News
CIABOC’s independence is undermined if Govt. controls funds, says DG
View(s):- Commission and Fianance Ministry lock horns over interpretation of two Acts passed in 2023 and 2024
By Namini Wijedasa
The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) is locked in a tug-of-war with the government over who controls its purse strings.
CIABOC Director General (DG) Ranga Dissanayake insists that the framers of the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) of 2023 intended to create “a highly independent—that means, one hundred percent independent—Bribery Commission.”
Under that law, it is interpreted that the Commission has the authority to decide its own budget, in consultation with the Finance Minister. Once Parliament approves the requested sums, the government must transfer the money into a dedicated CIABOC fund. As Chief Accounting Officer, the DG is empowered to spend from this fund for the commission’s work.
But the Finance Ministry holds that the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA) of 2024 overrides the ACA. This, Mr Dissanayake—himself a former High Court Judge—says, defeats the very purpose of the 2023 law: to establish a Bribery Commission that is financially independent.
Under the PFMA, all financial transactions must follow Finance Ministry procedures. This affects CIABOC’s ability to manage its own affairs. And despite the ACA being in force for more than two years, no funds have yet been credited to the commission’s own account.
A similar fate has befallen the Audit Service Commission, which was also meant to enjoy financial independence under the National Audit Act of 2018, as amended. Finance Ministry officials insist that, there too, the PFMA prevails.
In August, the Speaker wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion. No response has been received yet. But if the AG rules that the PFMA supersedes the ACA, Mr Dissanayake says he will ask the government to amend the law (PFMA)—and if that fails, the last recourse is the Supreme Court.
A matter of interpretation
The legal issue turns on interpretation. The ACA clearly states that CIABOC must prepare its annual budget estimates and submit them to the Speaker, not the Finance Ministry, on a date decided by the Speaker after consulting both the Finance Minister and the commission.
The Speaker must then table the estimates in Parliament, forward them to the Finance Minister for observations, and, once Parliament approves them, send the final version to the minister for inclusion in the national budget.
All expenditure for investigations, inquiries and prosecutions is to be charged to the Consolidated Fund. Yet the ACA also establishes a separate CIABOC Fund to receive money voted by Parliament for the commission’s use; donations, gifts, and grants (with the Finance Minister’s approval); administrative fines and compensation ordered under the ACA; and proceeds from the sale of received or confiscated property.
Under the ACA, the commission will use money from the fund to meet its expenditures. Separately, the Act also allows the commission to appoint staff “as it deems necessary” and to decide their pay and conditions, in consultation with the Finance Minister and subject to parliamentary approval. Salaries are to be charged to the Consolidated Fund, but rates and conditions are determined by CIABOC and drawn from its own fund.
The Finance Ministry, however, insists that all staff cadres and salaries must first be approved by the minister. This has prevented CIABOC from recruiting a full cadre and forced it to depend largely on secondments.
Sharp differences
The bone of contention is simple: the ACA came into force in September 2023, and the PFMA in August 2024. The Finance Ministry argues that the latter law prevails. Accordingly, it says that all receipts and expenditures of CIABOC must fall under the PFMA—not the ACA.
The PFMA provides that no financial commitment or liability can be incurred by any public entity without a warrant issued by the Finance Minister under Article 150 of the Constitution. It also requires every budgetary entity to prepare its estimates according to the Treasury’s budget call circular and submit them to the Treasury Secretary—not the Speaker.
Where, then, do CIABOC and the Audit Service Commission stand, with their own funds created under their own laws?
There are several points of divergence between the ACA and PFMA. And these were put to the test after Mr Dissanayake joined CIABOC in January this year. For the first time, the DG sent the commission’s budget directly to the Speaker instead of the Treasury. He also conveyed a CIABOC-sanctioned cadre proposal to the Speaker for approval.
The Finance Ministry ordered the CIABOC to resubmit its estimates using the standard Treasury format and to follow all procedures applicable to other budgetary entities. Mr Dissanayake pushed back, prompting the Speaker to ask for the Attorney General’s opinion on the cadre, the budget and whether the PFMA or ACA takes precedence.
The DG is resisting all efforts to “control” the commission through finances. “My independence is lost,” he told the Sunday Times in an interview this week. “There is no money in our fund. The Act says all money must come into our fund. The Finance Ministry says we must follow ‘normal’ procedure. This is a very big ambiguity.”
Mr Dissanayake believes the drafters of the PFMA failed to consider the ACA—or the National Audit Act—when preparing that law.
The government has since promised to transfer Rs. 66 million to the commission’s fund. Mr Dissanayake also stressed that CIABOC has not been denied budgetary allocations: its 2025 allocation is Rs. 1.37 billion, up from Rs. 950 million in 2024.
But on a matter of procedure, urgent clarifications are needed.
The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!