Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) notes the Supreme Court’s determination on the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2026, which addresses some of the constitutional concerns raised by TISL and other petitioners in the public interest challenging the proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.
TISL filed its petition on the 31st of August 2026, challenging several provisions of the Bill which, in TISL’s view, risked weakening accountability, restricting access to information, diminishing transparency in asset declarations and limiting judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court has determined that three of the provisions are not consistent with the constitution, requiring a special majority in Parliament, with one amendment requiring approval by the People at a Referendum.
Importantly, the Court upheld that Clause 7 is inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, which sought to repeal Section 81(e) of the principal Act and thereby remove the obligation to declare the assets and liabilities of persons who cohabit with a declarant and share a common household for the prescribed period.
TISL claimed that removing this requirement could create a loophole through which assets could potentially be placed in the names of cohabiting household members who are neither spouses nor dependants, thereby undermining effective verification of asset declarations.
The Supreme Court determined that Clause 7 is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and stated that the proposed repeal of Section 81(e) should therefore be withdrawn. If the Government proceeds with the provision in its present form, it must be passed by the special majority prescribed by Article 84(2), read with Article 82(6).
TISL also welcomes the Court’s determination on Clause 17, which proposed significant changes to the bail regime under Section 149 of the Anti-Corruption Act. TISL’s petition raised concerns that the proposed amendment would effectively remove the ability of a Magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced to consider bail in the relevant circumstances, requiring the person to seek bail from the High Court instead. This was identified as violative of people’s judicial power exercised by the judiciary, personal liberty and fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court determined that Clause 17 interferes with the exercise of the judicial power of the People and is inconsistent with Article 4(c), read with Article 3, with Article 13(2). Accordingly, the Court determined that Clause 17, in its present form, can become law only if it is passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2) and approved by the People at a Referendum under Article 83. TISL considers this determination significant in reaffirming that measures intended to address serious offences must nevertheless preserve meaningful judicial oversight over the deprivation of personal liberty.
In relation to Clause 4, concerning the role of the Director-General in decisions relating to the non-prosecution of accomplices, the Court determined that the provision is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may be passed by a simple majority. TISL had specifically challenged the removal of what it considered an important element of judicial oversight in this process.
Similarly, the Court determined that Clause 6(5), which raises the State or public-corporation shareholding threshold for certain asset declaration obligations from 25% to 50%, is not constitutionally inconsistent and may be passed by a simple majority. TISL had raised concerns that this could exclude officers of State-linked entities in which the State holds less than 50%, despite such entities exercising public functions and managing public resources.
The Court also determined that Clause 11, concerning the redaction and subsequent use of asset declarations, is not inconsistent with the Constitution. TISL had raised concerns regarding the breadth of the proposed redaction power and the proposed criminalisation of certain uses of publicly accessible redacted asset declarations, particularly in relation to freedom of expression, and the public’s right to meaningfully receive and impart information.
While the Court has determined the constitutional threshold applicable to each challenged provision, Parliament retains responsibility for ensuring that amendments to the anti-corruption framework strengthen rather than weaken transparency, accountability and effective enforcement.
TISL calls upon Parliament and the Government to carefully consider the constitutional concerns identified by the Supreme Court and to ensure that any amendments ultimately enacted are consistent with the principles of transparency, accountability, effective anti-corruption enforcement, freedom of expression, access to information and the rule of law.
The Bill was heard before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Shiran Gooneratne, Mahinda Samayawardena and Sampath Wijeratne.
Read the full determination of the Supreme Court: https://www.tisrilanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Anticorruption-Determination.pdf