Legislation: Sri Lanka ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption in March 2004. Acts of corruption and attempted corruption in the form of extortion, active and passive bribery are criminalised under the Bribery Act No. 8 of 1973. Furthermore, the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, No. 1 of 1975 stipulates that public officials must annually declare their assets in order to enhance transparency, and to ensure that public officials are not enriching themselves illegally while in office. However, according to Global Integrity 2007, there is no legal obligation that these declarations be audited, nor is there no right to public access to this information due to the absence of a freedom of information act. Sri Lankan legislation does not include whistleblower protection. A more recent legal anti-corruption initiative is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006 (amended in 2011). In 2001, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was passed with the purpose of depoliticising the public sector and creating truly independent commissions. Under the 17th Amendment, a Constitutional Council was to be appointed. The Council would be responsible for appointments to key posts and to the independent commissions. However, according to Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009, the 17th Amendment continues to be ignored, which has further reduced public confidence in the rule of law and good governance.  Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Sri Lanka.

Government Strategies: Sri Lanka has taken some basic steps to curb corruption, and with the ratification of UNCAC and the ADB & OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia Pacific Anti-Corruption Action Plan, as well as the collaboration with USAID, to work out an anti-corruption programme to rectify some of the flaws in their governance system. The country has demonstrated political will internationally. However, more steps need to be taken. Most significantly, Sri Lanka has set up the legal framework for curbing corruption but still needs to implement more efficient enforcement of all the anti-corruption measures they have initiated - most notably the law on declaration of assets by parliamentarians and public officials should be rigorously upheld instead of being ignored as is currently the case. The President failed to appoint the Constitutional Council, which is required under the Constitution, and in this way obstructing the appointment of independent representatives to important public entities such as the Bribery Commission, Police Commission and the Judicial Service Commission. The Constitutional Council is also meant to appoint key people such as the Attorney General, the Auditor General, the Inspector General of Police, the Ombudsman and the Secretary General of Parliament to make sure they are independent from the executive. Instead Sri Lanka has a situation where the President is making personally and politically motivated appointments to these bodies that are supposed to oversee the government.

Anti-Corruption Agencies: The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) is formally an independent body functioning under the Bribery Amendment Act No. 19 of 1994. The CIABOC may investigate corruption cases, but it does not possess any powers to carry out proactive investigations. Instead, it focuses on corruption prevention and holds corruption awareness courses for politicians and officials etc. According to Freedom House 2010, even though the Commission receives over 4,000 cases a year, only one or two cases ends with convictions annually, illustrating that the Commission has been largely inefficient in curbing corruption. Another 2011 report published by Freedom House also points out that government interference, and the Treasury’s authority to withhold the Commission’s funding, have largely weakened its independence.  Finally, as the CIABOC cannot initiate investigations, it is dependent on the public. However, it is a huge disincentive for people to lodge a corruption complaint as there is no whistleblower protection. On the CIABOC website, cases of corruption detection and raids in which the Commission has been involved are posted. Yet the website reveals no large-scale corruption cases. The independence of the CIABOC was further damaged in 2008, when the President interfered with the staffing of the CIABOC, as reported by Freedom House 2010.  Since March 2010, the CIABOC has been rendered inactive after the terms of previous commissioners expired, with no replacements appointed. In early 2011, the Sri Lankan government transferred 56 police officers assigned to the Commission, and appointed 56 new officers who have not been screened nor trained in anti-corruption work, according to the US Department of State 2011.

The Auditor-General: The Auditor General Department monitors all government units at the national, provincial and local levels to ensure transparency. The department is an independent body and the Auditor General is appointed by the President. According to Global Integrity 2007, overall the AG Department has a strong foundation with increased transparency as their reports are posted online at the Auditor General's website, but not much action is taken. The audit reports were previously referred to two committees, the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) and the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), which were supposed to take action on the audit reports. However, the government has interfered with the work of the two committees after they reported on widespread corruption and waste of resources and money in state-owned companies. This step has left the Auditor General Department and its anti-corruption work in a weak state. An illustration of this is, as mentioned in the Transparency International Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Governance Report 2008, that in 2007 more than 7,000 audit queries never received an answer from public institutions. According to a 2006 article by the Asian Human Rights Commission, the Treasury Secretary further tried to intimidate and weaken the Auditor General Department. This has raised concerns about the continued independence of this department.

Committee on Public Enterprises: The Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) was established in 1979 in order to ensure that financial discipline was upheld in public corporations and semi-governmental organisations where the government is a financial stakeholder. The COPE is obliged to report to Parliament on financial procedures, performance and management of the corporations. COPE has so far published two reports, both in 2007 that show massive corruption and financial malpractice in public enterprises and state institutions. However, according to Transparency International Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Governance Report 2009, many of the suggestions and recommendations proposed by the COPE have been disregarded. The same report also pointed out several factors that undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the COPE. One of which is the competing lines of accountability of the current COPE Chairman. As a chairman of the COPE, it is his/her role to point out the failures of public enterprises, while at the same time the government is responsible for the failures of these enterprises, but, with the chairman of COPE, also being a Member of Parliament and a Government Minister, a clear conflict of interest exists. Despite of its weaknesses, the COPE still plays a vital role of oversight, and for instance, in its August 2007 report, revealed corruption and mismanagement by 20 state institutions that had cost a loss of LKR 600 million.

Public Accounts Committee: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was established with the objective to oversee and ensure managerial efficiency and financial discipline of the government, ministries and provincial and local authorities. In November 2007, PAC published a report on government tax revenue that reveals VAT fraud. In May 2008 the President, just as he had done with the COPE, shut down the PAC and then reopened it in July 2008, appointing a government minister to head the committee. This has weakened the legislature's scrutiny of the executive, as usually a member of the opposition heads the committee.

Mandatory Code of Corporate Governance: According to Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009, a Mandatory Code of Corporate Governance for Licensed Banks came into force by January 2008. The code was set up by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. The implementation of the code is expected to improve the soundness of the banking system, which is vital to the maintenance of the financial system's stability.

Ombudsman: The Ombudsman is called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and investigates complaints against government departments, institutions, officials and government maladministration, as well as corporations regarding infringements of rights. According to Global Integrity 2007, the Ombudsman does not have power to initiate investigations, nor impose penalties, but can only mediate and give recommendations. Furthermore, the same report also states that the government does not act on the Ombudsman’s findings. The Ombudsman is appointed by the President. However, according to the Constitution, the Ombudsman should be appointed by the Constitutional Council.

E-Governance: E-governance in Sri Lanka is still in its infancy. The Government of Sri Lanka Official Web Portal is quite useful, although citizens might have the most use out of what is hidden behind the button GIC - 1919 at the bottom of the page, which leads to the government Information Centre. Generally the official websites are one-way, top-down communication. Please be aware that the Government of Sri Lanka Official Web Portal as mentioned above is different from the Official Website of the Government of Sri Lanka. For companies, the situation is improving constantly. The Board of Investment website features considerable business and investment information. This is a more interactive site where one can make payments online, download documents, post comments etc. The National Procurement Agency website may be consulted for procurement queries (see 'Public Procurement' below).

Public Procurement: The Procurement Guidelines 2006 stipulate that government procurements are to be advertised publicly, stating the specifications and timeframes of the tender. Unsuccessful bidders have one week upon being informed of who won the contract to complain to the Procurement Appeal Board, which will then launch an investigation. The National Procurement Agency (NPA), which supervises and administers the tender process, has a list of blacklisted companies that are barred from bidding on contracts. A manual and all relevant documents may be found on the NPA website. The tender-awarding process is very time-consuming because most procurement must not only go through tender evaluation committees, but must also be approved by Cabinet. The NPA has a mandate to address corruption issues, but the agency is not very effective because they often interpret their mandate very narrowly. Furthermore, according to Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2009, the NPA merged with the Treasury as the result of a presidential directive in March 2008. This brought the plans of the previous government to establish the NPA as an independent body with powers to supervise all tender processes to the end. As the Treasury is under the purview of the Ministry of Finance, from now on there will be no independent control of national procurement. Global Integrity 2007 rates procurement in Sri Lanka as 'weak'.

Whistle-Blowing: Global Integrity 2007 rates whistle-blowing regulations in Sri Lanka as 'very weak'. The country does not have whistleblower protection, resulting in a general reluctance on behalf of citizens and private and public sector employees to report corruption. However, the Companies Act introduced in 2007 has provisions for rewarding whistleblowers by entitling them to reimbursement of legal expenses from the fines levied in the action.

General Comments on the Public Anti-corruption Initiatives: Until the Constitutional Council has been appointed, the politisation of the allegedly independent committees that are meant to oversee the government and assure that good governance is taking place, will continue. Furthermore, as long as Sri Lanka has not implemented legislation concerning freedom of information and protection of whistleblowers, the government lacks the extra incentive to ensure transparency and good governance. The government, in cooperation with USAID, has elaborated an anti-corruption programme to rectify some of the flaws in their governance system. Although this cooperation seems to indicate that the political will is present, it is not backed by actions. Political interference in independent organs and the President's unwillingness to ensure that the Public Service Commission and the National Police Commission are independent, works against the anti-corruption initiatives and impedes real progress in anti-corruption measures.