Transformation agenda risks being forgotten:Governance Crisis: System Change Promise Under Scrutiny?

Central to these governance concerns is the prolonged failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General, leaving a critical gap in the nation’s financial oversight at a time when it is most needed

The Centre for Policy Alternatives has highlighted in an initial assessment that when a detention order is issued, the total period of remand and detention can reach two years

The National People’s Power (NPP) government, elected on an overwhelming mandate to transform governance and strengthen accountability, now faces growing criticism over decisions that contradict its core principles. From stalled key appointments to questionable handling of legal matters involving its own members, the administration’s early actions have sparked serious doubts about its commitment to the rule of law and independent institutions.

The Auditor General Crisis

Central to these governance concerns is the prolonged failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General, leaving a critical gap in the nation’s financial oversight at a time when it is most needed. The Constitutional Council has now rejected the president’s nominee for the fourth time, with observers noting that the latest candidate’s obvious unsuitability suggests the nomination was simply a delaying tactic to justify an acting appointment. 

The Auditor General plays a vital role in any democracy, acting as a watchdog to ensure efficient public services, uphold integrity in government operations, and provide independent scrutiny of financial performance and accountability. The absence of a permanent appointee weakens these essential safeguards precisely when strong financial oversight is critical.

Transparency International has sharply criticised this failure, stating that the chain of events since the previous Auditor General’s retirement reveals broader political reluctance and governance breakdown. Despite the position’s clear constitutional significance, the appointment process has dragged on with little transparency, casting doubt on the government’s genuine commitment to accountability.

The situation grows more concerning as the terms of three independent civil society members on the Constitutional Council expire in January. This timing allows the government to name three new members of its choosing, potentially clearing the way for approval of its preferred candidates later. Such a development would mark a substantial blow to institutional independence and public accountability.

The government leadership appears to believe that their election victory gives them authority to implement policies through appointees they trust. While this reasoning may explain their strategy on key appointments, it fundamentally misreads the role and purpose of independent institutions in democratic governance. Independent institutions exist to operate beyond any single government’s tenure and to safeguard public interests even when those holding power face conflicting temptations. The real test for the NPP government lies in protecting institutional independence and establishing fair laws, ensuring that promised reforms outlast individual leaders and political terms.

The Anti-Terror Law Controversy

Civil society’s frustration has deepened with the extended delay in abolishing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), legislation notorious for its misuse, particularly against ethnic and religious minorities. The PTA has a disturbing record of unrestricted use against those labelled as threats to the state, a category that ironically included the JVP itself at the  end of 1980s. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), released in December 2025, marks the most recent effort to repeal and replace the PTA. Disappointingly, the PSTA essentially copies the framework, reasoning, and risks of earlier unsuccessful counter-terrorism proposals, including the 2018 Counter Terrorism Act and the 2023 Anti-Terrorism Act.

Despite the government’s declared support for rule of law and fundamental rights, the draft PSTA carries over many central flaws from the PTA. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has highlighted in an initial assessment that when a detention order is issued, the total period of remand and detention can reach two years. This allows authorities to hold someone for two full years without filing criminal charges, raising grave concerns about state power to single out individuals and perpetuating the pattern of abuse and mistreatment that has marked Sri Lanka’s history of extended detention.

Human rights institutions have cautioned against the sweeping definition of terrorism in the proposed legislation, pointing out that it gives government officials power to label dissent and peaceful civil disobedience as terrorism, legally enabling excessive and disproportionate crackdowns. Lawful and peaceful demonstrations against government overreach must not be branded as terrorism.

Ranwala Incident and Blame Shifting

Sri Lanka’s law enforcement has consistently applied justice unevenly—ordinary citizens observe that “major offenders escape while minor ones face punishment”—but the NPP administration pledged transformation. That commitment now confronts its defining moment.

On December 11, 2025, former Speaker Asoka Ranwala’s vehicle collided with a motorcycle and automobile in Sapugaskanda, causing injuries to an infant, the child’s mother, and grandmother. Authorities administered no breathalyser examination at the scene. Media sources reveal a blood alcohol analysis occurred only after twelve hours had elapsed—a suspicious postponement indicating political meddling rather than autonomous law enforcement.

Inspector General Weerasuriya has initiated proceedings against officers who purportedly mismanaged the investigation. This appears distinctly like deflecting blame: officers would have encountered governmental backlash for examining a prominent figure immediately after the incident. Police likely received directives from higher authorities or feared career consequences—patterns familiar from previous administrations where officers faced transfers for enforcing laws against political figures.

The fundamental issue transcends police inadequacy: does legislation apply uniformly to those wielding power? For generations, law enforcement has operated under heavy politicisation, creating systemic inequality in justice delivery.

Government representatives have hastily defended Ranwala, who previously stepped down as Speaker following revelations about fraudulent Japanese doctoral qualifications he could never verify. This history makes current events particularly troubling.

The investigation into police behaviour represents a crucial initial action, yet accountability demands visibility and transparency throughout. Without clear outcomes publicly communicated and institutional reforms implemented, this inquiry risks appearing as reputation management rather than authentic pursuit of truth.

The media bears responsibility to maintain pressure on this matter until facts emerge—not for partisan attacks, but to establish whether advertised system change constitutes genuine reform or empty promises. Equal justice cannot exist when political connections grant immunity from standard legal procedures.

Past governments have routinely made scapegoats of police officers and other civil servants to protect their agendas, and the current administration follows this pattern. Public servants who answer to politicians and execute unlawful directives should understand they risk facing legal consequences for their actions without protection. Their self-serving political superiors will readily abandon them when convenient.

Current government figures will likely face legal proceedings for their actions and failures when they leave office, and the civil servants who complied with their demands will face similar consequences.

The NPP government’s opening months have exposed a worrying trend: compromised institutional independence, diminished accountability systems, and inconsistent enforcement of law. For an administration elected on transformation promises, these developments betray public confidence and waste political opportunity. The pressing question is whether the government will acknowledge these serious errors and change direction, or persist on a course that repeats the very problems it vowed to solve. Sri Lankan voters demanded fundamental change in how government operates, not simply new personalities in power. Without authentic dedication to institutional independence and equal justice under law, the transformation agenda will fail to materialise.

[email protected]