Columns

Sri Lanka’s catastrophic economic collapse in 2022 was supposed to be a turning point. The bankruptcy of the State, the shortages of fuel and medicine, the collapse of the rupee, soaring inflation, and the immense suffering imposed on ordinary citizens were expected to force a fundamental change in the culture of governance and public finance. The lesson was clear: a country already brought to its knees by fiscal irresponsibility, weak institutions, corruption, and mismanagement simply could not afford further leakages of public money.

Yet recent events suggest that the warning signs are once again flashing red.  

Over the past several weeks, Sri Lanka has witnessed a deeply troubling series of revelations involving irregular, suspicious, and allegedly fraudulent financial transactions connected to State institutions. Though investigations remain ongoing and guilt must not be presumed prematurely, the sheer frequency, scale, and nature of these incidents point to something far more serious than isolated administrative lapses. They expose dangerous weaknesses in the systems meant to protect public funds.

The first major shock came with reports that USD 2.5 million belonging to the Sri Lankan Treasury had allegedly been diverted to an incorrect account instead of reaching the intended beneficiary in Australia. The incident stunned the public because sovereign payments of this nature are supposed to pass through multiple layers of scrutiny and verification. Such a colossal failure involving Treasury funds is virtually unheard of in Sri Lanka or even globally

Equally disturbing was the Government’s handling of the matter. Parliament and the public were not informed promptly. The issue only entered the public domain after information emerged through external channels. Initially, the explanation advanced was that the transaction may have resulted from a cyberattack. However, details that subsequently surfaced raised serious questions as to whether procedural negligence, institutional confusion, or even insider involvement may also have contributed.

Dr. Harsha de Silva, Chairman of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF), has reportedly pointed out that officials from the Planning Ministry had been functioning within the External Resources Department despite potentially lacking the specialised expertise necessary to handle complex sovereign debt repayment procedures. If correct, this points to a deeply alarming institutional weakness at the very centre of public financial management.

Before the country had fully absorbed the gravity of that scandal, another shocking revelation surfaced. This time the Government itself voluntarily announced that a payment of approximately USD 625,000 — nearly Rs. 200 million — sent by Sri Lanka Post to the United States Postal Service reportedly failed to reach the lawful recipient. Instead, according to preliminary investigations, the funds may have been diverted to a third-party account through fraudulent communications and fake email instructions.

Once again, the same troubling questions arise. How could such large transactions be processed without robust verification? Were there no safeguards requiring direct confirmation with the receiving institution? Were there no internal controls capable of detecting anomalies before funds were released?

Then came allegations involving the Road Development Authority. Claims emerged that a contractor linked to road development work in Batticaloa had received duplicate payments amounting to more than Rs. 380 million. Although the RDA initially denied wrongdoing and dismissed the accusations, the very fact that such allegations could arise amidst a growing climate of anxiety over public financial controls further eroded public confidence.

Soon thereafter, duplicate payments under the Aswesuma welfare programme also came to light. Some may dismiss such incidents as technical glitches or administrative errors. But that argument misses the larger point entirely. Sri Lanka is not operating under normal economic circumstances. The country remains under severe fiscal strain, burdened by debt restructuring obligations, IMF conditionalities, and mounting public hardship. Under such conditions, even accidental leakages impose real costs on taxpayers and the economy.

Adding further intrigue and unease to these developments was the tragic death of External Resources Department official Ranga Rajapaksa, who had reportedly been suspended during investigations into the USD 2.5 million Treasury incident. While speculation must be avoided until investigations are completed, the circumstances have inevitably deepened public suspicion and heightened concern regarding the seriousness of these matters.

Taken together, these incidents reveal a deeply disturbing pattern. They suggest that Sri Lanka’s systems for handling, monitoring, and safeguarding public funds may be dangerously vulnerable — whether to cyber fraud, procedural negligence, institutional confusion, or internal collusion.

The issue at stake here is not merely one of accounting errors or isolated corruption. It goes directly to the heart of Sri Lanka’s economic credibility and governance framework.

Sri Lanka is currently attempting to recover from the worst economic collapse in its post-independence history. The country defaulted on its external debt in 2022 and is now operating under a strict IMF-supported reform programme. Fiscal discipline, institutional transparency, governance reform, digitalisation, and accountability are central pillars of that recovery framework.

At the same time, the Government is desperately trying to rebuild international confidence, attract foreign investment, reassure lenders, and project Sri Lanka as a stable and trustworthy economic partner.

Against this backdrop, repeated reports of public funds disappearing, sovereign payments going astray, fraudulent communications infiltrating Government systems, and duplicate transfers occurring across institutions inflict enormous reputational damage.

The danger extends well beyond the public sector. Confidence in financial systems is the foundation upon which modern economies function. If citizens, investors, foreign partners, and financial institutions begin to doubt the integrity and security of Sri Lanka’s payment systems, the consequences could directly affect investment flows, economic activity, and the broader recovery effort.

The irony is particularly painful because successive Governments have actively promoted digitalisation as a solution to corruption and inefficiency. In principle, digitalisation can indeed improve transparency and reduce opportunities for manipulation. But digitalisation without strong safeguards merely creates new avenues for fraud and systemic failure.

Technology alone is not governance.Digital systems must be backed by strict verification protocols, independent oversight, cybersecurity protection, multi-level authorisation procedures, encrypted communication channels, and clearly defined institutional accountability. Without these safeguards, the country risks replacing old forms of corruption with new forms of technologically enabled financial leakage.

In this context, the findings and recommendations emerging from the Committee on Public Finance assume immense significance.

According to reports, COPF has observed that the External Resources Department continues to play a major operational role despite the Public Debt Management Act mandating that debt servicing and reporting functions should have been fully transitioned to the Public Debt Management Office. This raises serious concerns regarding overlapping responsibilities, unclear chains of command, and institutional confusion.

COPF has also reportedly stated that the Central Bank cannot entirely absolve itself of responsibility, particularly given its role as manager of the country’s foreign reserves and its previous involvement in supporting debt management operations.

Most importantly, COPF has recommended that the Ministry of Finance submit a comprehensive report detailing how the fraudulent transaction occurred, what institutional weaknesses were identified, the technological and staffing deficiencies involved, and the concrete steps being taken to prevent recurrence.

The Government must recognise that this issue has now moved beyond routine administration and a matter of national concern.

First, every investigation connected to these incidents must be conducted independently, professionally, and transparently. Public confidence cannot be restored through secrecy, selective disclosures, or politically manipulated narratives.

Second, the Government must immediately initiate a comprehensive audit of payment systems, fund transfer mechanisms, and cybersecurity protocols across all ministries, departments, State-owned enterprises, and public institutions. The recurring nature of these incidents suggests that the vulnerabilities may be systemic rather than isolated.

Third, cybersecurity must now be treated as a core national economic security issue rather than a narrow technical matter. Large-value Government transactions should require multi-layer authentication, mandatory secondary verification, transaction monitoring systems, encrypted communication channels, and independent confirmation procedures before funds are released.

Fourth, accountability must be real. If negligence, incompetence, procedural violations, or collusion are established, disciplinary and legal action must follow regardless of seniority, political affiliation, or institutional position.

Fifth, Parliament must exercise far stronger oversight over public finance. Under the Constitution, Parliament is the ultimate guardian of public funds. Oversight cannot be reduced to occasional committee hearings after scandals erupt. There must be continuous scrutiny, mandatory reporting obligations, and active monitoring of corrective measures.

The people of Sri Lanka have already paid an unbearable price for years of weak governance, financial recklessness, and institutional failure. Citizens who endured fuel queues, shortages, inflation, collapsing living standards, and crushing tax burdens now expect something very basic from the State: competence and accountability.

Economic recovery is not merely about IMF targets, debt restructuring agreements, or rising foreign reserves. Recovery ultimately depends on whether public confidence in institutions can be rebuilt. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)