Three Supreme Court judges in Sri Lanka are facing a formal bribery complaint filed with the country's anti-corruption watchdog, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). The complaint alleges that the judges' actions directly resulted in nearly US$999 million in compensation — owed by the X-Press Pearl shipping company and its local representatives — failing to be recovered. The development has sent shockwaves through Sri Lanka's legal and environmental communities, reigniting public anger over one of the worst maritime disasters in the nation's history.
Who Filed the Complaint and Why
The complaint was lodged by Dr. Chamal Sanjeewa, President of a prominent civil society organization, who has been among the most vocal critics of how Sri Lankan authorities have handled the legal aftermath of the X-Press Pearl catastrophe. Dr. Sanjeewa argues that the three Supreme Court judges in question made decisions that effectively shielded the shipping company and its local agents from full financial accountability, allowing them to escape what would have been one of the largest maritime compensation payouts in South Asian history.
The filing with CIABOC marks a significant escalation in efforts to hold powerful institutions accountable. CIABOC is Sri Lanka's primary body mandated to investigate corruption and bribery allegations, including those involving public officials and members of the judiciary. While complaints against sitting or former Supreme Court judges are rare, they are not without precedent in Sri Lanka's legal landscape. The outcome of this complaint could have far-reaching implications for judicial independence and accountability in the country.
Background: The X-Press Pearl Disaster
The X-Press Pearl was a Singapore-flagged container vessel that caught fire and sank off the coast of Colombo in May 2021. The disaster is widely regarded as one of the most devastating environmental catastrophes ever to strike Sri Lanka's coastline. The ship was carrying a dangerous cargo that included 25 tonnes of nitric acid, along with hundreds of other containers filled with chemicals, cosmetics, and plastic pellets known as nurdles.
As the vessel burned for nearly two weeks before sinking, billions of nurdles — tiny plastic pellets used in manufacturing — washed ashore along Sri Lanka's western and southern coastlines. Marine ecosystems were severely damaged, fishing communities lost their livelihoods, and beaches that once attracted tourists became contaminated wastelands. Marine biologists reported mass deaths of sea turtles, dolphins, and fish in the weeks following the disaster. The environmental damage was estimated to run into hundreds of millions of dollars, with some assessments placing the total ecological and economic cost close to the US$999 million figure at the center of the current legal dispute.
The Legal Battle for Compensation
Following the sinking, Sri Lankan authorities and affected communities pursued legal action against X-Press Feeders, the company operating the vessel, as well as its local agents and representatives. The government and civil society groups argued that the company bore direct responsibility for the disaster, citing evidence that the ship's operators had been warned about a leaking container of nitric acid before departing from the port of Hazira in India, yet chose to proceed without addressing the hazard.
Legal proceedings in Sri Lanka's courts sought to secure compensation that would cover environmental remediation, losses suffered by fishing communities, and broader economic damages. However, critics have long alleged that the judicial process was mishandled, with key decisions allegedly allowing the responsible parties to avoid paying the full amount owed. The new CIABOC complaint specifically targets three Supreme Court judges whose rulings, according to the complainant, were instrumental in this outcome.
Implications for Judicial Accountability
The filing of a bribery complaint against Supreme Court judges is an extraordinarily serious matter in any democracy. In Sri Lanka, where public trust in institutions has already been severely tested following the 2022 economic crisis and the mass protests that ousted former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the complaint adds yet another layer of institutional scrutiny. Legal experts note that CIABOC will need to carefully assess whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a formal investigation, and any such move would be closely watched by both domestic and international observers.
Transparency advocates have welcomed the complaint as a necessary step toward accountability, arguing that no institution — including the judiciary — should be immune from scrutiny when public interest is at stake. Environmental groups, meanwhile, are using the moment to renew calls for stronger legal frameworks to handle maritime disasters and ensure that polluters face swift and full financial consequences.
What Happens Next
CIABOC is expected to review the complaint and determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. The three judges named in the complaint have not yet made public statements in response. Sri Lanka's legal community is closely monitoring the situation, aware that the outcome could set a significant precedent for how allegations of judicial misconduct are handled in the country going forward.
For the fishing communities and environmental activists who have spent years fighting for justice following the X-Press Pearl disaster, the complaint represents a renewed — if uncertain — hope that accountability may still be within reach.