Sri Lanka spent decades lamenting the corrosive influence of big money in its democratic processes. For generation after generation, citizens watched multi-member districts under the proportional representation system transform elections into high-stakes financial contests. The playground belonged exclusively to deep-pocketed oligarchs, established political dynasties, and candidates backed by corporate interest groups expecting post-election procurement favours.
When Parliament finally certified the Regulation of Election Expenditure Act, No. 03 of 2023, it was hailed as a hard-fought triumph for civic transparency. The legislation introduced long-overdue spending caps per voter and imposed a strict statutory duty on all candidates to submit detailed, audited accounts of their campaign income and expenditures within twenty-one days of the declaration of results.
Now, following a gruelling cycle that tested this framework across the 2024 presidential and parliamentary polls, alongside the 2025 local government elections, the real test of political will has arrived.
Election Commission Chairperson R M A L Rathnayake recently revealed that numerous political party secretaries and candidates facing prosecution for late submissions are actively pleading for a general amnesty. Some have even requested the withdrawal of active court cases, citing the logistical inconvenience of travelling to regional courts in Galle, Batticaloa, or Trincomalee to attend legal proceedings.
The response from the Election Commission has been unyielding. By firmly stating that the commission possesses absolutely no legal authority to grant amnesties or intervene in ongoing judicial matters, the regulatory body has taken the only correct, legally sound position. To allow even the slightest deviation from this framework would be a step backward, effectively reducing a landmark piece of legislation to a toothless set of suggestions.
The excuses put forward by defaulting politicians expose a culture of political entitlement. For too long, the legislative elite operated under the assumption that statutory deadlines were malleable guidelines meant for ordinary citizens, whilst politicians enjoyed an unwritten immunity from procedural rigour. The complaint that attending court in the districts where they chose to contest is inconvenient is an absurdity. If a candidate can navigate the lengths of a district to solicit votes during a campaign, they can certainly travel to the same district to answer for failing to uphold electoral law.
Granting an amnesty would completely defeat the deterrent effect built into the 2023 Act. The principal mechanism ensuring compliance is the very real threat of legal friction and eventual disqualification. Over two thousand candidates across recent polls reportedly failed to meet the reporting deadline. If the Election Commission gives into their pleas today, it will signal to every wealthy political actor in future cycles that the rules can be broken with impunity, provided enough collective pressure is applied afterward.
Furthermore, the structural boundaries of the Act make the strict enforcement of deadlines even more crucial. As the chairperson correctly pointed out, the primary domain of the Election Commission is procedural verification. The commission checks whether a report was submitted on time. It does not possess the vast investigative apparatus required to police every internal entry, verify every donation, or catch every omission. The law leaves the substantive auditing of these reports to civil society and the general public, who must examine the published logs and initiate private litigation if they identify discrepancies.
If the baseline requirement of timely submission is allowed to fail, the entire secondary mechanism of public scrutiny collapses. A report that is hidden, delayed, or indefinitely stalled during an arbitrary grace period prevents voters and election monitors from identifying illegal corporate backing or breaches of spending ceilings when it matters most.
We are navigating an era where public trust in governance remains incredibly fragile. The economic hardships of recent years fostered an intense public demand for accountability and systemic transparency. The strict implementation of campaign finance regulations is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair, democratic society.
The Election Commission has drawn a vital line in the sand. By letting the law run its natural course through the judicial system, the commission is establishing a healthy precedent of institutional independence. Political parties must realise that accountability is non-negotiable. No amnesties should be entertained, no cases should be withdrawn, and no exceptions should be made. The law must apply equally to all, or it ceases to be law at all.