Anti-Corruption Bill restricts people’s rights: PAFFREL
28-Aug-2026.
The proposed amendments to the anti-corruption law seek to restrict the public’s right to obtain and use information, Executive Director of PAFFREL Rohana Hettiarachchi has said.
He stressed that any amendments introduced should not undermine the achievements made under the Anti-Corruption Act introduced in 2023 or weaken the public’s right to hold those in power accountable.
Hettiarachchi made these observations in a letter addressed to the President.
The letter stated:
There is no doubt that the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 is a unique legislative framework introduced to ensure transparency and accountability. Allowing members of the public to access asset and liability declarations was a landmark development in Sri Lanka’s fight against corruption and gave practical effect to the principle that individuals exercising public power should be subject to public scrutiny.
However, while the public had been granted access to such information under this progressive framework, the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill referred to in the Gazette notification dated July 24, 2026, proposes to make it a criminal offence to use such information for purposes other than those permitted by law.
In addition to punishment under the law for corruption, the fear that information relating to corrupt practices could come to public attention also plays a direct role in preventing corruption.
If asset and liability declarations are to be made genuinely accessible, journalists, civil society organisations and members of the public must have the opportunity to identify discrepancies in the declarations of relevant individuals and question whether the assets held by certain persons can be explained through their lawful income.
Against this backdrop, the proposed amendment seeks to introduce a new subsection after Section 88 of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. It states that a person who obtains an amended copy of another person’s asset and liability declaration shall not use that declaration for any purpose other than submitting it to an officer or institution under Section 86.
We believe that restricting the obtaining and sharing of such information in this manner would represent a step backwards for the progress made as a society.
Of particular concern is that the proposed amendment would make it a criminal offence for members of the public to use information that they are legally entitled to obtain. Furthermore, as there is no clear definition of the term “amended copies”, concerns raised by society that information could be withheld on the grounds of protecting personal privacy cannot easily be dismissed.
There would be no issue with strictly enforcing the law where a person deliberately distorts another individual’s asset and liability declarations with the intention of bringing that person into disrepute. However, the public’s right to determine whether individuals exercising public authority and controlling public resources have obtained unlawful benefits, and the right of third parties to raise public awareness of such matters, should not be restricted.
Under Section 80(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023, heads of companies in which the Government or a public corporation holds not less than 25 per cent of the shares are required to submit asset and liability declarations. The proposed amendment seeks to increase this threshold to 50 per cent.
This means that heads of companies in which the Government holds up to 49.9 per cent of the shares would not be required to submit asset and liability declarations. Regrettably, this provision is contrary to the fundamental objective of eradicating bribery and corruption and building an honest country.
Certain provisions of the proposed Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill also indicate the creation of a situation in which excessive power is concentrated around a single individual.
While we have confidence in the present Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, it is our belief that concentrating excessive power in one individual is not a healthy practice. In particular, in an independent commission, powers should rest with the commission or within a proper institutional framework, Hettiarachchi said.
