Sunday, July 13, 2025

Sri Lanka’s Right to Information Commission Needs a Chair – And It Needs One Now

Lanka eNews: Sri Lanka: Sunday, 13 July 2025.
Transparency international calls for urgent appointment as public trust and anti-corruption efforts hang in the balance
Sri Lanka’s Right to Information (RTI) Commission remains without a Chairperson a critical vacancy that civil society watchdogs warn is threatening the integrity and effectiveness of one of the country’s most vital democratic institutions.
The position has been left unfilled since the resignation of retired Supreme Court Justice Upali Abeyratne in March 2025. Despite repeated calls from civil society groups, including Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), to expedite the appointment, no replacement has yet been named. The delay, campaigners warn, risks undermining public confidence in the Commission and stalling its mandate to guarantee citizens’ constitutional right to information.
A Dangerous Vacuum
The RTI Commission was established to uphold transparency, investigate appeals, issue rulings on access to information, and provide oversight on how public authorities manage and disclose information. It is an essential part of Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption framework, serving as a rare independent body capable of challenging secrecy and opacity in public administration.
According to Sri Lankan law, the Commission must consist of five members to function effectively, with a chairperson at the helm. Currently, only four members have been appointed: legal experts Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and Jagath Liyanaarachchi, civil servant A. M. Nahiya, and retired Court of Appeal Judge D. N. Samarakoon (appointed in May 2025).
Without a Chairperson, the Commission’s ability to operate efficiently, hear appeals, issue binding directions, and provide strategic oversight is significantly impaired.
Transparency International: “End the Delay”
In a sharply worded statement, TISL urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the Constitutional Council to end the inexplicable delay and immediately nominate a suitable candidate. It emphasised the Chairperson must be someone with a proven record of public service, high integrity, and technical knowledge of transparency and governance.
“The Chairperson’s role is not ceremonial,” the TISL statement read. “It is central to safeguarding a citizen’s right to know. This delay risks rendering the Commission ineffective and further eroding public confidence in anti-corruption efforts.”
TISL also stressed that any candidate must be selected free from political bias or personal affiliations, warning that recent trends in state appointments particularly in ministries, public enterprises, and regulatory bodies have raised serious concerns about political interference and patronage.
“There is an observable trend of appointments driven by loyalty, friendship, and private ambition rather than merit,” the statement continued. “This undermines public trust and raises conflicts of interest, especially when appointees are expected to scrutinise government behaviour.”
Nominations Must Reflect Public Interest, Not Private Ties
Under Section 12(2) of the RTI Act, the Constitutional Council is required to recommend candidates based on clear evidence of excellence in public life, demonstrated expertise, and reputational integrity. TISL reminded the Council that the stakes are too high to allow for politically expedient or opaque decision-making.
The organisation called for full transparency in the selection process, urging the Council to disclose criteria, names under consideration, and reasons for nomination. It also reiterated the importance of ensuring the RTI Chair is someone whose career has served the broader public good preferably a figure known for legal expertise, journalistic independence, civil service reform, or rights-based advocacy.
The Nimal Bopage Controversy
Amid the vacuum, attention has turned to one of the candidates who was interviewed for the vacant post Attorney-at-Law Nimal Bopage. Reports suggest that his candidacy has attracted fierce criticism from segments of civil society, who question his impartiality and past affiliations.
Responding to those criticisms, Bopage held a press conference this week, a video of which has since circulated widely online. He dismissed the allegations against him as politically motivated and accused his detractors of launching a smear campaign. “They have no facts, only fear,” he said. “I stand for the Constitution and the people’s right to truth.”
While Bopage remains a legally qualified candidate, TISL and other transparency advocates have refrained from commenting on individual applicants. Instead, they emphasise the importance of ensuring the final appointee is free from controversy and possesses an unassailable commitment to public accountability.
A Litmus Test for the Government
For President Dissanayake’s administration, which came to power promising a break from the corruption-tainted past and a new era of clean governance, the delayed appointment offers both a challenge and an opportunity.
It is a test of whether the government’s anti-corruption promises are more than slogans and whether the RTI Act, passed with great fanfare in 2016, will continue to function as a meaningful safeguard for citizens or slide into irrelevance through bureaucratic neglect.
“In the absence of a Chair, the RTI Commission is unable to fulfil its constitutional mandate,” said a senior lawyer familiar with the workings of the Commission. “This is not just a vacancy it’s a democratic gap.”
The Path Forward
TISL concluded its statement with a clear call: expedite the appointment, ensure it is made on the basis of merit and integrity, and re-establish the Commission’s full operational capacity. “Anything less,” the organisation warned, “would send a dangerous signal to citizens and to the international community about Sri Lanka’s commitment to good governance.”
In a country still grappling with the legacy of impunity, opacity, and institutional collapse, the simple act of appointing a Chair to the RTI Commission could either reaffirm the rule of law or reveal, once again, how easily it can be ignored.