Two major incidents shook Sri Lanka last week. The first was the rape of a female doctor at the Anuradhapura Hospital, which led to island-wide protests by medical officers demanding the arrest of the perpetrator. The second was the killing of former Superintendent (SP) of Boossa Prison, Siridath Dhammika, who was shot by an unidentified gunman in broad daylight at Thalagaha in Akmeemana.
These two incidents dominated the media, alongside reports of shootings, murders, and the absconding of Police Chief Deshabandu Tennakoon and Ishara Sevvandi, among other crime-related developments. Along with these crimes, concerns over national security have also emerged.
The Government’s statement regarding an extremist group in the Eastern Province has gone viral, while remarks by Ven. Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, a controversial bhikkhu and the Secretary General of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), have pointed to potential national security threats. The BBS, a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist organisation, is known for its hardline stance on Buddhism and controversial rhetoric against minority communities, particularly Muslims and Christians.
These developments come three weeks after the cold-blooded murder of Ganemulla Sanjeewa inside a court complex in Colombo, despite tight security amid death threats to the arrested underworld drug lord. The resurgence of national security concerns coincides with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s administration intensifying its crackdown on past murderers, underworld criminals, and corrupt politicians.
Struggle against deep-rooted corruption
Sri Lanka’s political landscape has long been shaped by national security concerns, often intertwined with anti-minority sentiments and a culture of violence. Successive Governments have leveraged security threats to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and, in some cases, evade accountability for corruption and human rights violations.
Unlike its predecessors, the current Government appears desperate to end corruption, crime, and narcotics while purging the system of corrupt police and public officials.
However, no Government has succeeded in fully eradicating corruption, as it remains deeply embedded in politics, the economy, religion, and investments. The corrupt network is so strong that charges against powerful politicians often disappear over time without consequence.
Political resistance to accountability
Sri Lanka has witnessed multiple attempts to address corruption and investigate fraudulent deals and past human rights violations, including abductions and extrajudicial killings. However, these efforts have consistently faced political resistance, institutional roadblocks, and threats against those leading investigations.
One of the most notable anti-corruption drives came after the 2015 Presidential election when Maithripala Sirisena, backed by a broad coalition, promised to eradicate corruption and investigate high-profile frauds under the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa administration. However, these investigations were frequently stalled due to political interference, weak judicial processes, and a lack of sustained political will.
Efforts to investigate human rights violations, particularly those related to the final stages of the civil war in 2009, also faced significant pushback. The Sirisena Government initially pledged accountability and even co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution calling for an independent mechanism to probe war crimes. However, under pressure from nationalist groups and political allies, these commitments were largely abandoned, and no meaningful prosecutions took place. During Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Presidency (2019-2022), many anti-corruption investigations launched under the previous administration were either discontinued or deliberately weakened. Key officials involved in probing financial crimes were sidelined, and cases against military officers accused of human rights abuses were dismissed. Instead of ensuring accountability, the government actively shielded those implicated in corruption and war crimes, further entrenching a culture of impunity.
Silencing whistleblowers and journalists
Successive Governments have suppressed whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who have exposed corruption and human rights violations. High-profile cases, such as the assassination of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge and the disappearance of cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda, remain unresolved. Although, Governments have repeatedly promised justice, these cases have either stagnated in the legal system or been obstructed by powerful interests.
The 2022 economic crisis, triggered in part by decades of financial mismanagement and corruption, led to mass protests demanding accountability. The protest movement, known as the Aragalaya, forced the resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa. However, his successor, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, despite promising reforms, failed to bring corrupt actors to justice. Instead, his administration cracked down on dissent, targeting activists and journalists who continued to demand accountability while introducing restrictive laws such as the Online Safety Act.
National security as a shield against accountability
The Sri Lankan Government has frequently used national security concerns as a pretext to sideline corruption investigations and accountability efforts. These concerns should be taken seriously and the Government has a duty to address them with the full support of defence agencies and intelligence services. However, the handling of these issues must be done carefully to prevent their misuse for political gain.
It is no secret that national security has been weaponised by past Governments to protect corrupt individuals. Given Sri Lanka’s history of a brutal 26-year civil war and multiple insurgencies, Governments have used security threats to justify repressive measures and divert attention from internal governance failures.
One of the most striking examples of this strategy occurred after the 2015 election, when the new administration attempted to investigate large-scale financial corruption under the previous Rajapaksa Government. The establishment of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) led to multiple cases against former officials. However, nationalist groups and political allies of the Rajapaksas framed these investigations as politically motivated attacks that undermined national security. They said that weakening the country’s military leadership and political establishment would make Sri Lanka vulnerable to external threats, especially Western interference and separatist movements. This narrative helped stall key corruption cases.
Suppressing human rights investigations
Similarly, efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for human rights abuses committed during and after the civil war have been largely obstructed under the guise of protecting national security. When international organisations and local activists pushed for war crime investigations, successive Governments said such efforts would demoralise the military and endanger national stability.
The use of counterterrorism laws has also played a key role in suppressing calls for accountability. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), originally introduced to combat Tamil insurgents, has been repeatedly used to silence journalists, whistleblowers, and activists who exposed corruption or demanded justice for past crimes. Whenever there was a push for transparency, the Government responded by saying that such demands were linked to foreign-funded conspiracies aimed at destabilising Sri Lanka.
Over time, this manipulation of national security concerns has created a culture of impunity. Though some of these concerns were genuine, politicians have also exploited them for their own benefit. Even during the 2022 economic crisis, when widespread protests demanded accountability for financial mismanagement, authorities attempted to label protesters as extremists or foreign agents.
International pressure and policy gaps
International pressure has played a role in pushing Sri Lanka to act on corruption and human rights violations, particularly from the UNHRC, the European Union, and the United States. However, despite some asset freezes and visa bans imposed on individuals implicated in abuses, these measures have not resulted in substantial domestic legal action. Successive Sri Lankan Governments have used diplomatic manoeuvering to evade serious scrutiny while making only superficial reforms.
The lack of independent institutions to combat corruption and human rights abuses has further compounded the problem. Agencies such as the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and the judiciary have often been manipulated by those in power, ensuring cases against influential figures do not progress. Political appointees and a lack of prosecutorial independence have weakened accountability mechanisms.
Efforts to introduce strong anti-corruption laws, such as asset declaration requirements and procurement oversight mechanisms, have faced resistance from politicians across party lines. Many lawmakers themselves have been implicated in corruption, making genuine reform politically costly. While Sri Lanka has occasionally convicted lower-level officials, high-profile cases involving political elites rarely lead to meaningful legal consequences.
The challenge ahead
The new Government’s attempt to dismantle corruption and ensure accountability for past human rights abuses is a formidable challenge. Such moves could result in the imprisonment of powerful politicians, the dismissal of bureaucrats, and the end of political careers. These measures could put the lives of investigators and Government leaders at risk.
Sri Lanka’s history shows how national security concerns have been used as a diversionary tactic. The new administration must navigate these issues carefully to ensure that their anti-corruption drive does not backfire, leading to further unrest or violence.
