Island.lk: Sri Lanka: Sunday, 18 January 2026.
The Constitutional Council (CC) has refused to disclose certain information sought under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016, regarding its decision on the President’s nominee for the post of Auditor General.
The information request
was submitted on 1 January 2026 by Attorney-at-Law Aazath Atham Lebbe,
following a newspaper report. The request sought details on the total number of
members of the Constitutional Council, as well as the names of members who voted
in favour of, against, or abstained from voting on the nomination of Army
Officer Mr. O. R. Rajasinghe.
In its response dated 13 January 2026, the Information Officer of the Constitutional Council has stated that information relating to the total number of members and their designations is already available on the official website of the Parliament of Sri Lanka.
However, the Council has declined to disclose the names of members who voted in favour of or against the nominee, citing Section 5(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016 as the basis for refusal.
Section 5(1)(g) of the Act states that a request for access to information “shall be refused, where … the information is required to be kept confidential by reason of the existence of a fiduciary relationship.”
This decision has raised serious concerns over transparency in the Constitutional Council’s decision-making process, particularly for high-level constitutional appointments that are of significant public interest. The names of members who voted are public documents, and the general public is entitled to know this information because such appointments directly affect governance, accountability, and the exercise of public power, Atham Lebbe has argued.
“The Constitutional Council is established to act in the public interest and is accountable to the people; it is not empowered to withhold information on the basis that a fiduciary relationship exists where none can logically apply to the disclosure of votes on public office appointments. Moreover, even if an exemption were to be invoked, Section 5(4) of the Act makes clear that a request shall not be refused where the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the harm that would result from its disclosure, and public confidence and trust in democratic institutions is a quintessential public interest.”
The Constitutional Council (CC) has refused to disclose certain information sought under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016, regarding its decision on the President’s nominee for the post of Auditor General.
In its response dated 13 January 2026, the Information Officer of the Constitutional Council has stated that information relating to the total number of members and their designations is already available on the official website of the Parliament of Sri Lanka.
However, the Council has declined to disclose the names of members who voted in favour of or against the nominee, citing Section 5(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016 as the basis for refusal.
Section 5(1)(g) of the Act states that a request for access to information “shall be refused, where … the information is required to be kept confidential by reason of the existence of a fiduciary relationship.”
This decision has raised serious concerns over transparency in the Constitutional Council’s decision-making process, particularly for high-level constitutional appointments that are of significant public interest. The names of members who voted are public documents, and the general public is entitled to know this information because such appointments directly affect governance, accountability, and the exercise of public power, Atham Lebbe has argued.
“The Constitutional Council is established to act in the public interest and is accountable to the people; it is not empowered to withhold information on the basis that a fiduciary relationship exists where none can logically apply to the disclosure of votes on public office appointments. Moreover, even if an exemption were to be invoked, Section 5(4) of the Act makes clear that a request shall not be refused where the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the harm that would result from its disclosure, and public confidence and trust in democratic institutions is a quintessential public interest.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
