Auditor General vacuum, no excuse for Govt.

The prolonged delay in appointing a permanent Auditor General has quietly, but dangerously exposed a fault line in the government’s accountability. The issue, in fact, strikes at the very heart of public accountability and governance - topics touted much by the government made in the pre-election era as a force in the opposition.
Ridding the country of corruption was the key campaign slogan of the current government.  Investigations into past crimes and incarceration of political opponents involved in wrongdoings are only treatments to symptoms, but not to the root causes of them.
The National Audit Office is fundamental in addressing corruption and frauds, and the government should take it with due seriousness.
In this instance, the government and the opposition have failed to reach consensus to break the impasse at the Constitutional Council to agree on a nominee for the post responsible for ensuring financial discipline at the state institutions by reducing corruption and wastage.
The Auditor General isn’t a ceremonial figure. It is a constitutional office assigned with the task of auditing the use of public funds, scrutinizing State-Owned Enterprises, and reporting to Parliament on whether taxpayers’ money is spent lawfully and efficiently. For a country emerging from an unprecedented economic collapse, the role of Auditor General who is unbound to political pressure is critical.
As a result, the Office of Auditor General should not operate in a transitional or weakened state, especially when the country is under the watchful eyes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for its commitment to the improvement of transparency and accountability.
What makes the delay even more concerning is that it appears to stem not from constitutional complexity, but from political indecision.  
What transpired during a parliamentary debate on Tuesday underlines that the government is not prepared to make any compromise. In a democratic system, the government and the opposition should not stick to their guns. Instead, both sides should find common space if they are genuinely committed to transparency and accountability in the greater interests of society.
Disagreements over procedure and interpretations of constitutional provisions should not leave   a critical office in limbo for months.
As the primary body to which the Auditor General reports, legislators have a duty to ensure that the office is not weakened—intentionally or otherwise. Oversight of public finance is Parliament’s core function. When that oversight mechanism is compromised, Parliament itself is diminished.  People are entitled to assurance that every rupee collected is properly accounted for.  
Internationally, the implications are no less serious. Sri Lanka’s credibility with development partners, creditors, and investors depends not only on macroeconomic indicators but also on institutional integrity. Repeated pledges of reform ring hollow when basic governance functions are left unattended. Transparency cannot be selectively applied; it must begin with strengthening watchdog institutions, not sidelining them through delay.
Even the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), an influential professional body, has also made a salvo in this regard.  It has urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in writing to take immediate steps to appoint a permanent Auditor General in accordance with the Constitution, stressing that such an appointment is essential to safeguard the integrity of the National Audit Office and to maintain the confidence of citizens as well as international partners in the State’s financial governance.  
The BASL, as reported by Daily Mirror in its online edition, expressed deep concern over the prolonged failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General following the retirement of the former Auditor General in April 2025.  
The government may argue that it is acting within legal frameworks but the opposition is scuttling it. But leadership is   not exploitation of any grey area in the Constitution to appoint a political loyalist to a critical post.  A reformist government cannot afford to be seen as indifferent to accountability, especially after campaigning on promises of system change, clean governance, and institutional renewal.
Also, democracy does not mean rigidly sticking to one’s position. True democracy is rooted in compromise, dialogue, and respect for checks and balances.   
If the government is serious about democratic renewal, it must act swiftly to resolve the appointment without further delay. This means engaging all relevant stakeholders, respecting constitutional norms, and prioritizing the public interest over political convenience.