TISL challenges proposed Anti-Corruption Bill in SC

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, arguing that several provisions could weaken anti-corruption safeguards, restrict civic space and infringe fundamental rights.

The petition was filed on August 31 in the public interest, challenging the Bill placed on Parliament’s Order Paper on August 19. The proposed legislation seeks to amend the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.

TISL said the 2023 Act was a landmark reform aimed at strengthening Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption framework in line with international standards, but argued that the proposed amendments would represent a significant policy regression.

Among the provisions challenged is a proposal to amend Section 70 of the Act, which would allow the Commission to authorize the Director-General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to decide whether to refrain from prosecuting accomplices who provide full disclosure.

TISL said the proposed change would remove the existing requirement for Magistrate authorization, thereby eliminating judicial oversight over such decisions. It argued that concentrating the discretion in the Director-General’s office could expose the process to political pressure, external influence and other forms of manipulation.

The petition also challenges provisions that would raise the State or public corporation shareholding threshold for mandatory asset declarations from 25% to 50%.

TISL said the proposed change could exempt senior officials of state-linked companies in which the government holds less than a 50% stake, despite such entities exercising public functions and managing public assets and contracts. It further noted that the Right to Information Act uses a 25% ownership threshold.

Another provision under challenge would remove the requirement for public officials to declare the assets and liabilities of cohabitants who have shared their household for at least six months.

TISL warned that repealing the requirement could create a loophole through which illicit wealth could be placed in the names of household members who are neither spouses nor dependants, making verification of unexplained assets more difficult.

The organisation has also raised concerns over proposed amendments governing the disclosure of asset declarations. It said the Bill would give CIABOC broad discretion to redact information it considers to infringe an individual’s privacy, potentially allowing key financial information relevant to detecting conflicts of interest or unexplained wealth to be withheld.

TISL further objected to a proposed provision that would criminalise the use of redacted asset declarations for purposes other than making formal submissions under the Act. It said the offence could carry a fine of up to Rs. 100,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

According to TISL, the provision could have a chilling effect on journalism, civic activism and the exercise of freedom of expression, including the constitutional right to receive and impart information.

The petition also challenges the proposed repeal and replacement of Section 149 of the principal Act, which TISL said would make bail an exception and remand the norm. The organisation argues that the provision is vague and overly broad and does not provide sufficient safeguards or guidelines to ensure proportionality.

TISL maintains that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with several provisions of the Constitution, including those relating to sovereignty, equality, fundamental rights, freedom of expression, the right to information and judicial power.

The organisation has therefore asked the Supreme Court to determine that the challenged provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and cannot become law unless they are approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and endorsed by the people at a referendum.

TISL said the proposed amendments, if enacted, could undermine transparency, accountability and public confidence in Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption framework.