A complaint against NOCSL President Asanga Chandana Seneviratne has placed the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau under intense scrutiny, with growing questions over whether the investigation will proceed independently or become another test of accountability, transparency and equal justice.
A complaint alleging that National Olympic Committee of Sri Lanka President Asanga Chandana Seneviratne used two National Identity Cards has raised fresh questions over whether the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau will pursue the matter independently or allow it to quietly fade.
Complaint Filed Against NOCSL President
The Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau has received a formal complaint from civil activist Sanjaya Mahawatta against the current President of the National Olympic Committee of Sri Lanka, Asanga Chandana Seneviratne.
The complaint alleges that Seneviratne used two National Identity Cards, a matter that critics say requires urgent and impartial investigation.
According to information available to The Morning Telegraph, Mahawatta’s statement was recorded by Unit 2 of the CFIB under reference IR No. 415/02/2026 on 18 June 2026.
Two Weeks Later, Critics Ask What Has Happened
Nearly two weeks have now passed since the complaint was recorded.
This delay has triggered concern among critics, who question whether the recording of the statement and the issuing of an IR number were merely done to pacify the complainant rather than to launch a serious investigation.
The matter is especially sensitive because it concerns the head of the National Olympic Committee of Sri Lanka, an institution that carries both national and international sporting credibility.
Questions Over CFIB’s Willingness to Act
The Morning Telegraph reliably learns that concerns have emerged over whether certain CFIB units have shown reluctance in pursuing complaints involving Seneviratne.
Sources familiar with the matter allege that some officers have previously demonstrated a soft approach towards complaints connected to him.
If true, such conduct would raise serious concerns about selective enforcement, institutional hesitation and the ability of the CFIB to investigate politically or socially influential figures without fear or favour.
Complaint Initially Assigned to Unit 1
The complaint was reportedly first assigned to Unit 1 of the CFIB.
However, The Morning Telegraph learns that the complainant raised strong objections after concerns emerged over the handling of the matter.
It is alleged that the Officer-in-Charge of Unit 1, Chief Inspector Tissa Pillapitiya, attempted to divert and complicate the complaint by linking it to an unrelated organisation.
Critics say such an approach could have weakened the core allegation and shifted attention away from the central issue involving the alleged use of two National Identity Cards.
Complaint Reassigned to Unit 2
Following objections by the complainant and an expression of no confidence in the initial handling of the complaint, the matter was later reassigned to Unit 2 for investigation.
The reassignment has now placed a major responsibility on Unit 2.
It must show that the complaint will be examined strictly on the facts, that relevant documents will be verified, and that the matter will be properly reported to court if evidence supports further action.
Earlier Forgery Complaint Allegedly Played Down
The current complaint has also revived concerns over the handling of a previous complaint involving allegations of forged identification during Seneviratne’s tenure as President of Sri Lanka Rugby.
The Morning Telegraph reliably learns that this earlier complaint was assigned to Unit 7 of the CFIB.
However, sources allege that the matter was played down by the investigating officer in Unit 7, allegedly in collusion with CFIB Assistant Superintendent Anil Jayantha.
Allegations of Evidence Being Ignored
It is alleged that the officers involved refused to properly accept authentic documentary evidence submitted by the complainant.
They are also accused of refusing to record the complainant’s statement in the factual manner presented.
Instead, critics allege that a diluted statement was recorded merely to satisfy the complainant without taking the necessary investigative steps.
If these claims are accurate, they point to a deeply troubling pattern in which complaints are formally received but not meaningfully pursued.
Critics Say No Real Action Followed
Critics maintain that the complaint assigned to Unit 7 did not result in the action that should reasonably have followed.
They argue that where documentary evidence is submitted in a forgery-related complaint, investigators must verify the material, record statements accurately, identify suspects, seek expert examination where necessary and place the matter before court.
A complaint involving alleged forged identification cannot be treated casually, particularly when the person concerned has held senior positions in national sports bodies.
Unit 2 Now Faces a Serious Test
The focus is now firmly on CFIB Unit 2.
The key question is whether Unit 2 will act independently, without influence, pressure or internal reluctance.
Investigators must determine whether the allegation involving two National Identity Cards is supported by official records.
They must verify the relevant identity documents, obtain information from the Department for Registration of Persons, record all necessary statements and report the facts transparently to court.
Suspects Must Be Produced If Evidence Supports Action
If the investigation establishes that any offence has been committed, the CFIB must proceed according to law.
That includes identifying and producing the suspect or suspects before the relevant court.
Anything less would deepen suspicion that influential individuals are treated differently from ordinary citizens.
The public has a right to know whether serious identity-related allegations involving a national sports official are being investigated properly or quietly managed behind the scenes.
CFIB Must Protect Its Credibility
The CFIB now has an opportunity to demonstrate institutional independence.
It can either pursue the complaint through proper legal channels or allow another serious allegation to be buried under delay, confusion and procedural excuses.
The issue is no longer only about Asanga Chandana Seneviratne.
It is also about whether Sri Lanka’s fraud investigators are willing to act when complaints involve powerful and well-connected sports administrators.
For the credibility of the CFIB, the National Olympic Committee and the wider sports governance system, Unit 2 must now investigate without fear, report facts to court and allow the law to take its course.
