NOTE:- AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH SRI LANKA GUARDIAN
Ali Sabry recalls taking charge during Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, defending painful reforms, foreign policy choices and justice concerns.
Ali Sabry says his defining political moment came when he accepted responsibility for Sri Lanka’s collapsing economy at a time when few others wanted to take charge.
In an exclusive interview with Sri Lanka Guardian, the former Finance, Foreign and Justice Minister reflected on his role during one of the most turbulent periods in Sri Lanka’s modern history, the hard decisions that shaped the country’s recovery, the political price of reform, foreign policy pressures, concerns over a politicised CID, extremism, and Sri Lanka’s unfinished struggle for economic and institutional stability.
Sabry needs little introduction in Sri Lanka. His name is tied to one of the most painful chapters in the country’s recent past. He was not a distant observer watching the economic collapse unfold from safety. He was among those placed at the centre of the storm when Sri Lanka was facing bankruptcy, political instability and a devastating loss of public confidence.
At a time when responsibility had become something many tried to avoid, Sabry accepted one of the most difficult assignments in government. He took over the Finance Ministry when the country was running out of options, foreign reserves had collapsed, public anger had reached breaking point, and every economic decision carried a major political cost.
He stepped into a position with no easy victories, no popular choices and no guarantee that those who made difficult decisions would ever receive public appreciation.
Looking back, Sabry says his greatest contribution was not a ministerial title, a political achievement or a personal advantage. It was the decision to accept responsibility when others moved away from it.
“Single biggest achievement, I would say, was that during the time of the economic crisis, when nobody wanted to take the Finance Ministry and take responsibility for the situation, I am happy that I had the courage to take over and do those reforms which were long overdue.”
For Sabry, that moment defined leadership. He argues that when a country faces an existential crisis, leadership cannot be measured by popularity. It must be measured by the willingness to take decisions that are unpopular but necessary.
His position is direct. Sri Lanka was standing at the edge of a much deeper collapse, and the reforms introduced during that period helped prevent the country from becoming another nation trapped in permanent economic disaster.
“As a result, this country did not go down the path of so many other countries which have no return, like Venezuela, Lebanon, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Sri Lanka is back. That is because of the foundation we laid at that time.”
This remains the core of Sabry’s defence of his time in government. He does not claim the decisions were easy. He does not claim that people were happy with them. Instead, he argues that governments sometimes have to choose between temporary pain and permanent damage.
When he accepted the Finance Ministry in April 2022, Sabry says he already knew the decisions ahead would damage his political future. He says he understood that the public might reject him and others linked to those reforms.
“If you remember my speech when I took over finance in April 2022, I said that the next two years were going to be very crucial for the country, and I was putting my political future on the line, and that was the right thing to do.”
To Sabry, public office is not a shield from criticism. It is a responsibility that demands sacrifice.
“Some of the very unpopular decisions need to be taken, and people will not realise it, but that’s the right thing to do. I’ll put my future on the line in politics in order to serve the nation.”
He compares those economic choices to medicine that nobody wants to take but which becomes necessary for survival.
“Some of those difficult decisions are like bitter medicine at that time. But then that was necessary for you and the country.”
Sabry believes history has often been shaped by people who accepted responsibility in difficult moments, rather than those who protected themselves from criticism.
“So many people in the past have put themselves in the firing line to protect the country. So what was the big deal about that? So I am happy with that.”
The political consequences, however, came quickly. After the economic stabilisation process began, many who supported or implemented the reforms faced public rejection. Sabry says this was expected.
“That’s the way it is. I mean, we kind of expected that.”
According to him, the public mood was shaped by political narratives and promises that ignored economic realities. He says many voters were encouraged to believe that painful reforms could be quickly reversed without consequences.
“People have misunderstood that, and all sorts of false promises are being given. So they got carried away, and none of those promises can be carried out now.”
Sabry is especially critical of campaign promises made during election periods. He argues that several commitments were unrealistic and designed to win support rather than solve problems.
“They told us that they would abolish the executive presidency. They told us that they would have the devolution of power. They told us that they would repeal the PTA. They said they would chase away the IMF. They told us that they would reduce electricity prices. They told us that they would reduce petrol prices. None of those things have been happening.”
For him, this reflects a deeper weakness in Sri Lankan politics. He believes the country continues to struggle because political competition often rewards promises rather than responsibility.
Leaders who explain difficult realities risk losing support, while those offering simple answers to complex problems often gain popularity.
Sabry says this is one of Sri Lanka’s biggest political problems. The country needs a more mature political culture in which national interest is placed above electoral advantage.
He also argues that the economic crisis was not unavoidable. In his view, it was the result of several mistakes that accumulated over time. Sri Lanka had opportunities to prevent the collapse but failed to act.
“I think leading up to the economic crisis, there were a lot of mistakes. We could have avoided that.”
The first major mistake, he says, was delaying engagement with the International Monetary Fund.
“We should have known that there was no other plausible approach other than going to the IMF, and going to the IMF at least one year in advance.”
Sabry describes that delay as a fundamental error.
“That was a cardinal mistake.”
He believes Sri Lanka lost valuable time by refusing to recognise the seriousness of the economic situation earlier. By the time the country went to the IMF, the crisis had already become far more severe.
His second criticism focuses on tax policy. Sabry says reducing government revenue weakened the country’s financial position at the worst possible moment.
“I also thought reducing the taxes cut your own revenue. So, 600 billion a year. If you cut that for three years, it’s 2 trillion.”
According to him, a government cannot maintain essential services, manage debt obligations and respond to shocks without adequate revenue.
His third criticism concerns the sudden shift to organic fertiliser. He believes that decision created unnecessary disruption to agriculture and should have been handled far more carefully.
“Thirdly, things like introducing this organic fertiliser overnight. Uncalled for and unnecessary.”
However, Sabry also identifies what he considers the correct decisions taken during the crisis. He says the most important step was engaging immediately with the IMF and beginning negotiations.
“The right things that we did was immediately getting into the IMF, talking to them.”
He argues that the debt moratorium gave the country crucial breathing space to prepare a recovery strategy.
“Then go for a debt moratorium so that we have some space for us to get ready with our country.”
Another key step, according to Sabry, was introducing cost-reflective pricing. Though unpopular, he believes it was necessary to correct major distortions in the economy.
“We also decided to introduce cost-effective pricing.”
Sabry also defends allowing the rupee to adjust, instead of artificially maintaining an exchange rate the country could no longer afford.
“We floated the rupee so that we were not artificially holding on to the rupee, and that allowed the rupee to be stabilised and people to send their funds through the banks.”
For him, the recovery process was not only about policy. It was also about institutions and people. He says appointing experienced officials and technocrats was one of the most important parts of stabilisation.
“We got the current Governor appointed, the former Secretary to the Treasury appointed, and a new breed of technocrats running that ministry, which made a big difference.”
Sabry believes capable institutions are essential because economic recovery cannot depend only on political leadership. It needs expertise, credibility and professionals capable of implementing difficult decisions.
But his time in government was shaped not only by economic policy. It was also marked by controversy, especially the COVID burial issue involving Muslim victims.
Sabry openly says he strongly disagreed with the government policy at the time and expressed that disagreement both publicly and inside Cabinet.
“I was very, very upset about it. Everybody knows that. I have been very open about it, both in public as well as within the Cabinet.”
However, he says he made a deliberate decision to remain inside government rather than resign because he believed he could still influence the outcome.
“But I have to fight while being in the government. I can’t just walk out.”
He describes the decision to prevent Muslim burials as deeply wrong.
“Therefore, I think that was a very, very unwise decision.”
According to Sabry, the committee responsible for recommendations on burial and cremation failed to understand the issue properly and acted with prejudice.
“They were racist. They didn’t understand anything. So, they just didn’t want to allow Muslims to bury.”
He says the situation became more difficult because public opinion, media coverage and institutional responses at the time did not support his position.
“The media was in support of that policy. The Supreme Court did not grant relief against it. So, what can one person do at that point in time?”
Despite those limits, Sabry says he continued to fight until some burials were finally allowed.
“I fought and fought and fought, and ultimately at least got some burials to be carried out in Oddamavadi, Batticaloa.”
For Sabry, that episode was one of the hardest moments of his political career because it required balancing personal conviction, community expectations and the responsibilities of being a government minister.
He says the criticism he received, including from parts of the Muslim community, was something he had to accept. His guiding principle, he says, came from advice given by his father.
“My father had told me to try to control what is controllable. And listen to your conscience and the God above. That’s my biggest strength.”
He says he understood that leaving government would not necessarily solve the problem.
“I knew that if I moved out, what would happen? No one in the community.”
After consulting people he trusted, Sabry decided that remaining within the system gave him a better chance to make a difference.
“All of them told me to fight by being in the system.”
For Sabry, his actions were not driven by personal ambition or political survival. He insists that ministerial office was never a privilege.
“Some people think holding a Cabinet portfolio is a big gift or something. For me, no. It’s a responsibility.”
He says he sacrificed his legal career and personal income to serve in government.
“I don’t think I would have probably earned 5% of what I’m earning as a lawyer.”
Therefore, he says he never treated political office as a reward.
“I never considered it a privilege. I never considered it something for me to show off to the world. I considered it a massive responsibility cast upon me.”
Sabry’s understanding of leadership extends beyond economic management. He believes Sri Lanka’s survival and future progress depend heavily on how carefully the country manages its relationships with the outside world.
For a small country located at the centre of major geopolitical competition, balancing relations with India, China and the United States is not just a diplomatic exercise. It is a matter of protecting national interest without becoming dependent on any external power.
Having served as Foreign Minister, Sabry views international relations through diplomacy and economic necessity. He says foreign policy must serve the national interest, attract investment and protect Sri Lanka’s independence in decision-making.
Asked how Sri Lanka should maintain ties with major powers without compromising sovereignty, Sabry acknowledges that it is not an easy issue. But he says the guiding principle must remain clear.
“That is a difficult question to answer. But one thing is for sure. All decisions must be taken case by case in the interest of Sri Lanka. Not at the behest of anyone else. Not under duress.”
For Sabry, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy should not be shaped by pressure from powerful countries or ideological loyalty to one side of global politics. Every decision, he says, must be judged by whether it benefits the country.
“Any decision should, at the end of the day, be for the betterment of our nation. Every country does that.”
He strongly rejects the idea that Sri Lanka should become an extension of another country’s strategic agenda.
“We should not be an extension of any other country’s foreign policy.”
According to him, other countries respect a nation when it shows confidence and consistency in defending its interests.
“Once you take those decisions in that way, people will start respecting you. And they will know that this country is like that.”
Sabry’s approach reflects his broader political philosophy. Whether in economics, foreign relations or domestic affairs, he repeatedly argues that Sri Lanka must act with confidence rather than dependency.
Assessing the current government, Sabry gives a mixed view. He acknowledges areas of progress while expressing serious concerns.
“There are some positives. Some negatives. Like any government.”
One area where he sees improvement is the treatment of minorities. As a Muslim politician who continues to interact with minority communities, Sabry says many minorities feel safer today.
“One area which I see as positive is being a Muslim. And I meet a lot of Muslims as well as some Tamils. The minorities feel absolutely safe. Secure.”
He believes this is partly because the government has taken a stronger position against racism.
“These guys have stood up against racism in a big way. That’s a plus point, I would say.”
Sabry also believes there is an attempt to promote a stronger Sri Lankan identity rather than ethnic division.
“They are trying to promote the Sri Lankan identity, which others missed the bus on from 1956.”
However, he remains critical of the government’s understanding of economic priorities.
“But the economy, I don’t think they understand.”
He also raises concerns about the use of law enforcement institutions for political advantage.
“I don’t like them abusing law enforcement for their political advantage.”
For Sabry, this is especially troubling because of his background as a lawyer. He argues that institutions responsible for justice must remain independent and must not become tools of political competition.
“As a lawyer, what touches us every day is the abuse of the law enforcement process for their political gain, which is not expected from these guys. It’s very disappointing.”
One of the major legal issues he discusses is the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or PTA. Sabry believes the existing legislation must be replaced with a more balanced framework.
“Obviously, it has to be repealed.”
However, he does not believe national security should be ignored. He argues Sri Lanka needs a law that protects both security and individual rights.
He points to the anti-terrorism law prepared during his time as Justice Minister as an alternative.
“In fact, we did a law called the anti-terrorism law. So, that law is much more reasonable.”
According to Sabry, the proposed law gave authorities the ability to respond to real threats while also providing safeguards.
“Which only allowed detention for 60 days without magistrate supervision. So, that law can be introduced.”
For him, justice reform is not only about changing laws. It requires modernising the entire system of justice delivery.
He says that during his time as Justice Minister, he focused on five key areas.
“We had five pillars of that.”
The first was improving infrastructure.
“That means more courthouses, more judges.”
He argues that delays in the legal system cannot be fixed without strengthening basic capacity.
The second major area was technology.
“Introduction of technology. Online hearings, online filing, not to have these briefs and all those things.”
Sabry says the legal system must move away from outdated practices and embrace modern tools.
“Use the technology to do that.”
He notes that some progress is already happening.
“Which is happening to some extent now. The new Chief Justice is good at that.”
The third area was continuous legal reform. Sabry argues that laws cannot remain stagnant in a fast-changing world.
“The law cannot be stagnant. It changes fast. The world is changing fast. Technology is changing fast. Along with that, the law also must change fast.”
To support that process, he created specialised committees across different areas of reform.
“I had five sub-committees: the Criminal Law Reform Committee, the Civil Law Reform Committee, the Commercial Law Reform Committee, the Infrastructure Reform Committee and the Technology Reform Committee.”
His goal, he says, was to bring Sri Lanka’s legal system closer to international standards.
“That’s the five areas in order to bring the Sri Lankan legal system at least to world-class standards.”
The interview also raised public criticism that lawyers charge high fees, making justice difficult for ordinary citizens. Sabry rejects the idea that lawyers alone should be restricted.
“No, I don’t agree with that.”
He argues that legal services operate like other professional services.
“That’s a choice people have.”
According to him, those who cannot afford private legal representation already have access to the legal aid system.
“For the people who don’t have money, there is a legal aid system in the country.”
He compares law with other professions and consumer choices.
“If you want to buy a better brand of shoe, you have to pay more. So, if you want a better brand of bread, you have to pay more. So, if you want a better doctor, you have to pay more.”
Therefore, he questions why lawyers should be treated differently from other professional service providers.
“So why only lawyers need to be restricted? That’s the nature of commerce. You should allow that. Only lawyers cannot be restricted.”
Discussing Sri Lanka’s future political leadership, Sabry returns to one of his strongest themes: the need for intelligent but compassionate leaders.
He says education alone is not enough. A leader must also have humanity and empathy.
“I think they should be intelligent and also compassionate.”
He refers to the philosophy of Nelson Mandela, saying the combination of intelligence and empathy creates powerful leadership.
“As Mandela says, a good brain and a good heart, a good mind and a good heart is a formidable combination.”
For young Sri Lankans entering politics, diplomacy and public service, Sabry says integrity must remain central.
“They should be smart, educated and future-ready while having their heart at the right place.”
He says leaders must reject racism and division.
“Personal integrity, treating people with equality, humanity above everything else, country above everything else, resist this racism, resist any sort of division and work for the national flag.”
According to Sabry, Sri Lanka does not need hundreds of extraordinary leaders. It needs a small number of genuine people with the right values.
“We just need ten of them.”
He believes that if such people reach positions of influence, Sri Lanka could transform itself.
“If somebody is on top, thinks on that line and transforms that, if you have a little luck, Sri Lanka could transform this place.”
Asked what single policy priority he would recommend for the next five years, Sabry immediately returns to the economy.
“For me, always the most important thing is the economy.”
He believes many of Sri Lanka’s other problems are connected to economic weakness.
“You must get the economy right; most of the problems will be resolved on their own.”
For Sabry, economic growth requires creating an environment that attracts foreign direct investment.
“You’ve got to create an environment which is conducive to foreign direct investment. That’s how you do it.”
He argues that Sri Lanka cannot reach the next stage of development without major external investment.
“Without foreign direct investment coming in a massive amount of capital, Sri Lanka lacks the capital to take the country to the next level.”
Investment, he says, creates a chain reaction.
“With investment comes a new market, with a market comes new technology.”
Without those elements, he believes Sri Lanka will remain trapped.
“Without new technology, and without new investment, and new capital, and new markets, Sri Lanka cannot take that. Coming to the next level is difficult for us.”
His economic argument is ultimately about transformation. In his view, Sri Lanka cannot simply stabilise and remain where it is. It must move towards a more competitive economy that creates opportunities for future generations.
The most politically sensitive part of the interview comes when Sabry discusses the Easter Sunday attacks, the investigations that followed and the continuing debate over accountability.
After studying the available reports and evidence, he says the focus should shift towards those who remain responsible rather than reopening issues that have already been extensively investigated.
“In my opinion, having gone through all these reports and studied everything, the fellows who planned and carried out are dead and gone.”
However, he believes attention must be placed on the second layer of people involved.
“The second layer is before being indicted. They should be pursued.”
Sabry argues that continuing political debate around the issue prevents closure for victims.
“Some interested parties just want to keep it going for different reasons.”
For him, the most important concern remains justice for the victims.
“I think it’s very unfair to the victims because they are not allowing closure of the whole thing.”
He says the government should appoint independent people without political interests to examine all available findings.
“The government must not only listen to opinionated prosecutors. They must be good enough to appoint some independent people who are apolitical to go through everything that they have done so far.”
He refers to multiple investigations and reports that examined the attacks.
“There is this Janak De Silva report. There is the Malalgoda report. There is the Parliamentary Committee report. Then there is the Imam Committee report. There is the Jayaki De Alwis Committee report.”
Sabry’s argument is that all available information should be examined together before conclusions are reached.
“Collate all those things, sit and find out, and then it is very clear.”
He believes political pressure has distorted the process.
“Some people have some people in their mind they want to somehow or other fix them. So this is unfair. For that purpose, they are politicising the whole investigation process.”
Sabry’s strongest criticism comes when he discusses what he sees as the politicisation of law enforcement and investigations connected to the Easter Sunday attacks. To him, the credibility of any investigation depends not only on evidence but also on the independence and neutrality of investigators.
Asked whether he stands by his previous criticism of the current leadership of the Criminal Investigation Department, Sabry is firm.
“There is nothing to stand. There is no object.”
He argues that his concern is not personal but institutional. The issue, he says, is the integrity of the investigative process.
“That man went to the Supreme Court and told that I am no longer in police service. I am a politician now. He came back as a politician to the CID. Never happened in Sri Lanka. Never.”
According to Sabry, this creates a dangerous situation where investigations can be influenced by political motivations.
“And he is doing a political job. He is going after people every day for personal vengeance. Pure personal vengeance.”
He says his criticism is based on what he believes are contradictions between previous investigations and current actions.
“The CID has been found to be at fault by three different committees.”
Sabry points to findings from several commissions and judicial processes that examined failures linked to the Easter Sunday attacks.
“The Janak D’Silva Commission came out with clear findings on that. The Jayaki De Alwis Commission came with clear findings on that. The Supreme Court came out with clear findings on that.”
His argument is that responsibility for security failures should not be selectively examined based on political convenience.
“Against the IGP. IGP means police. Police means investigative agency. Investigative agency means CID. So how can that man carry out the investigation?”
He believes anyone placed in such a position would naturally face a conflict of interest.
“Naturally, he will do everything to safeguard himself.”
For Sabry, this is why institutional independence matters. He argues that justice cannot function if investigators are seen as politically connected or personally motivated.
He also raises another question. He asks why organisations and groups that strongly criticised previous governments have remained largely silent on some issues under the current administration.
“But had it happened under a previous government, there would have been a lot of statements from NGOs, Western embassies and other communities and so on and so forth. But why the remarkable silence in this case?”
He says one reason lies in inconsistency within civil society.
“One reason is that the previous government also would have antagonised the general public and civil society, seeing all of them as enemies rather than listening to them.”
However, he also accuses some civil society groups of applying different standards depending on political preference.
“The double standard of those so-called civil societies.”
According to Sabry, some groups are less interested in universal principles of justice and more interested in protecting preferred individuals or political interests.
“Their interest is not about due process. Their interest is not about the truth. They have certain people, favourites and others.”
He argues that real justice requires consistency, regardless of who is investigated or accused.
“As long as their favourites are under pressure, they will stand for them. As long as they are enemies or somebody whom they see as such, they will keep quiet.”
The discussion then turns to Major General (Retired) Suresh Sallay, the former head of the country’s top intelligence agency, and allegations made against him by certain groups regarding the Easter Sunday attacks.
Sabry is careful to separate the individual from the broader issue.
“No, I mean, it’s not about Suresh Sallay.”
He acknowledges that Suresh Sallay has both supporters and critics, but says every person deserves due process and fair treatment under the law.
“Suresh Sallay personally had done a lot of work for the country.”
Sabry strongly condemns what he sees as unfair treatment in the absence of credible evidence.
“No one in this country deserves that kind of treatment. Number one is detaining him under the PTA, keeping him in custody and subjecting him to torture.”
He also criticises what he describes as attempts to create evidence instead of following evidence.
“Number two is just concocting evidence when everything else is somewhere else.”
For Sabry, the central issue must always be whether credible and verifiable evidence supports an allegation.
“There is no evidence at all.”
He argues that several major investigations conducted by respected international and domestic institutions did not produce evidence supporting certain allegations.
“All the other commissions and everything else have gone in one direction, and this one man is saying the other way around. So everything else has been disregarded.”
He highlights the scale of previous investigations.
“The Janak De Silva Commission interviewed more than 400 witnesses and held 214 days of sittings. Not an iota of evidence against anyone.”
Sabry also refers to international investigations conducted after the Easter Sunday attacks.
“Investigations were immediately carried out by the FBI, the Australian Federal Police and Scotland Yard.”
“We should not be an extension of any other country’s foreign policy,” Sabry told Sri Lanka Guardian, when discussing the need to protect Sri Lanka’s national interest in a changing world order.
For him, the involvement of recognised international investigative bodies strengthens the argument that conclusions must be based on evidence rather than political narratives.
“Now, these are world-class organisations, not even a symbol of anything when it comes to local institutions.”
His defence of due process is also connected to a wider message for the Muslim community. Sabry says defending individuals from unfair accusations does not mean denying problems within the community itself.
He rejects the idea that the entire Muslim community should carry collective blame. At the same time, he says the community must honestly confront extremism wherever it exists.
“Muslim community must understand one thing. They have found a refuge in this just to palm off the blame to someone else. You can’t do that.”
For Sabry, honesty is essential.
“Whether we like it or not, you must understand that the eight fellows who went and blasted themselves were from our community. People who have been charged are from our community.”
He says denying that reality would be dangerous.
“So there is a section who went astray and became extreme.”
According to him, the answer is not collective punishment but internal reform.
“So you need to have reforms within the community.”
His aim, he says, is to ensure such extremism never emerges again.
“So we will never have that kind of extremism in our community ever.”
Sabry warns that refusing to acknowledge uncomfortable truths can create greater problems.
“If you live on this self-denial, it is a dangerous thing.”
He says his position is not driven by political calculation or personal gain.
“It is out of love that I stand for this because I see the future.”
He says criticism does not influence his decisions.
“I don’t care what noises are being made. I’ve never been bothered about it.”
Sabry also says politics is not something he wants to continue simply to remain relevant. Asked whether he has any plans to return to politics, he gives a direct answer.
“No. I’m done.”
He says he has returned to his legal profession and is content with that decision.
“Politics is not a place for us to be in this.”
He says he continues to enjoy being a lawyer and believes younger people must take responsibility for the country’s future.
“I love this profession. I continue to enjoy that.”
Sabry rejects the idea that Sri Lanka depends on only a few individuals.
“There are a lot of people out there. I’m sure good young people will come one day, and then we will come out of this.”
Looking back at his political journey, Sabry says he has no regrets.
“Everybody has a limit, and for a good five years I have kept sacrificing for the nation.”
He accepts that some people may recognise his contribution while others may not.
“Some will realise it, some will not realise it.”
But personally, he says he can look back with satisfaction.
“Within my conscience, I can only say that I’m more than happy.”
For Sabry, the defining moment was stepping forward when the country needed someone to accept responsibility.
“At a very, very difficult time, I was able to be there, take the bull by the horns and do what I could do at that point in time.”
He believes many Sri Lankans underestimate how close the country came to a much longer economic disaster.
“People don’t understand this.”
He compares Sri Lanka’s experience with countries that suffered similar or worse crises but took years to recover.
“Some of the countries which went through our kind of 94% of food inflation and 70% of general inflation took a good 10 to 11 years to come back after announcing a moratorium on foreign loans. Some countries never came back.”
He also compares Sri Lanka’s recovery with Greece, which took more than a decade to emerge from its financial crisis.
“Greece took 11 years to come back.”
Sabry notes that Greece had major international support.
“After the EU funded them with 95 billion euros, subject to their conditions, reforms and all those things, it took 11 years to come out of their debt moratorium and bankruptcy.”
By comparison, he argues that Sri Lanka stabilised far faster.
“We came out in two years.”
This is the strongest argument Sabry presents in defence of the decisions taken during his short period as Finance Minister.
He says the foundation for recovery was created quickly because urgent decisions were made without delay.
“The foundation was laid during my 45 days of the reign.”
He lists the major actions taken during that period.
“Going to the IMF, getting financial advisers and legal advisers, introducing cost-reflective pricing, appointing the Governor, appointing the Secretary to the Treasury, announcing the debt restructuring and debt moratorium — all happened during that period of time.”
According to Sabry, decisions that could have taken years were accelerated because the crisis demanded urgency.
“Something which could have been done in a period of two years, I took it in 30 days.”
For him, that period was about making decisions when delay itself could have been disastrous.
“Decisions need to be taken. That’s how it is.”
The final reflection in the conversation moves from politics and economics to philosophy. Asked about the best book he has read, Sabry names Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, the work of the Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher.
“I like this. I like Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It’s fantastic.”
He says he returns to the book repeatedly because its lessons remain relevant.
“I go back again and again and try to kind of refresh myself.”
The central lesson he takes from it is similar to the advice he received from his father.
“Control what is controllable.”
He also believes people should avoid living only for public approval.
“Don’t live for others, don’t compare with others, try to improve yourself every day from today to tomorrow rather than comparing with others.”
That philosophy captures the essence of Sabry’s defence of his political journey. He believes individuals cannot control how history immediately judges them. They can only control their decisions, intentions and commitment to what they believe is right.
Ali Sabry’s account of his time in government is therefore not simply a story about economic reform or political controversy. It is a story about responsibility during a national emergency, the loneliness of unpopular decisions and the difficult balance between public opinion and national interest.
Whether history ultimately accepts his interpretation or challenges it will depend on how Sri Lanka continues to evolve. But his central argument remains unchanged.
At the moment when the country needed someone to accept responsibility, he believes he stepped forward.
And for Sabry, that is the measure that matters most.
“I was able to be there, take the bull by the horns and do what I could do at that point in time.”
For a politician who says he has already left politics behind, that remains the legacy he wants to be remembered for.
