Sri Lanka’s Parliament has passed an amended Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, introducing provisions intended to strengthen the investigation and punishment of fraud, bribery and corruption in both the public and private sectors. The legislation was approved on 8 October following a second-reading debate held the previous day, with Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya introducing amendments after the debate.
The bill provides for an expanded role for the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, including greater independence and broader powers to investigate allegations. It also contains provisions requiring public officials and politicians to make proper declarations of their assets and liabilities, forming part of a framework intended to address corruption and improve accountability across state institutions and the private sector.
According to the information provided in the parliamentary report, the legislation is designed to prevent, investigate and impose stringent penalties for fraudulent practices, bribery and corruption. Its provisions seek to enable the anti-corruption commission to operate independently while exercising wider investigative authority. The amendments were incorporated by Amarasuriya following the second-reading debate, before Parliament approved the revised bill.
However, the available source does not identify the MPs, political parties or other groups that opposed the legislation, nor does it record their arguments, proposed amendments or voting positions. It is therefore not possible to establish from this account whether opposition members challenged the bill’s provisions, questioned the commission’s proposed powers, raised concerns about implementation or objected to particular amendments. The source also does not provide the final vote count or indicate whether the bill passed unanimously.
The legislation’s provisions on asset and liability declarations are directed at public officials and politicians, requiring them to disclose their financial circumstances in accordance with the proposed framework. The source does not specify the precise disclosure requirements, the penalties for failing to comply, the arrangements for verifying declarations or the procedures through which members of the public might access the information.
Similarly, although the bill is intended to provide the anti-corruption commission with broader powers and greater independence, the parliamentary account does not detail the specific investigative authorities conferred by the amendments. It does not identify changes to appointment procedures, the commission’s funding arrangements, its powers to prosecute, or the mechanisms governing oversight of its activities.
The reported passage of the amended bill follows the parliamentary debate on 7 October, during which its second reading was considered. Amarasuriya subsequently introduced the amendments, and the revised legislation was passed on 8 October. The account does not state whether further legislative or administrative steps are required before its provisions take effect.
The distinction between the bill’s stated objectives and the specific mechanisms established to achieve them remains important in assessing its scope. While the source identifies stronger investigative powers, institutional independence, stricter penalties and financial declarations by public officials and politicians as central elements, it provides no detailed account of the final wording of the amendments or the arguments advanced during the parliamentary proceedings.
The names of those who opposed the bill, the reasons for their opposition and the outcome of any division were not included in the supplied report. Those details would need to be verified against the parliamentary record before any opposition positions or voting claims could be reported accurately.
