by Our Correspondent in Colombo
A constitutional and institutional dilemma is emerging at the heart of Sri Lanka’s Parliament over the position of its current Speaker, Jagath Wickramaratne, following reports that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) is conducting an investigation concerning his alleged use of state resources and facilities in the performance of his duties as Speaker.
The issue has now been framed as a parliamentary privilege question, centred not on a finding of guilt but on whether a Speaker who is the subject of an ongoing investigation by an independent anti-corruption commission can continue simultaneously to preside over Parliament and serve as Chairman of the Constitutional Council.
According to the material submitted with the privilege question, the investigation is being conducted under file number AC/0356/2026 B-206. The existence of the investigation was reported on 04 September 2026 by Lankadeepa, Daily Mirror and Dinamina newspapers. The privilege question expressly acknowledges that an investigation by CIABOC does not establish that any person is guilty of an offence and that the presumption of innocence remains in place until the conclusion of the lawful process.
The issue therefore turns on a different question: whether the Speaker’s continuing institutional responsibilities create legal, ethical or perceived conflicts of interest while the investigation is under way.
The privilege question invokes the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, approved by Parliament on 07 March 2018 under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, No. 21 of 1953 and adopted to take effect from 15 April 2018, as well as Standing Order 29 approved by Parliament on 07 April 2026.
At the centre of the argument is the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023. Section 162 of the Act includes the Speaker within the definition of a “public official”. Among the purposes set out in Section 2 are preventing and eliminating bribery and corruption, promoting transparency in governance, strengthening integrity in governance, increasing accountability, enhancing public confidence in government and strengthening public participation in the elimination of corruption.
The privilege question places particular emphasis on Section 107 of the Act, concerning conflicts of interest. It argues that where a public official has a direct or indirect influence in relation to a public authority or a decision taken by that authority, the official should not vote or participate in matters relating to that decision.
The issue has acquired additional significance because an amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act was introduced in Parliament and read for the first time by the Prime Minister on 19 August 2026, at a sitting presided over by the Speaker. The privilege question argues that, because the amendment concerns legislation governing the anti-corruption framework, the Speaker’s participation creates a conflict under Section 107.
The motion further raises a constitutional complication. Under Article 79 of the Constitution, every Bill passed by Parliament must be endorsed by the Speaker with a certificate bearing his signature. The privilege question argues that if the proposed amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act is passed, the Speaker would be unable to provide that certification under the conflict-of-interest provisions cited in the motion.
A further incident is identified in the submission. On 08 September 2026, before the commencement of the principal business of Parliament, the Speaker tabled CIABOC’s budget estimates for 2027, prepared by the commission with the observations of the Minister in charge of the subject of Finance. The privilege question argues that this amounted to participation in a matter concerning CIABOC while an investigation concerning the Speaker was in progress.
The second major institutional issue concerns the Constitutional Council. Article 41A(2) of the Constitution makes the Speaker its Chairman. Under the constitutional framework, the Council has a role in recommending appointments to CIABOC. Under Section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act, the three members of CIABOC are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, while Section 17 provides that the Director-General is also appointed by the President on the Council’s recommendation.
The privilege question argues that a future vacancy in a CIABOC commissioner position would therefore create a particularly sensitive situation if the Speaker, while himself being the subject of a CIABOC investigation, participated in the process through which the Constitutional Council recommends a candidate to the President.
The submission identifies another potential conflict involving the judiciary. Among the functions of the Constitutional Council under the Constitution is approval of presidential recommendations for the appointment of the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the President and judges of the Court of Appeal.
Section 160(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act provides a route to the Supreme Court where a person is dissatisfied with a decision taken by CIABOC. The privilege question argues that this could create a further institutional conflict if the Speaker were required to seek relief before Supreme Court judges whose appointments had been approved through a process in which he, as Chairman of the Constitutional Council, had participated.
The submission also focuses on the relationship between the Speaker and parliamentary officials who could become witnesses in the investigation. It argues that officials of the parliamentary staff are among those who have been or could be called upon to provide information, documents and statements to CIABOC. Many of the documents potentially relevant to the investigation are also said to be held by Parliament.
That circumstance, according to the privilege question, creates a reasonable concern about whether officials working under the parliamentary administration could provide evidence independently concerning the Speaker, particularly if they could be subject to influence from the Speaker or members of his personal staff.
The submission goes further, alleging that the Speaker’s private secretary, Chameera Gallage, has intervened in matters capable of influencing the CIABOC investigation and that written evidence exists concerning such intervention. It states that the intervention was reportedly undertaken with the Speaker’s knowledge. Parliamentarian Harshana Rajakaruna has also reportedly lodged a complaint with CIABOC concerning the matter, resulting in a separate investigation under number AC/0695/2026.
The privilege question additionally alleges that officials from the Administration, Finance and Transport divisions who are providing evidence in the investigation have been summoned to the Speaker’s office or contacted by telephone concerning the inquiry. It invokes Section 3(5) of the Anti-Corruption Act, under which intervening, or attempting to intervene, in the exercise of the powers or functions of the Commission constitutes a serious offence.
These allegations remain matters raised in the privilege submission and do not, by themselves, establish criminal or other legal liability. The submission itself emphasises the distinction between an ongoing investigation and a finding of guilt.
The parliamentary Code of Conduct is nevertheless presented as providing a separate ethical framework. Section 7(b) states that no member should place himself in a position in which he has a financial or other obligation to an outside person or organisation that could influence him in the performance of his official duties. Section 19 requires a member with a direct or indirect personal or financial interest in a matter under consideration by Parliament or a committee to declare that interest and prohibits participation in debate on the matter unless the required declaration has been made.
On that basis, the privilege question argues that the Speaker, as a Member of Parliament, should not participate in matters concerning CIABOC or the Anti-Corruption Act while the investigation is continuing, and that his position as Chairman of the Constitutional Council creates additional concerns regarding judicial and anti-corruption appointments.
The submission ultimately asks the Speaker to refer the privilege question to Parliament’s Committee on Ethics and Privileges for examination. Its stated purpose is to protect the dignity, independence, impartiality, transparency and public confidence of Parliament, while also protecting the independence and credibility of the institution established to investigate bribery and corruption.
The controversy therefore centres on institutional confidence rather than a determination of guilt. The question placed before Parliament is whether the simultaneous exercise of these constitutional and parliamentary responsibilities by a person who is the subject of an ongoing CIABOC investigation is compatible with the legal and ethical safeguards intended to prevent conflicts of interest and preserve public confidence in Sri Lanka’s institutions.
