Sri Lanka’s Parliament Has an Anti-Corruption Committee. Now It Needs a Public Scorecard

A 13-member committee has been appointed to oversee Parliament’s responsibilities under the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2025–2029. Its credibility will depend on evidence of implementation, not the existence of another committee.

21 October 2026 • Lanka Witness Accountability Desk

On 20 October, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne announced the appointment of a 13-member parliamentary committee to provide leadership and oversee implementation of actions assigned to Parliament under Sri Lanka’s National Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2025–2029.

Parliament’s official business record says the committee was appointed to oversee those actions. News reporting identifies the Deputy Chairperson of Committees, Hemali Weerasekara, as chair and lists members drawn from government and opposition ranks.

The appointment is a concrete institutional step. It is not, by itself, evidence that corruption has fallen, that procurement has become cleaner or that politically sensitive investigations are being handled independently.

What a useful oversight committee should publish

Anti-corruption plans often fail in the gap between a formal commitment and measurable delivery. Parliament can narrow that gap by publishing a simple implementation register: each action assigned to it, the responsible office, the legal or administrative step required, the deadline, current status and documentary evidence of completion.

That information should be accessible without requiring journalists or citizens to reconstruct progress from speeches and scattered committee minutes. Where an action is delayed, the reason and revised date should be recorded. Where a target is completed, the underlying resolution, law, procurement rule or administrative change should be linked.

Independence is tested by difficult cases

A credible anti-corruption system must apply the same evidentiary standard to allies, opponents, former administrations and current officeholders. Political allegations are not findings of guilt. Investigations should be based on evidence, suspects should receive due process, and enforcement bodies should be insulated from partisan direction.

The committee’s role is therefore not to declare people corrupt. Its value lies in strengthening Parliament’s own institutional compliance, transparency and oversight and in making implementation visible enough for independent scrutiny.

Why foreign partners will watch

Sri Lanka’s governance reforms are closely watched by investors, international financial institutions, development partners and foreign missions because corruption risk affects public finance, procurement, investment confidence and trust in the state. A public scorecard would give those audiences something more useful than rhetoric: a verifiable record of what Parliament has actually delivered.

Lanka Witness will add the committee’s assigned actions and published milestones to its accountability tracking as official records become available.

Lanka Witness assessment: Creating the committee is a start. The meaningful reform is a transparent trail showing which anti-corruption commitments were completed, which were missed and why.

Image: Grayswoodsurrey / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.