The much-touted implementation of Mobile Number Portability (MNP) in Sri Lanka, once optimistically slated to go live by June 2025, has unequivocally missed its deadline.
This latest setback in a decade-long saga of delays has been met with a wall of silence and deflection from key Government officials, raising serious questions about transparency and the true impediments to its rollout. The elusive nature of the MNP, a standard consumer right in most modern telecom markets, continues to cast a long shadow over Sri Lanka’s digital ambitions.
Repeated attempts by The Sunday Morning to gain clarity on the MNP delay were met with a pattern of evasion from relevant authorities.
Deputy Minister of Digital Economy Eranga Weeraratne did not answer phone calls. Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) Director General Bandula Herath similarly declined to respond to calls and notably avoided questions submitted via WhatsApp. His office also refrained from granting an appointment for an interview, despite promising to call back scheduling such an appointment.
Further, Ministry of Digital Economy Acting Secretary Waruna Sri Dhanapala explicitly refused to provide answers, stating an insufficient understanding of the subject.
This consistent refusal to engage fuels growing public frustration and raises concerns about accountability within the Government on the topic.
The issue of the MNP delay, and crucially, whether it was due to obstruction by telecommunication companies, was specifically raised by this reporter at a recent press briefing. The question was directed at former CEO of Axiata Group and current Chairman of the Information and Communication Technology Agency (ICTA) Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya, given his former role representing the largest telecommunication service provider.
However, the response regarding the delay was instead provided by Deputy Minister Weeraratne, who, even then, refrained from addressing the critical point about any potential obstruction by telecom companies, although he did say that telecommunication companies were onboard.
In February, TRCSL Director General Herath had offered a more confident public statement regarding MNP progress. He indicated that number portability was indeed an initiative currently in progress. Herath explained that the TRCSL had successfully finalised the technical model for number portability and had established Lanka Number Portability Services (LNPS) to oversee its implementation. He further elaborated that the procurement process was underway, and that the expectation was for number portability services to commence once the system installation was fully completed.
Herath also highlighted other TRCSL initiatives aimed at accelerating broadband expansion and reducing costs through infrastructure sharing, emphasising that by minimising duplication, network coverage could be enhanced more efficiently. Yet, his subsequent unwillingness to engage on the very subject he previously addressed underscores a troubling lack of accountability and transparency.
In the face of this official reticence, Deputy Minister Weeraratne’s recent public comments provide the only official update on the MNP timeline. He indicated that there had been a slight delay in procurement, stretching for a couple of months, but affirmed that this issue had now been resolved and the project was firmly in its implementation phase.
Weeraratne then declared that all telecom operators, including the TRCSL, were fully on board, and the platform had received official approval, with a scheduled go-live date of August 2026. This new target marks yet another postponement for a service that has been promised for well over a decade, a stark contrast to Sri Lanka’s neighbours like Pakistan, which adopted MNP as early as 2007, and India, which introduced it in 2011.
A history of missed deadlines, technical hurdles
The story of MNP in Sri Lanka is a protracted one, dating back to early discussions over a decade ago. The initial optimism was quickly tempered by economic realities.
In 2011, the TRCSL, under its then Director General Anusha Palpita, ruled against implementing MNP, citing an estimated investment of $ 96 million. Palpita argued that Sri Lanka’s relatively small mobile market might not justify such a significant outlay, warning that the considerable cost burden could inevitably be passed on to consumers. At the time, it was suggested that focusing on improving overall service quality might be a more prudent alternative.
However, the global trend towards MNP, driven by consumer demand and regulatory pushes for increased competition, kept the idea alive.
The benefits are clear: MNP lowers ‘switching costs’ for consumers, enabling them to move to a different provider without the significant inconvenience of changing their number and updating all their contacts. This, in turn, fosters greater competition among operators, incentivising them to offer better tariffs, improved network quality, and superior customer service to retain their customer base. Without MNP, customers are often locked into a network, even if dissatisfied, simply to keep their established number – a powerful barrier to market dynamism.
Significant progress appears to have been made in recent years. The TRCSL initiated discussions with operators and published a Public Consultation Paper in 2021 to gather stakeholder feedback. A crucial step was the establishment of Lanka Number Portability Services (Guarantee) Ltd., a consortium formed with the participation of all fixed and mobile operators, tasked with overseeing the MNP system’s operation and administration.
The TRCSL granted LNPS the necessary licence, and even the Attorney General’s Department reportedly approved the Number Portability Rules and Guidelines. By early 2025, LNPS had completed the technical evaluation of bids for the MNP system and was reportedly finalising financial evaluations, signalling that implementation was imminent.
Current delays and official explanations
Despite these seemingly advanced stages, the June 2025 deadline has passed. The “slight delay in procurement” cited by Deputy Minister Weeraratne is the most specific reason provided.
While such technical delays are not uncommon in large-scale infrastructure projects, the consistent pattern of Governmental opaqueness surrounding MNP raises concerns. The silence from the TRCSL Director General and the Ministry’s Acting Secretary only exacerbates the perception that officials are unwilling to face direct questioning on the matter.
From a broader digitalisation standpoint, ICTA Acting CEO Sanjaya Karunasena offered a pragmatic view. He acknowledged that from a broader digitalisation perspective, number portability did not have a major impact on ICTA’s overall plans. However, he emphasised that from a user convenience point of view, it certainly mattered, particularly when someone had to change their mobile number.
Karunasena explained that mobile numbers served as crucial identifiers in emerging digital systems, meaning a number change necessitates updates across various services. He affirmed that, ultimately, digitalisation was about making things more convenient for citizens, and being able to retain the same mobile number was part of that broader objective.
Karunasena, acknowledging the discussions that have been ongoing for quite a few years, specifically since around 2021, reiterated that even the telecom operators were ready for its introduction. He further clarified that there was no policy-level issue, as both the regulator and the industry were fully on board. His confirmation of a technical delay due to equipment procurement aligns with the Deputy Minister’s statement, reinforcing that such occurrences are not unusual with large infrastructure projects, and the process simply requires working through the challenges and moving forward accordingly.
However, Karunasena also noted a unique aspect of the Sri Lankan market: the prevalence of users with multiple mobile numbers or dual-SIM phones. While this suggests that some users already navigate the complexities of managing different numbers, it doesn’t negate the fundamental benefit of MNP for those who wish to maintain a single, consistent identity across all their services and contacts. The absence of MNP still creates an unnecessary barrier for those seeking to leverage competitive offerings in the market.
The repeated deferrals, from initial discussions over a decade ago to a succession of missed deadlines in 2022, late 2024, June 2025, and now August 2026, have undeniably eroded public confidence.
While a new August 2026 deadline has been set, the public however demands not just another promise, but demonstrable progress and transparent communication on a service that is fundamental to a truly competitive and consumer-centric telecommunications sector.