On 19 August, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya tabled a proposed amendment to Sri Lanka's Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 in Parliament. While the move was framed as a procedural update, its implications are anything but routine. The amendment introduces sweeping restrictions on how citizens may use publicly accessed asset declarations — effectively criminalising speech that stems from lawful access to public information. In a country still rebuilding democratic trust after years of political corruption and economic crisis, this proposal raises a fundamental question: what is the right to know if there is no right to speak?
Understanding the Anti-Corruption Act and Asset Declarations
Sri Lanka's Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 was celebrated as a landmark reform. One of its most significant provisions required public officials to declare their assets, liabilities, and net worth — a transparency mechanism designed to hold those in power accountable to ordinary citizens. Asset declarations are a globally recognised anti-corruption tool. When made publicly accessible, they allow journalists, civil society organisations, researchers, and voters to scrutinise whether elected officials and public servants are living within their legitimate means.
The principle behind such declarations is straightforward: sunlight is the best disinfectant. If public officials know their financial affairs are open to inspection, they are less likely to engage in corrupt practices. Sri Lanka's adoption of this mechanism was widely praised by international anti-corruption bodies and local advocacy groups alike. It represented a genuine step toward accountability in a political culture long plagued by opacity and impunity.
What the Proposed Amendment Actually Does
The proposed amendment fundamentally alters the landscape by restricting what citizens can do once they have legally accessed an asset declaration. Specifically, it criminalises the public discussion, analysis, or dissemination of information derived from those declarations. In practical terms, a journalist who accesses a politician's asset declaration and publishes findings based on that information could face criminal liability. A civil society researcher who presents analysis at a public forum could similarly be prosecuted. An ordinary citizen who shares observations on social media could be breaking the law.
This creates a deeply contradictory legal situation. The government grants the public the right to access information but simultaneously prohibits any meaningful use of that information. Access without the ability to speak, share, or act on what one has learned is not transparency — it is theatre. The proposed amendment effectively hollows out the anti-corruption framework it purports to sit within.
The Chilling Effect on Free Expression and Democratic Accountability
Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this amendment is the chilling effect it will have on free expression. When citizens, journalists, and activists fear criminal prosecution for discussing publicly available information, self-censorship becomes the rational response. Investigative journalism into public corruption — already a difficult and often dangerous profession in Sri Lanka — would face an additional legal barrier that could silence reporting in the public interest.
Democratic accountability depends on an informed citizenry. Elections are meaningful only when voters can make decisions based on accurate, accessible information about the people seeking their trust. If asset declarations exist but cannot be discussed, debated, or published, their democratic value is effectively nullified. The amendment does not merely restrict speech; it undermines the very foundation of informed democratic participation.
Sri Lanka's Broader Context: Corruption, Crisis, and Reform
This proposed amendment arrives at a particularly sensitive moment in Sri Lanka's history. The country is still recovering from the catastrophic economic crisis of 2022, which triggered mass protests, the ousting of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and a painful IMF-led restructuring process. Corruption and financial mismanagement were widely identified as root causes of that crisis. Public appetite for genuine accountability reform is high, and the Anti-Corruption Act was seen as a direct response to that demand.
Rolling back key elements of that act — particularly those that empower citizens to scrutinise public officials — sends a troubling signal. It suggests that the political establishment, regardless of which party holds power, retains a fundamental discomfort with genuine transparency. For a government that came to power partly on promises of clean governance and systemic reform, this amendment represents a significant contradiction.
What Must Happen Next
Civil society organisations, legal experts, opposition parliamentarians, and international partners must urgently push back against this proposed amendment. Sri Lanka's Parliament should reject any provision that criminalises the public discussion of lawfully accessed asset declarations. The right to know and the right to speak are inseparable pillars of a functioning democracy — one cannot exist meaningfully without the other.
Transparency is not a gift governments grant to citizens. It is a right that citizens demand and that democratic governance requires. Sri Lanka's hard-won anti-corruption reforms deserve protection, not erosion. The proposed amendment must be withdrawn, and the integrity of the Anti-Corruption Act must be preserved in full.