Integrity Begins Within: Internal Affairs Units, the Keystone of a New Public Service Culture

The state is finally responding to the people’s long-felt need to end corruption

Sri Lanka has now laid many of the legal and institutional foundations necessary for meaningful reform. Nevertheless, legislation alone cannot transform governance

As Sri Lanka marks Integrity Week from 27 July, the occasion offers more than an opportunity for symbolic reflection. It provides a timely moment to assess whether the country’s recent anti-corruption reforms are beginning to reshape public services in a meaningful and sustainable manner. Following years of economic turmoil, declining public confidence, and increasing demands for accountability, Sri Lanka has embarked on its most ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda in decades. 

Yet the ultimate success of these reforms will not be determined solely by new laws, investigations or prosecutions. It will depend on whether integrity becomes embedded within the everyday operations of public institutions. In this context, the establishment of Internal Affairs Units (IAUs) across public sector organisations may prove to be one of the most transformative reforms introduced under the new anti-corruption framework. 

If properly empowered, adequately resourced and protected from political interference, these units have the potential to shift Sri Lanka’s anti corruption efforts from reactive enforcement to proactive prevention.

From punishing corruption to preventing it

For many years, Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption strategy relied primarily on detecting and prosecuting offences after they had occurred. While investigations and legal action remain indispensable, international experience consistently demonstrates that punishment alone cannot eradicate corruption. Sustainable success depends on reducing opportunities for misconduct before they arise. The enactment of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023 marked a significant turning point. The legislation substantially strengthened the powers of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), expanded provisions relating to asset declarations, enhanced international cooperation, promoted corruption prevention, and aligned Sri Lanka more closely with the United Nations Convention against Corruption. 

These reforms emerged largely in response to public demands for cleaner governance following the economic crisis and the widespread calls for accountability that followed. The Government has subsequently reinforced these legal reforms through the National Anti Corruption Action Plan, recognising that institutional integrity must become an integral part of everyday public service rather than an occasional compliance exercise. 

IAUs: Bringing Integrity into Every Institution

 Among the most innovative features of the current reform programme is the establishment of Internal Affairs Units within government institutions. Unlike traditional disciplinary  divisions that often become active only after allegations emerge, IAUs are intended to function as ‘institutional guardians of integrity’. Their responsibilities extend far beyond handling complaints. They are expected to identify corruption risks through systematic assessments, recommend practical measures to minimise those risks, monitor compliance with anti-corruption laws and ethical standards, oversee conflict-of-interest management, encourage compliance with asset declaration requirements, coordinate institutional integrity assessments, and serve as the principal liaison with CIABOC. Equally important, they provide secure channels through which employees and members of the public can report corruption-related concerns. This represents a significant conceptual shift. Corruption prevention is no longer viewed solely as the responsibility of a central investigative agency. Every public institution is expected to become accountable for identifying its own vulnerabilities and strengthening its own systems. 

Creating a Culture Rather than a Compliance Exercise

However, establishing Internal Affairs Units is only the beginning. Their effectiveness will ultimately depend on whether they are allowed to function with genuine independence and professional credibility. Experience across many countries shows that integrity mechanisms fail when they become ceremonial offices established merely to satisfy regulatory requirements. Staff members must possess appropriate expertise in governance, auditing, investigations, ethics and risk management. 

Senior leadership must actively support their work, while employees should perceive the units as trusted advisors rather than internal surveillance bodies. Institutional culture is equally important. Ethical conduct cannot be achieved simply by issuing circulars or conducting annual awareness programmes. Public officials need confidence that ethical behaviour will be recognised, that reporting wrongdoing will not invite retaliation, and that decisions will be based on fairness rather than personal influence. Building such confidence requires visible commitment from organisational leadership. An effective Internal Affairs Unit therefore functions not merely as a compliance office but as an institutional catalyst for ethical decision-making. It encourages transparency in procurement, promotes accountability in financial management, identifies procedural weaknesses before they become scandals, and supports stake-holders in improving governance systems. 

Lessons from International Experience 

Sri Lanka is not alone in adopting institution-based integrity mechanisms. Several countries that have significantly improved public sector integrity have relied upon similar preventive approaches.  Singapore’s internationally recognised reputation for clean government is often associated with its strong Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Less frequently acknowledged is the equally important emphasis placed on strong internal controls, transparent administrative procedures, merit-based recruitment and uncompromising ethical standards throughout the public service. Investigations are supported by administrative systems deliberately designed to minimise opportunities for corruption. Hong Kong followed a comparable path through the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which combines investigation with corruption prevention and extensive public education. Its Corruption Prevention Department works directly with government agencies to redesign administrative procedures, eliminate systemic weaknesses and strengthen institutional safeguards before misconduct occurs. Australia, New Zealand and several OECD countries have also invested heavily in agency level integrity frameworks that integrate ethics management, internal reporting mechanisms, conflict-of-interest policies and organisational risk assessments into normal management practice. 

These countries increasingly view corruption prevention as a core responsibility of every public institution rather than the exclusive mandate of specialised enforcement agencies. The common lesson is clear. Countries achieve lasting improvements not because they prosecute more offenders, but because they build institutions where corruption becomes increasingly difficult to commit and easier to detect. 

The Road Ahead for Sri Lanka 

Sri Lanka has now laid many of the legal and institutional foundations necessary for meaningful reform. Nevertheless, legislation alone cannot transform governance. Public confidence will grow only when citizens begin to experience greater fairness, transparency and professionalism in their daily interactions with government institutions. Internal Affairs Units can contribute significantly to this transformation if several conditions are met. Their operational independence must be protected from undue influence. Staff should receive continuous professional training. Their recommendations should receive serious attention from institutional leadership. Performance should be evaluated not by the number of complaints received but by measurable reductions in corruption risks, improvements in administrative processes and enhanced public trust. Technology can further strengthen their effectiveness. Digital procurement systems, electronic asset declarations, integrated complaint management platforms and data analytics can help identify unusual patterns before they develop into major corruption cases. Modern integrity management increasingly depends upon combining ethical leadership with evidence-based governance. 

 Most importantly, integrity should become a shared responsibility rather than the exclusive function of specialised units. Every public servant, regardless of seniority, contributes either to strengthening or weakening institutional integrity through everyday decisions. Integrity as a National Value Integrity Week should therefore be understood not simply as a commemorative event but as a reminder that national development depends fundamentally upon public trust. Economic growth, foreign investment, social justice and democratic governance all require institutions that citizens believe are fair, accountable and transparent. Sri Lanka’s recent anti-corruption reforms have created an encouraging framework for change.

The establishment of Internal Affairs Units signals a welcome recognition that preventing corruption is far more effective than merely responding to it after damage has occurred. Their long-term success, however, will depend not only on legal mandates but also on leadership, professionalism, institutional independence and an unwavering commitment to ethical public service. If these conditions are sustained, Integrity Week may come to represent not merely an annual observance, but the beginning of a lasting transformation in the culture of governance—one in which integrity is no longer regarded as an aspiration, but as the defining characteristic of Sri Lankan public institutions. 

(Tharindu Dananjaya Weerasinghe is a Senior Lecturer of the Department of Human Resource Management, University of Kelaniya)