.

Rajitha indicted

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), meanwhile, has filed an indictment before the Colombo High Court against former Minister of Fisheries Rajitha Senaratne, alleging that he had committed the offence of “corruption” by exerting pressure on the Ceylon Fishery Harbours Corporation Chairman to lease out the corporation-owned vessel, the Weligowwa, for sand removal operations at the Kirinda Fishery Harbour.

The alleged offence is said to have occurred between 12 June 2012 and 6 August 2012, while Senaratne was serving as the Fisheries Minister. The CIABOC alleges that he had selected a Korean company to carry out the removal and commercial sale of sand from the Kirinda Fishery Harbour and had pressured the Chairman of the Ceylon Fishery Harbours Corporation to lease the Weligowwa to facilitate the operation.

A total of five charges have been filed against the accused. The indictments have been filed under Section 70 of the Bribery Act, in relation to the offence of corruption.

The prosecution has named 13 individuals as witnesses and listed 25 documents as case exhibits.

JVP/NPP’s anti-corruption test

Meanwhile, the arrest of the brother-in-law of senior Government Minister K.D. Lalkantha over an alleged Rs. 1.145 million vehicle auction fraud presents an awkward test for the Government’s much-publicised anti-corruption drive.

The 59-year-old suspect was arrested by the Kegalle Fraud Investigation Bureau and was to be produced before the Kegalle Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday (12). The Police has alleged that the suspect had defrauded an individual in connection with a vehicle auction.

The allegation, of course, must now be tested through the legal process. But politically, the case raises a broader question: does the Government’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption apply with equal force when allegations involve the relatives of those in power?

The Government has repeatedly pledged to build a political culture in which influence, privilege, and family connections do not provide protection from the law. That promise will inevitably be measured not only by how it handles allegations against political opponents, but also by how transparently and consistently it responds when the spotlight falls on people connected to its own ministers.

For the Government, this is therefore more than a Police case involving an alleged financial fraud. It is another opportunity to demonstrate that its anti-corruption policy is not selective and that political proximity does not translate into legal immunity.

Meanwhile, CIABOC Director General Ranga Dissanayake has noted during a recent media interview that a person’s status or position was not important to him, and that his sole concern was whether an act of corruption had taken place.

Expanding CIABOC

President AKD, meanwhile, has signalled that the Government’s anti-corruption drive will go beyond arrests and prosecutions, with plans to significantly expand the institutions responsible for investigating corruption.

Speaking to the BASL, AKD has said that the CIABOC currently has only one office in Colombo, making it difficult to effectively pursue corruption complaints emerging from across the country. The Government plans to establish 24 regional CIABOC offices, with approval already granted to recruit 373 investigators.

The President has also said investigators would be placed on higher salary scales, reflecting the Government’s view that a serious anti-corruption campaign requires specialised personnel and stronger investigative capacity.

The Police is also to receive an additional 10,000 officers, while the Attorney General’s Department has approval to recruit 50 additional legal officers.

The message from the President is that tougher action against corruption cannot begin and end with the courts and that the Government wants to strengthen the entire pipeline, from investigation to prosecution.