Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption machinery is entering a more aggressive phase, with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) moving beyond traditional investigations to build a digitally integrated system capable of tracking assets, cases and politically exposed persons.
The shift comes as CIABOC implements a multi-year enforcement framework aligned with the country’s commitments under the International Monetary Fund’s Extended Fund Facility. The combined fifth and sixth reviews of the programme unlocked approximately $695 million for Sri Lanka recently, while anti-corruption reforms remained a critical component of the structural reform agenda.
At the centre of the transformation is a new electronic asset and liability declaration system. According to information provided to this newspaper, more than 160,000 public officials have registered and submitted wealth declarations through the digital platform.
CIABOC has also introduced a case-file tracking system connected to digital e-record rooms, while the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan for 2025–2029 is being implemented alongside plans to establish Ultimate Beneficial Ownership registries linked with the Registrar of Companies.
The reforms could fundamentally change how investigators identify unexplained wealth. Beneficial ownership information, asset declarations and case records can potentially be cross-referenced, creating a more systematic trail from public office to private assets.
But the drive towards transparency has already produced a political and legal fault line.
Parliament amended the Anti-Corruption Act to place restrictions on the disclosure of information relating to ordinary civil servants. The government has maintained, however, that politicians and elected representatives should not receive the same privacy protection, arguing that their full asset declarations should remain accessible to the public.
The distinction has triggered criticism from Transparency International Sri Lanka, which has warned that excessive discretion to redact or withhold information could undermine public scrutiny. The organisation has raised concerns that such powers could make it harder for journalists and citizens to investigate unexplained wealth.
The controversy is particularly significant because CIABOC is simultaneously pursuing politically exposed persons and alleged illicit assets under the newly implemented Proceeds of Crime Act.
A specialised tracking unit is reportedly identifying luxury properties, hotels and other real estate allegedly acquired through illicit funds connected to former public officials.
The government’s intervention therefore creates a paradox: while it is strengthening the technological capacity of the anti-corruption system, it is also narrowing the circumstances under which some of the information collected can be publicly viewed.
The effectiveness of the new framework may ultimately depend not simply on how much information CIABOC gathers, but on how independently, consistently and transparently that information can be used to hold powerful individuals accountable..