One of the most powerful promises that carried the NPP to office was its pledge to fundamentally change the culture of governance in Sri Lanka. At the heart of that promise was a commitment to accountability, transparency, and an uncompromising crackdown on corruption. However, a series of developments over the past week has raised disturbing questions about whether the NPP Government remains committed to the principles that brought it to power.
The controversy began with remarks made by Agriculture Minister K.D. Lalkantha, who stated that no one had the right to question where he came from and suggested that determining whether he owned a mansion in Kandy or elsewhere was the responsibility of investigative journalists. He went further, questioning why the public should concern itself with the number of houses he owned or the extent of his wealth.
Such comments are remarkable not merely because of what was said, but because of who said them. They strike at the very foundation of accountable governance. In a democracy, public officials are not private citizens operating beyond scrutiny. They are custodians of public trust. Their assets, wealth accumulation, and business interests are not matters of personal privilege, but subjects of legitimate public interest. Indeed, Sri Lanka’s laws on asset declarations exist precisely because those entrusted with public power must be held to higher standards than ordinary citizens.
The issue is not whether a minister owns one house or 10 houses. The issue is that the public has the right to know how those assets were acquired and whether they have been properly declared. Transparency is not an optional exercise undertaken at the convenience of politicians. It is an obligation.
The debate has since expanded beyond Minister Lalkantha himself. Questions have been raised regarding allegations concerning the accumulation of assets by several individuals associated with the current administration, including Ministers Lalkantha, Wasantha Samarasinghe, and Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, former Minister Kumara Jayakody, certain deputy ministers, political appointees, and even JVP activists. Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or disproven is not the immediate issue; what matters is whether they are subjected to the same level of scrutiny that the NPP demanded from others while in Opposition.
This is where the Government faces a critical credibility test. For years, the NPP argued that corruption thrived because political elites were shielded from investigation and accountability. It campaigned on the promise that no individual would be above the law. Yet the true measure of an anti-corruption campaign is not how aggressively it pursues political opponents. Rather, it is how willing it is to investigate its own ranks when questions arise.
The principle is simple: justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Civil society organisations have repeatedly called for stronger disclosure mechanisms, public access to asset declarations, and independent verification of wealth accumulation by public officials. These are not partisan demands. They are fundamental requirements of modern democratic governance. If the Government genuinely believes in transparency, it should welcome such scrutiny rather than appear defensive when questions are raised.
Public expectations have been shaped by the Government’s own rhetoric. Citizens were told that a new era of accountability had arrived. They were assured that corruption investigations would proceed irrespective of political affiliation. Those promises cannot now be qualified by political convenience.
The resignation earlier this year of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody to facilitate investigations into a procurement-related controversy demonstrated that public pressure for accountability is increasing. That episode was significant because it reflected a recognition that public confidence requires allegations to be investigated openly and impartially. However, nothing has been heard of that investigation since. The credibility of any anti-corruption drive depends on consistency.
If investigations are perceived as targeting only members of previous administrations while allegations involving current officeholders are ignored or dismissed, public confidence in the broader reform agenda will inevitably erode. Such perceptions are particularly dangerous because they undermine trust not merely in individual politicians but in the institutions responsible for enforcing the law.
Minister Lalkantha’s subsequent assertion that it is the State employees who continue to steal and not politicians only adds to the controversy. Such sweeping statements are problematic on several levels. They appear to draw an artificial distinction between public servants and politicians while suggesting that elected representatives currently enjoy a presumption of innocence unavailable to others. No category of public official should be exempt from scrutiny. Corruption is not confined to one profession, institution, or political grouping. History has repeatedly shown that accountability mechanisms must apply equally to everyone entrusted with public authority.
These concerns become even more serious when viewed alongside recent allegations regarding attempts to suppress transparency within Parliament itself. Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera has alleged that a majority of Government MPs threatened to remove COPF Chairman Harsha de Silva if video footage from recent committee proceedings was released to the media. According to Perera, intense pressure from Government MPs prevented the publication of recordings from meetings at which the Treasury Secretary and Central Bank Governor discussed financial frauds and issues related to the country’s forex crisis. If these allegations are indeed true, they represent a deeply worrying contradiction.
Parliamentary oversight committees exist to ensure transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny. The COPF plays a particularly important role in examining matters that directly affect taxpayers and the national economy. Citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how public finances are managed and what failures contributed to the economic catastrophe that devastated their lives only a few years ago.
Sri Lanka’s economic collapse was not merely a technical failure of policy. It was also a failure of transparency. Decisions affecting billions of dollars were often made behind closed doors, shielded from public examination until the consequences became impossible to ignore. The lesson from that experience should be that greater openness is required, not less. Whether one agrees with de Silva’s politics or not is irrelevant. What matters is the principle at stake, because oversight mechanisms lose their effectiveness when those responsible for exposing uncomfortable truths face political retaliation.
The NPP cannot simultaneously claim to champion transparency while appearing resistant to public disclosure when scrutiny reaches its own doorstep. Such contradictions inevitably fuel suspicion. Adding further weight to these concerns are recent revelations regarding the country’s foreign exchange position. The Central Bank Governor informed Parliament that while Sri Lanka’s current foreign exchange reserves of approximately $ 6.8 billion provided a degree of stability, significantly greater reserves would be required to meet future obligations and economic targets.
This warning should not be underestimated. Sri Lanka is approaching a period during which debt repayments will resume and economic resilience will be tested. Against this backdrop, revelations by law enforcement authorities concerning a large-scale racket involving the illegal transfer of foreign currency out of the country are particularly alarming. According to statements made in Parliament, investigations by the Police and Customs uncovered schemes whereby companies allegedly moved dollars overseas under the guise of imports.
The implications are profound. At a time when the country is struggling to strengthen reserves, attract investment, and maintain economic stability, the illicit outflow of foreign exchange directly undermines national interests. It also raises important questions about regulatory oversight, enforcement failures, and the effectiveness of institutions tasked with protecting the country’s financial system.
Taken together, these developments point towards a bigger issue confronting the Government. The challenge is not whether individual allegations are true or false, but whether the administration is prepared to apply the same standards to itself that it demands from others.
The NPP’s political legitimacy was built on a promise of moral and institutional renewal. That promise distinguished it from the traditional political establishment and persuaded many Sri Lankans that meaningful change was possible. However, political capital built over years can be squandered quickly if public perceptions shift from reform to hypocrisy.
The Government still has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to accountability remains genuine. It can support greater public disclosure of asset declarations. It can ensure independent investigations into allegations involving any public official regardless of rank or political affiliation. It can embrace transparency within parliamentary oversight processes rather than resist it. Most importantly, it can recognise that scrutiny is not an obstacle to good governance but an essential component of it.
People did not vote merely for a change of faces, they voted for a change in political culture. That culture can only be built upon transparency, accountability, and equal treatment before the law. The defining question now is whether those principles will be applied consistently or selectively. The answer may ultimately determine not only the success of the Government’s anti-corruption agenda but also the credibility of the broader promise of system change itself.