• New High Courts to address corruption case delays
• Borella High Court to handle high-priority financial crimes
• CIABOC rejects claims of 8,000 pending High Court cases
• AG’s advisory role to remain under proposed model
• Govt. weighs public access to sensitive Easter Sunday attacks inquiry material 

For several decades, Sri Lanka has grappled with deeply entrenched allegations of grand corruption, systemic misappropriation of State assets, and complex financial irregularities that have severely crippled the national economy. 

The standard judicial infrastructure has, over time, been criticised for being ill-equipped to handle the sheer volume and intricate nature of these financial crimes. However, the incumbent Government is planning to expedite court proceedings, especially aimed at dismantling the long-held notion that some can act with impunity. 

The regular High Courts across the island are chronically overburdened with a massive backlog of conventional criminal cases. Consequently, complex financial fraud trials often drag on for many years, and sometimes over a decade. This prolonged delay effectively denies justice, dilutes the deterrent effect of the law, and deeply erodes public trust in State institutions. 

The demand for robust anti-corruption mechanisms reached a critical peak during the widespread public protests of 2022, which firmly placed the recovery of stolen assets and the strict prosecution of offending political figures at the forefront of the national agenda. Successive administrations have attempted to address this crisis with varying degrees of success. 

In 2018, the Government amended the Judicature Act to establish Permanent High Courts at Bar, which were specifically intended to expedite trials concerning severe financial crimes and corruption. 

However, this initiative quickly encountered severe administrative bottlenecks and structural limitations. The specialised courts lacked adequate logistical support, and presiding judges were frequently required to balance their highly demanding duties in the special courts with their regular jurisdictional responsibilities in other courtrooms. 

Furthermore, the procedural laws existing at the time allowed for protracted evidentiary hearings and endless legal objections, leading to the exact same delays the special courts were initially designed to prevent. The failure to secure swift convictions in high-profile cases left the public deeply disillusioned. 

Recognising these historical failures and the urgent need for a functional system, the current administration has initiated a comprehensive structural overhaul. The passage of the Anti-Corruption Act in 2023, heavily influenced by international pressure and commitments to the International Monetary Fund, laid the modern statutory groundwork for a more effective approach. 

Building upon this foundation, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is now advancing a series of systemic legal and infrastructural reforms aimed at expediting the judicial process, eliminating political conflicts of interest, and managing sensitive national security investigations. 

During a recent press briefing, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara outlined the specific trajectory the Government would take regarding the establishment of specialised anti-corruption courts, the creation of an independent public prosecutor’s office, and the delicate handling of the unredacted Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCOI) report on the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. 

These combined efforts represent a pivotal shift in the nation’s approach to upholding public accountability and expediting the delivery of justice.

Specialised courts

Addressing the establishment of specialised anti-corruption courts, Justice Minister Nanayakkara said: “The primary obstacle to expediting corruption trials is a severe deficit in judicial infrastructure rather than a lack of legal provisions. The Government has an immediate strategy to rectify this logistical bottleneck by creating seven new dedicated courts within the coming weeks.” 

Sri Lanka’s legal architecture already encompasses the necessary mechanisms.  

When asked by The Sunday Morning, Nanayakkara stated: “Regarding the High Courts, we already possess the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Penal Code, and the Anti-Corruption Act. Therefore, there is no immediate necessity to introduce new legislation to address these matters. However, what we currently lack are the resources and physical courthouses to accommodate these cases,” he said. 

“Through the establishment of seven new courts, which we hope to operationalise within the next two to three weeks, we will provide more judges and expanded space to expedite judicial proceedings. The determination of which cases will be heard in specific courts remains solely under the purview of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), headed by the Chief Justice. 

“The primary duty of the MOJ is to facilitate these requirements, ensuring that when the Judiciary requests structural support, we provide the necessary courthouses and personnel. These courts will function entirely under the existing legal framework and the standard procedures of the JSC,” the Minister added. 

The collaborative nature of these initiatives involves key independent commissions working in tandem with the newly proposed infrastructure. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), which will be the primary investigative and prosecutorial body utilising these new courts, has moved to clarify its operational scope and correct widespread public misconceptions regarding its current caseload. 

Providing a clarification regarding the operational statistics and distinguishing jurisdictional boundaries, CIABOC Chairman Justice Neil Iddawala stated: “It is vital to distinguish between the roles of the JSC and CIABOC. While our commission serves as the primary body for investigating and prosecuting bribery and corruption, the management of the court system, the scheduling of cases, and the resolution of judicial backlogs fall strictly under the purview of the JSC. 

“Furthermore, we must correct the prevailing data regarding pending litigation. There is a public misconception that we have 8,000 pending cases. In reality, we currently have fewer than 300 cases pending before the High Court. During 2025, we filed 115 new indictments. For the current year, we are thoroughly committed to increasing this volume to ensure highly efficient law enforcement.”

To complement the MOJ’s rollout of the seven new High Courts, a specialised High Court located in Borella is being strategically positioned to handle high-priority financial crimes. The previous attempt to establish similar specialised trial-at-bar courts in 2018 met with significant administrative bottlenecks. The current restructuring relies heavily on recent legislative updates designed specifically to circumvent past systemic failures. 

Outlining the procedural advancements and the targeted timeline for clearing the active docket, Iddawala said: “With fewer than 300 cases currently active in the High Courts, our absolute focus remains on the swift conclusion of these matters. While the timeline for case disposal is determined by the Judiciary, the establishment of the new special High Court in Borella represents a strategic initiative designed to significantly reduce trial durations. 

“These new special courts will benefit immensely from provisions under the Anti-Corruption Act, which effectively streamline the admissibility of evidence and facilitate more continuous trial proceedings. Unlike the structural setup implemented in 2018, which faced severe administrative bottlenecks, the current framework emphasises dedicated judicial benches focused exclusively on financial crimes. This minimises the risk of delays previously caused by judges having to balance multiple jurisdictional responsibilities.”

A critical component of modern anti-corruption efforts involves actively tracing, freezing, and seizing illicitly acquired wealth. The introduction of recent, specialised legislation has fundamentally altered the State’s capacity to pursue these assets across international borders. 

Detailing the strategic shift towards financial restitution and the mechanics of the newly established legal tools, the CIABOC Chairman noted: “Asset recovery now serves as a central pillar of our overarching strategy. Following the enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2025, Sri Lanka possesses a robust legal framework that enables non-conviction-based forfeiture. This critical provision allows the State to lawfully seize illicit assets even before a formal criminal conviction is secured. 

“Furthermore, the legislation provides strong international cooperation mechanisms to trace and repatriate stolen funds hidden in offshore tax havens, alongside the establishment of a dedicated asset recovery office designed to work in tandem with the judicial system.”

To explicitly counter the risk of political victimisation, the current Sri Lankan framework relies heavily on the Constitutional Council to guarantee institutional independence. 

Emphasising the absolute commitment to transparency and the strategic focus on high-ranking individuals whose actions impact the broader economy, Iddawala stated: “The functional independence of the prosecution is firmly guaranteed by the Constitutional Council, which directly oversees the appointment of our commissioners. Additionally, the Anti-Corruption Act provides our investigative officers with complete operational independence, ensuring that all inquiries are based strictly on factual evidence. 

“The ensuing trials are conducted in open court before a three-judge bench, thereby providing the highest level of transparency and judicial oversight. The public can certainly expect a continued and intensified focus on grand corruption.” 

He added: “Our Strategic Action Plan for the 2025–’26 period explicitly prioritises politically exposed persons and high-profile cases that wield a significant impact on the national economy, reinforcing the principle that no individual is above the law. We remain thoroughly dedicated to fostering a lasting culture of integrity and public transparency.”

Independent public prosecutor’s office

Parallel to the expansion of physical courtroom infrastructure, the MOJ is fundamentally restructuring the broader prosecutorial arm of the State by actively initiating the establishment of an independent public prosecutor’s office.

The necessity for an independent prosecutor has been a subject of intense debate among legal scholars and civil rights activists in Sri Lanka for over two decades. The argument posits that true justice cannot be visibly served when the entity responsible for defending State actions is simultaneously tasked with prosecuting the officials who carry out those actions. 

Historically, the Attorney General’s (AG) Department has functioned in this highly demanding dual capacity, serving as the chief legal adviser to the Executive government and acting as the primary authority for initiating criminal prosecutions against individuals and corporate entities. Legal experts and civil society organisations have long argued that this dual mandate creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly in highly sensitive cases involving State entities or senior Government officials. 

The ruling National People’s Power (NPP) election manifesto published in 2024 also pledges to introduce a Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) as a mechanism to eliminate delays within the judicial system, and to establish a main DPP office and sub-offices in the provinces, which will remain independent of the AG’s Department to conduct cases on behalf of the Government. 

The manifesto outlines that the DPP will document the prosecution guidelines that must be followed by the AG’s Department when prosecuting, inform complainants or aggrieved parties of the reasons in the event the AG’s Department decides not to prosecute following the investigation process, and appoint a special parliamentary ombudsman to address grievances raised by aggrieved parties regarding the activities of the AG’s Department. 

A committee of technical experts headed by Supreme Court Justice Yasantha Kodagoda has recently been tasked with examining new legislation for the establishment of this independent prosecutorial authority. The proposed restructuring will allow the AG to retain the vital advisory portfolio, while shifting the heavy burden of criminal prosecutions to the newly formed, structurally independent office. 

Addressing the rationale behind this institutional shift and responding to speculation regarding the future of the AG’s Department, Justice Minister Nanayakkara explained: “It is necessary to make this distinction very clear, as there is a tendency to associate the term of ‘Attorney General’ with a specific individual rather than the institution itself. I am referring strictly to the office of the AG. In this country, the Attorney General’s Department serves dual roles as both the chief prosecutor and the primary legal adviser to the Government. 

“We are not introducing an independent public prosecutor because of a lack of trust in the current department or any personal grievances. However, whenever there is a perceived conflict of interest, institutional credibility is inevitably diminished. The objective of this reform is not to dissolve the AG’s Department, as the AG will continue to perform the essential advisory role. Instead, a completely separate and independent entity will be established specifically to handle criminal prosecutions.”

Easter Sunday attacks investigations

Beyond structural and legislative reforms, the MOJ is actively managing the complex aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, a coordinated terrorist tragedy which claimed the lives of over 260 individuals across multiple churches and luxury hotels on 21 April 2019. 

In the years following the tragedy, a PCOI was appointed to extensively investigate the severe intelligence failures, the extensive network of the perpetrators, and the broader conspiracy surrounding the coordinated bombings. 

While segments of the commission’s findings have been serialised and discussed publicly, significant portions of the final comprehensive report remain strictly classified and inaccessible to the general populace. Various advocacy groups, representatives of the victims’ families, and international human rights organisations have continuously lobbied for the immediate release of the unredacted documents. 

However, the Government faces the highly sensitive challenge of balancing the public’s right to information against the critical risk of compromising ongoing legal proceedings. Disclosing sensitive national intelligence, covert operational methodologies, or confidential witness testimonies prematurely could severely prejudice active trials or potentially alert suspects who are currently subjects of parallel security investigations. 

A specially designated committee is currently engaged in the meticulous process of reviewing the withheld sections of the commission’s report to determine precisely what information can be safely declassified without obstructing the broader pursuit of justice. 

Detailing the Government’s cautious approach to the dissemination of the commission’s findings, Nanayakkara noted: “I am aware that a copy of the report has been deposited in the Parliament library, but the commission itself has designated certain portions as classified and unfit for public release. Currently, a specialised committee is actively discussing these matters. 

“We have absolutely no intention of hiding information from the public. Simultaneously, we cannot afford to disclose sensitive details that might prejudice or compromise the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Easter Sunday cases or other active parallel investigations. 

“Therefore, while we deeply respect the fundamental right of the public to be informed, certain pieces of information must temporarily remain withheld to ensure that the ultimate pursuit of justice is not obstructed. At this moment, we have not reached a final decision regarding the exact volume of information that will be released or retained, as the committee is still in the process of evaluating the matter thoroughly.” 

The forthcoming weeks will be highly consequential for the Sri Lankan legal landscape as the MOJ moves to fully operationalise the new dedicated High Courts and finalise the legislative blueprint for the independent public prosecutor’s office. Concurrently, the committee reviewing the classified Easter Sunday attacks report is expected to reach a consensus on the safe boundaries of public disclosure.