Legal

Sri Lanka top court suggests changes to Colombo Port City Commission Bill

Imesh Ranasinghe

Tuesday May 18, 2021 4:25 pm

By Imesh Ranasinghe

Tuesday May 18, 2021 4:25 pm

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has suggested a series of changes to set up a Colombo Port City Commission to run a special economic zone on land reclaimed by a Chinese company so that the law complies with the constitution.

Sri Lanka’s parliamentary speaker read out the changes suggested by the Supreme Court to avoid a two-thirds majority or a referendum.

The Court has suggested that the authority of regulatory agencies be preserved allowing them to make decisions and communicate the decisions instead of giving concurrence by compulsion as contained in the bill.

The SC also proposed changes preventing tax exemptions from being allowed outside the Colombo Port City area.

The proposed changes are as follows:

The determination of the Court as to the constitutionality of the Bill titled “Colombo Port City Economic Commission” is as follows:

(i) The provisions of Clauses 3(6), 30(3) second proviso, 55(2) and 58(1) of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 3(6)

Page 3, Line 33- Delete the words “provide such concurrence” and substitute therefore the words “communicate its decision”

Existing Clause 3(6)

“The relevant Regulatory Authority from whom such concurrence is being sought by the Commission, shall as soon as practicable in the circumstances, as a matter of priority, provide such concurrence to the Commission.”

Clause 30(3) second proviso

Page 30, Line 15 – – Delete the words “render such concurrence” and substitute therefore the words “communicate its decision”

Existing Clause 30 (3) second proviso

“Provided further, the relevant Regulatory Authority from whom such concurrence is being sought by the Commission, shall as soon as practicable in the circumstances, as a matter of priority, render such concurrence to the Commission,”

Clause 55(2)

Page 49, Lines 16 and 17- Delete the words “provide such concurrence” and substitute therefore the words “communicate its decision”

Existing Clause 55(2)-

“The Condominium Management Authority, shall as a matter of priority in the circumstances, provide such concurrence to the Commission.”

Clause 58(1)

Page 52, Lines 9 and 10 – Delete the words “render such concurrence” and substitute therefore the words “communicate its decision”

Existing Clause 58(1)-

“Where the concurrence of the Securities and Exchange Commission is sought by the Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission shall as soon as practicable in the circumstances, as a matter of priority, render such concurrence to the Commission.”

(ii) the provisions of Clauses 3(5) proviso, 3(7), 6(1)(b), 30(3) first proviso, 71(1) and 74 [interpretation “Regulatory Authority”] of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 3(5) proviso

Page 3, Line 27- Add the words “by the Commission” after the word “implementation”

Existing Clause 3(5)-

“The Commission shall, in the exercise, performance and discharge of its powers, duties and functions, where so required by the respective written laws applicable to any Regulatory Authority, obtain the concurrence of the relevant Regulatory Authority in respect of the subjects vested in or assigned to, such Regulatory Authority and to the extent specifically provided for in this Act: Provided that, the concurrence of the relevant Regulatory Authority sought shall be limited to the implementation, within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, of the respective written laws applicable to such Regulatory Authority.”

Clause 6(1)(b)

Page 6, Line 27- Delete the word “overall” Page 6, Line 32- Delete the words “as the Commission considers necessary”

Existing Clause 6(1)(b)-

“to facilitate and exercise overall regulatory supervision and control over all investments and businesses in and from the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, in terms of this Act, with the concurrence, of the relevant Regulatory Authority, as the Commission considers necessary: Provided that, the concurrence of the relevant Regulatory Authority sought shall be limited to the implementation, within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, of the respective written laws applicable to such authority;”

Clause 30(3) first proviso

Page 30, Line 9- Add the words “by the Commission” after the word “implementation”

Existing Clause 30(3)-

“The Commission shall obtain the concurrence of any relevant Regulatory Authority in the process of granting such registration, licence, authorisation or other approval, where so required by the respective written laws applicable to such authority, in respect of the subjects vested in or assigned to, such Authority and to the extent specifically provided for in this Act: Provided that, the concurrence of the relevant Regulatory Authority sought shall be limited to the implementation, within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City,”

Clause 71 (1)

Page 62, Line 7- Delete the words “as is considered necessary”

Existing Clause 71 (1)-

“The President or in the event that the subject of the Colombo Port City is assigned to a Minister, such Minister may, in consultation with the Commission and any relevant Regulatory Authority as is considered necessary, make regulations in respect of all matters for which regulations are required to be prescribed or authorised by this Act to be made.”

Clause 74

Page 70, Lines 11 to 16- Delete the words commencing from “to the extent” to “Colombo Port City”

Existing Clause 74 page 70 Lines 1 to 16-

“Regulatory Authority” includes the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the RegistrarGeneral of Companies, the Director-General of the Central Environmental Authority, the Controller of Immigration and Emigration, the DirectorGeneral of Customs, and such other regulatory authority or approving authority, and in whom the powers, duties and functions relating to the respective subjects which are dealt with in this Act are vested in or assigned to, in terms of any applicable written law to the extent provided in this Act. The relevant Regulatory Authority shall be limited to the implementation of the respective written laws applicable to such authorities, within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City;”

Clause 3(7)

To be shifted after Clause 73 of the Bill and re-numbered as Clause 74.

The new Clause 74 will now read as follows:

“74. Nothing in this Act shall, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, be deemed to restrict in any way the powers, duties and functions vested in such Regulatory Authority by any written law in relation to the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City.”

Clauses 74 and 75 Present Clauses 74 and 75 be re-numbered as Clauses 75 and 76 respectively

CLAUSES REQUIRING A REFERENDUM AND SPECIAL MAJORITY

(iii) The provisions of Clauses 3(4), 6(1)(u), 68(l)(f) and 68(3)(a) are inconsistent with Article 76 read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.”

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 3(4)

Page 3, Line I4 – Delete the word “for” and substitute therefore the words “to facilitate” Page 3, Lines I6 and I7- Delete the words “and Development Control Regulations”

Existing Clause 3(4)-

“The Commission shall be responsible for preparing, developing, amending, updating, publishing and enforcing all Community Rules and Development Control Regulations applicable within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City.”

Clause 6(1)(u)

Page I0, Lines I4 to I5 – Insert the words “enforce the” before the words “Development Control Regulations”

Existing Clause 6(1)(u)-

“to prepare, develop, amend, update, publish and enforce all Community Rules and Development Control Regulations as may be prescribed for applicability within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City;”

Clause 68 (1)(f)

Page 60, Lines I to 3 – Delete in its entirety

Existing Clause 68 (1)(f)-

“contravenes or fails to comply with any rule, code, direction or guideline made or issued in terms of this Act,”

Clause 68(3)(a)

Page 60, Line 25- Delete the words “rule, direction, order or requirement issued or imposed”

Existing Clause 68(3)(a)-

“Notwithstanding the provisions contained in any other written law, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulation, rule, direction, order or requirement issued or imposed thereunder commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction after summary trial before a Magistrate to a fine of not less than rupees five hundred thousand and not more than rupees one million or to imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not exceeding one year, or to both such fine and imprisonment”

CLAUSES REQUIRING A REFERENDUM AND SPECIAL MAJORITY

(iv) The provisions of Clause 52(3) read with Clauses 52(5) and 71(2)(p) of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 148 of the Constitution read with Articles 3, 4 and 76 of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.”

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 52(3)

Page 44, Line 20- Add the words “in accordance with the Regulations made under this Act … ” after the words “granted thereto ”

Existing Clause 52(3)-

“Upon a business being so identified as a Business of Strategic Importance, exemptions or incentives as provided in this Part may be granted thereto, in so far as it relates to its operations in and from the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City. In the case of tax-related exemptions, such exemptions may be granted, either in full or part, and from all or any of the enactments set out in Schedule II hereto.”

Clause 52(5)

Page 44, Lines 29 to 3I -Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:

“(5) Regulations may be made prescribing guidelines on the grant of exemptions or incentives, as provided for in this Part of this Act.”

Existing Clause 52(5)-

Regulations may be made prescribing any further guidelines as may be necessary on the grant of exemptions or incentives, as provided for in this Part of this Act”

Clause 71 (2)(p)

Page 65, Line I -delete the words “any further”

Existing Clause 71 (2)(p)-

“specifying for the purposes of section 52, any further guidelines on the grant of exemptions or incentives to a Business of Strategic Importance;”

CLAUSES REQUIRING A SPECIAL MAJORITY

(v) The provisions of Clauses 30(1 ), 33(1 ), 40(2) and 71 (2)(1) of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 14(1)(h) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 30(1)

Page 29, Line 24- Delete the words “or to visit”.

Existing Clause 30(1)-

“Subject to Part VII, Part VIII and section 33 of this Act, the Commission shall be the Single Window Investment Facilitator responsible for the consideration and determination, in an expeditious and coordinated manner, whether to accept or reject for good reason, any application made to the Commission for a registration, licence, authorisation or other approval as may be necessary, to engage in any business in, to invest in, to reside in, to be employed in, or to visit, the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port city.”

Clause 33(1)

Page 31, Lines 32 and 33- Delete the words “or to visit”

Existing Clause 33(1)-

“The Commission, as Single Window Investment Facilitator shall accept an application for and facilitate the processing of, any visa, entry permit or work permit, and other approvals as may be required by an authorised person, any consultant of, or any person specially authorised by an authorised person or an employee of an authorised person, and a person who intends to engage in business, to invest in, to reside in, to be employed in, or to visit the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, as may be necessary.”

Clause 40(2)

Page 35, Line 37- Delete the words “when leaving” and substitute therefore the words “to be taken out of’

Existing Clause 40(2)-

“Any levy as may be required to be paid by a citizen of Sri Lanka or a resident on goods purchased at retail facilities as set out in subsection (1), when leaving the Area of Authority of Colombo Port City, shall be as prescribed.”

Clause 71 (2) (l)

Page 64, Lines 11 and 12- Delete the words “at the time of leaving the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City”

Existing Clause 71 (2) (l)-

“specifying for the purposes of section 40, any levy as may be required to be paid by a citizen of Sri Lanka or a resident on goods purchased at retail facilities within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City at the time of leaving the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, and the procedure applicable to the conversion of payments made by a citizen of Sri Lanka or resident when using retail facilities or services at restaurants, cinemas, entertainment facilities, shopping facilities, or parking facilities, within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, into any other designated foreign currency;”

CLAUSES REQUIRING A REFERENDUM AND SPECIAL MAJORITY

(vi) The provisions of Clause 53(2)(b) read with Clause 53(3)(b) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 76 of the Constitution read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.”

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 53(2)(b)

Page 45, Line 20- Delete the words “the specific enactments from those listed in” and substitute, therefore, the words “the specific exemptions from those enactments listed in” Page 45, Line 22- Delete the words “exempted from being”

Existing Clause 53(2) and 53(2)(b)-

(2)The President or in the event that the subject of the Colombo Port City is assigned to a Minister, such Minister, may, having considered such recommendations, and having

regard to the national interest or in the interest of the advancement of the national economy, in consultation with the Minister, assigned the subject of Finance, take such steps as are necessary to inform the Cabinet of Ministers, of –

(2)(b)the specific enactments from those listed in Schedule II to this Act, that are proposed to be exempted from being applicable to such Business of Strategic Importance and any other incentives;

Clause 53(3)(b)

Page 46, Line 10- Delete the words “the specific enactments from those listed in” and substitute therefor the words “the specific exemptions from those enactments listed in” Page 46, Line II-

Delete the words “exempted from being”

Existing Clause 53(3) and 53(3)(b)-

(3)Within two weeks from the date on which the Cabinet of Ministers approves the designation of a business as a Business of Strategic Importance and the granting of the exemptions or incentives so approved, the President or in the event that the subject of the Colombo Port City is assigned to a Minister, such Minister shall, by Order published in the Gazette, specify –

(3)(b)the specific enactments from those listed in Schedule II to this Act, that are exempted from being applicable to such Business of Strategic Importance and any other incentives granted;”

CLAUSES REQUIRING SPECIAL MAJORITY

(vii) The provisions of Clauses 60(c) and Clause 60(f) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 148 of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.”

However, the said inconsistencies will cease if the clauses are amended as follows:

Clause 60(c)

Page 53, line 14- delete the word “taxes” and substitute therefor the word “rates”

Existing Clause 60 and 60(c)-

The Estate Manager shall act under the direction and supervision of the Commission and exercise, perform and discharge the following powers, duties and functions,

(c)to facilitate the collection of area related taxes and levies imposed by the Commission within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, as authorised by this Act, and collect fees and charges for services provided within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, including management fees, utility charges, vehicle parking charges, user fees and such other fees or charges from authorised persons, employees of authorised persons, residents, occupiers and visitors within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City;”

Clause 60(f)

Page 54, line 2 -delete the word “taxes” and substitute therefor the word “rates”

Existing Clause 60(f)-

“to collect on behalf of the Commission, the local rates, taxes, levies and such other charges imposed by the Commission and applicable within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, and credit the total of the sum so collected to a bank account as directed by the Commission;”

CLAUSES REQUIRING A SPECIAL MAJORITY

(viii) The provisions of Clause 37 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

“However, the said inconsistency will cease if a new sub-clause is added to Clause 37 of the Bill restraining such authorised person making use of any exemptions or incentives granted under this Bill when conducting business outside the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City to the detriment of similar businesses conducted outside such Area of Authority but within the territory of Sri Lanka.

We have examined the rest of the clauses of the Bill and determine that they are not inconsistent with the Constitution.”

(Colombo/May18/2021)

FILED UNDER: CHEC Port City Colombo,Colombo Port City Economic Commission,economy,politics,Port City Bill,Supreme Court Determination

Markets

Sri Lanka stocks close up, ASPI gains 0.41-pct

Friday October 9, 2026 4:06 pm

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s Colombo Stock Exchange closed higher on Friday, CSE data showed, with the benchmark All Share Price Index moving up 0.41 percent.

The ASPI was up 82.57 points at 20,316.91, while the more liquid S&P SL20 was up 0.45 percent, or 26.19 points, at 5,788.75.

The ASPI ended the week down 496 points from last Friday, amidst a mixed week of trading.

Positive contributors to the ASPI were Dialog Axiata (up 0.91 percent at 44.50 rupees), Hatton National Bank (up 0.93 percent at 379.00 rupees), Commercial Bank of Ceylon (up 0.38 percent at 200.00 rupees), Richard Pieris and Company (up 4.30 percent at 26.70 rupees), and Laugfs Gas (up 7.35 percent at 40.90 rupees).

SMB Finance (down 9.09 percent at 1.00 rupee), LOLC Holdings (down 1.25 percent at 415.25 rupees), Haycarb (down 1.37 percent at 198.50 rupees), and Industrial Asphalts (Ceylon) (down 16.67 percent at 0.50 rupees) were top negative contributors.

Market turnover was 1.05 billion rupees. Diversified financials led turnover with 233.69 million rupees, followed by capital goods with 200.09 million rupees.

During the session, crossings in Lanka Milk Foods (LMF) in the first half of the trading day drew market interest, Raynal Wickremeratne, Head of Research and Strategy at NDB Securities, said.

“Usually 20,000 is also a psychological limit,” Wickremeratne said. “When it comes back closer to that, people also might feel like it’s worth buying, so that’s why sometimes coming close to that you might have a bit of a move.” (Colombo/Oct09/2026)

Fiscal

Sri Lanka Customs’ September revenue exceeds target by 32-pct

Friday October 9, 2026 2:05 pm

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka Customs exceeded its September target by 32.1 percent, while the revenue in the first nine months of 2026 jumped around 22 percent compared to the same period last year, official data showed.

Customs’ September revenue target was set at 195.6 billion rupees. However, the revenue-collecting body collected 258.3 billion rupees that month, exceeding the target by nearly a third, according to official data.

It also exceeded the cumulative target for the first nine months by 29.2%, achieving 2,117 billion rupees.

Last year, Customs collected a record 2,551 billion rupees in revenue, exceeding a revised target of 2,241 billion rupees for the year and achieving 64.2% higher revenue than the previous year’s revenue of 1,553 million rupees.

Customs has set a revenue target of 2,207 billion rupees for this year, 13.5% less than last year as it expects a significant decline in car imports. Data showed it achieved 95.9% of this year’s target in the first nine months.

Analysts expect the revenue collecting body to achieve its 2026 full year target by mid-October,

Sri Lanka Customs’ revenue jump is largely due to stronger enforcement, improved valuation practices, and a rebound in import volumes after years of contraction.

Following the 2022 economic crisis, imports fell sharply as the country imposed restrictions to conserve foreign exchange.

However, with the stabilization of reserves, the relaxation of certain import controls, and a steady recovery in consumer demand, customs collections from import duties, excise, and other levies have risen.

Officials note that tighter monitoring of under-invoicing and misdeclaration of goods has also contributed to boosting state revenue.

The combined effect of increased import activity, currency movements, and stricter enforcement has positioned Customs as one of the top revenue sources for the Treasury in 2025, providing a vital cushion as the state works to meet fiscal targets under the IMF-supported program. (Colombo/October 09/2026)

ICT

IESL, Dialog open Sri Lanka entrepreneurs challenge

Friday October 9, 2026 1:35 pm

ECONOMYNEXT – The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka (IESL) and Dialog Axiata have launched the IESL National Startup Challenge, for aspiring entrepreneurs to transform innovative ideas into commercially viable, investment-ready startups.

The competition invites Engineering undergraduates, practitioners and participants in an Open Category for Non-Engineers to submit ideas across 12 innovation verticals.

“The IESL National Startup Challenge is designed to turn innovative ideas into viable businesses by connecting aspiring entrepreneurs with industry expertise, mentorship and continuous practical support,” Eng Jasmine Nanayakkara, Chairperson of the Entrepreneurship Forum at the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, said.

“By encouraging our engineers and aspiring founders to create, commercialise and scale solutions, we aim to contribute to new ventures, new opportunities and meaningful job creation for Sri Lanka’s skilled and educated next generation.”

Participants will progress through idea development, pitching, incubation, prototyping, validation, minimum viable product development and business scaling, supported by industry experts, mentors and ecosystem partners.

The programme will culminate in a Top 10 selection, with the first-place winner receiving an award of 1 million rupees.

Each of the Top 10 teams will receive a Dialog Digital Startup Support Package valued at 250,000 rupees, comprising selected Dialog digital products and services.

Dialog is providing technical expertise, mentors and digital resources to help participating teams develop, validate and scale their solutions.

“Dialog is extending its digital capabilities, mentorship and ecosystem support to help promising teams progress from concept to validation and investment readiness,” Dialog Axiata said.

The National Startup Challenge also brings together a network of partners, including The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce as Ecosystem and Mentoring Partner, Helago as Official Mobility Partner, Helakuru as Official Digital News Partner, and Real Life as Official Climate Action Partner.

Applications are now open via www.iesl.lk/announcements, giving aspiring entrepreneurs an opportunity to access the resources and funding they need to succeed. Applications close on 16th November 2026. For more information, contact mgr.pub@iesl.lk / 071 109 4393. (Colombo/Oct9/2026)

Markets

Sri Lanka stocks trend higher, ASPI up 0.86-pct

Friday October 9, 2026 12:01 pm

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s Colombo Stock Exchange opened higher on Friday, CSE data showed, with the benchmark All Share Price Index moving up 0.86 percent.

The ASPI was up 174.62 points at 20,408.96, while the more liquid S&P SL20 was up 0.86 percent, or 49.77 points, at 5,812.33.

Positive contributors to the ASPI were Commercial Bank (up 0.88 percent at 201.00 rupees), Dialog Axiata (up 1.59 percent at 44.80 rupees), Distilleries Company of Sri Lanka (up 1.76 percent at 52.00 rupees), and Hatton National Bank (up 1.20 percent at 380.00 rupees).

SMB Finance (down 9.09 percent at 1.00 rupee), Haycarb (down 0.75 percent at 199.75 rupees), Malwatte Valley Plantations (down 1.79 percent at 55.00 rupees), and Odel (down 4.04 percent at 9.50 rupees) were top negative contributors.

Market turnover was 343.62 million rupees. Capital goods led turnover with 77.51 million rupees.

E.B. Creasy & Company PLC announced that it has executed a corporate guarantee of 50 million rupees with effect from September 30, 2026, on behalf of its subsidiary, E. B. Creasy Logistics Ltd, guaranteeing banking facilities obtained by the company. The company stated that the delay in making the disclosure was due to a delay in receiving official notification from the bank on the execution of the guarantee. (Colombo/Oct09/2026)

Corruption

Sri Lanka passes controversial Anti-Corruption amendment amid IMF, Opposition warnings

Friday October 9, 2026 11:06 am

ECONOMYNEXT — Sri Lanka’s Parliament on Thursday passed the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill with amendments and without a vote, despite concerns raised by the opposition, civil society, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The legislation amends the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, a landmark piece of legislation which was adopted to align Sri Lanka’s domestic laws with international standards, particularly the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).

The legislative changes had also drawn caution from the International Monetary Fund.

IMF Mission Chief for Sri Lanka Evan Papageorgiou previously warned that proposed amendments risked weakening key transparency safeguards, particularly around the asset declaration framework and public ownership registers, which form part of governance benchmarks under the country’s economic reform program.

Opposition warns of weakened oversight

The main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) argued that the amendments create loopholes that shield public officials from scrutiny.

SJB Parliamentarian Mujibur Rahman pointed out that under the new provisions, public access to asset declarations of public officials is limited solely to filing formal complaints, rather than allowing scrutiny by researchers or journalists, backed by penalties of up to a one-year prison sentence and a 100,000-rupee fine.

“Because of this harsh penalty, no one will come forward to look into these matters. Knowing that this amendment could subject them to a 100,000-rupee fine and prison time, everyone will be discouraged from probing further,” Rahman said.

Rahman criticized raising the threshold for state-owned enterprises requiring asset declarations from a 25-percent government shareholding to over 50 percent, which excludes partially state-owned entities.

He raised concerns over the removal of declaration requirements for household cohabitants and the exclusion of bodies such as the National Olympic Committee.

There were several issues with the new legislation, he pointed out, including restricting the manner in which publicised asset declarations can be used by the public, failing to provide a clear definition regarding the redaction or removal of information disclosed in asset declarations, and removing the requirement to declare the assets and liabilities of persons cohabiting in the same household.

“Why are you now bringing these amendments to that Act? The primary objective you initially proposed in bringing amendments to this Act was specifically to shield ministers, MPs, and public servants by concealing their assets and liabilities.”

“You have compromised the very public mandate you received. These amendments turn their back on that mandate. You have discarded the transparency and accountability demanded by that mandate. That is why the assets and liabilities of your ministers and MPs became a subject of debate in recent times.”

Allegations were raised against National People’s Power ministers and MPs when they the law first required them to make asset declarations.

“How was so much wealth acquired? It was precisely because of those allegations that you sought a shield to ensure that the assets and liabilities of ministers, MPs, and public officials would not be openly discussed.”

Following public outcry and opposition from civil society organisations, the government was forced to remove ministers and MPs from that shield and restrict that protection solely to public officials, the legislator said.

A redacted copy of a public official’s assets and liabilities can be obtained under the amended Act; but according to Section 11(2) under the new amendment, it can only be obtained strictly for the purpose of lodging a complaint.

“You cannot obtain copies to conduct investigative journalism or carry out research. And if someone is deemed to have “misused” it, it becomes an offence punishable not merely by a fine of 100,000 rupees, but by imprisonment of up to one year!”

“Defamation lawsuits can already be filed to claim damages. While such laws already exist, why introduce this new provision?”

“Because of this harsh penalty, no one will come forward to look into these matters. People will be intimidated. If someone tries to investigate whether a public official has illicitly acquired wealth, knowing that this amendment could subject them to a 100,000-rupee fine and prison time, everyone will be discouraged from probing further.

The new law does not conform to international benchmarks, Rahman said.

“We can define this amendment as nothing less than an incentive for corruption. That is why this clause has been identified as failing international standards. Why reverse this progress?”

“By reversing this, you are indirectly providing a protective cover for public officials to engage in corruption.

“Amid the perks and privileges granted to public officials, those cannot be traced; investigating them comes to a halt. Is there a hidden scheme beneath this to utilize those perks and privileges granted to public officials to target and hunt down opposition political leaders in this country? Because they can be weaponized. Because no one can investigate them! What they receive remains concealed.”

Dismantling the requirement that a public official must declare not only their own assets, but also the assets of individuals cohabiting in the same household facilitates corruption Rahman said.

“Typically, corrupt individuals register stolen wealth in the names of those closest to them. That is a classic tactic of corruption. It is being done even now, as you well know! When tracing the assets of certain individuals today, they are not registered under their own names, but under the names of third parties. You are removing that clause!”

“This is not what the people who voted for you expected. The people granted you a mandate for transparency, accountability, and the eradication of corruption. Yet, having secured that mandate, instead of strengthening the Act, diluting it and providing cover to the corrupt is deeply regrettable.”

Under the amended Act, officials appointed to state institutions where the government holds a 50 percent shareholding must submit their asset declarations. The threshold was previously 25 percent.

“What is the logic behind excluding entities holding between 25% and 50%? How can you guarantee that corruption will not occur through appointed officials in those entities? A multitude of serious doubts and suspicions have been created by your actions.”

Court rulings

The approval of the amendments to the Act follow a determination by the Supreme Court last month on petitions filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL).

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne had announced that the court found Clause 17 unconstitutional without a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a national referendum.

The court also determined that repealing Section 80(1)(e) — which requires declarations from household cohabitants — was inconsistent with equal protection rights under Article 12(1) unless passed by a special majority.

Government defends practical fixes

Defending the bill during the parliamentary debate, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya rejected allegations that the government was weakening the anti-graft framework.

She claimed the amendments were introduced to resolve operational and human resource constraints, while introducing provisions to recover stolen public funds, which were missing in the original 2023 law.

“This is, in fact, an attempt to resolve the practical challenges, institutional challenges, and human resource issues encountered in implementing the anti-corruption process for the first time in Sri Lanka’s history, rather than diluting it,” Amarasuriya said. (Colombo/Oct09/2026)

Bonds & Forex

Sri Lanka sells extra Rs8bn Treasury bills after auction

Friday October 9, 2026 10:15 am

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka has sold 8,000 million rupees of treasury bills offered on tap at average rates of 9.44 percent and 9.95 percent, the public debt management office said, bringing the total of bills sold in the week to 88 billion rupees.

Total market subscription was 16,025 million rupees.

The debt office sold a 6-month bill at 9.44 percent.

The debt office sold a 12-month bill at 9.95 percent.

On Wednesday (7) the debt office raised 80 billion rupees of 3, 6 and 12 month bills. (Colombo/Oct9/2026)