Allegations of political bias, questionable qualifications, and a controversial selection process have cast a shadow over Bribery Commission Director General Ranga Dissanayake, raising serious doubts about the credibility of one of Sri Lanka’s most important institutions.
The appointment of Ranga Dissanayake as Director General of the Bribery and Corruption Commission has sparked a storm of controversy, with accusations of political loyalty, flawed procedures, and serious conflicts of interest shaking public trust in the body meant to uphold justice. The issue came to light after social activist Nandana Gunathilaka accused Dissanayake of political affiliations that contravene the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023. Section 19-2 “G” of the Act clearly prohibits the Director General from having any association with political parties, yet allegations persist that Dissanayake has close ties to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).
Gunathilaka, speaking as a private citizen, aired his allegations on social media and a television program, prompting Dissanayake to hold a press conference in his own defense. At the briefing, he challenged critics to take him to court if their claims were true, dismissing accusations as baseless. However, critics argue that a person holding such a high office should rely on legal procedures rather than media appearances to maintain credibility.
The process of his appointment itself has raised eyebrows. Applications for the Director General post were called through the Constitutional Council, which conducted interviews and assigned marks to candidates. Out of the applicants, Lakmal Tennakoon scored the highest, with Dissanayake ranking second. Normally, the highest scorer’s name should be forwarded to the President. Instead, both names were presented, with a vote held within the Council. In the first round, Tennakoon secured five votes against Dissanayake’s four, with no final decision taken. A second round produced a reversal, where Dissanayake gained five votes, including one from an independent member who later admitted to having voted in error and requested his vote be corrected. Despite this, the Speaker forwarded Dissanayake’s name to the President, ultimately leading to his appointment.
This irregularity has fueled public suspicion. Critics argue that the appointment was politically driven, as Dissanayake’s referees in his application were individuals closely tied to the ruling National People’s Power (NPP), raising questions of impartiality. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about his qualifications. The position requires at least 15 years of experience in prosecuting cases, a benchmark Tennakoon from the Attorney General’s Department had met. Dissanayake, however, reportedly lacks this specific experience, leading many to question why a less-qualified candidate was selected over the most eligible one.
The opposition and independent observers have openly questioned the role of NPP figures, particularly Harini Amarasuriya and Minister Bimal Ratnayake, who allegedly pushed for Dissanayake’s appointment despite Tennakoon’s stronger credentials. Their persistence in forwarding Dissanayake’s name twice has drawn scrutiny over political interference in the Commission. If political favoritism determines appointments, critics warn, the credibility of the Bribery Commission is irreparably compromised.
Gunathilaka has also questioned whether Dissanayake is “hiding behind the board” of the Commission to shield himself from criticism. He argues that the Director General is personally being accused, not the institution, and therefore cannot use the Bribery Commission as a protective shield. Further suspicion arises from Dissanayake’s handling of files. Out of 300,000 pending cases, it has been noted that the files selected for priority investigation disproportionately involve opposition politicians and former ministers. For many, this reinforces concerns of partiality and political targeting rather than fair enforcement of anti-corruption laws.
The Bribery Commission responded with a statement warning that it would take legal action against anyone spreading “false news” about the Commission under the Anti-Corruption Act. But critics contend that this is an attempt to intimidate civil activists and silence debate rather than address the serious concerns raised. Public trust in the Commission is fragile, and silencing voices of dissent risks further eroding confidence in an institution that must remain independent.
The controversy has left many asking: why was Dissanayake selected despite losing the first vote, despite lacking the required prosecutorial experience, and despite serious allegations of political bias? If transparency and fairness are the principles on which the Anti-Corruption Act rests, then the very body tasked with upholding those values is under serious question.
The credibility of the Bribery and Corruption Commission, one of the cornerstones of Sri Lanka’s governance framework, is at stake. Instead of public relations campaigns and defensive press conferences, critics argue that only full transparency, accountability, and adherence to proper legal procedures will restore public faith. Without such measures, allegations of political favoritism will continue to overshadow the Commission’s work and undermine its authority.
