A prominent anti-corruption watchdog has petitioned Sri Lanka's Supreme Court, arguing that proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act contain multiple provisions that violate the country's constitution and undermine transparency efforts.
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has filed a constitutional challenge against amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act introduced by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake's government. Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya presented the bill to Parliament on August 19, 2026, with the stated aim of aligning the 2023 parent legislation with United Nations standards and fulfilling conditions set by the International Monetary Fund's Extended Fund Facility.
The government has characterized the amendments as refinements to address operational inefficiencies, including provisions for mandatory secondary fines of up to three times the value of corruptly acquired property and the revocation of unlawful benefits upon conviction. However, TISL contends that several clauses introduce "severe policy regressions" and create constitutional conflicts. The watchdog argues that the amendments would concentrate prosecutorial discretion in the Director-General of the anti-corruption authority without judicial oversight, raising vulnerability to political pressure and manipulation.
Among TISL's primary concerns is a proposed increase in the shareholding threshold for asset declaration requirements from 25% to 50%, which the organization says would exempt senior officers of state-linked companies and conflict with existing right-to-information legislation. The watchdog also objects to the removal of requirements for officials to declare assets of cohabiting household members, arguing this creates opportunities for concealing illicit wealth. Additionally, TISL warns that broad discretionary powers to redact financial information, combined with criminal penalties for public use of redacted declarations, would restrict civic space and media freedom.
TISL has petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the contested clauses unconstitutional, requesting that they be subject to a two-thirds parliamentary majority and public referendum before enactment. The organization maintains that the amendments fundamentally undermine transparency and accountability mechanisms rather than strengthen anti-corruption efforts.