The NDB banking crisis has sparked fresh questions over Central Bank oversight, parliamentary accountability and governance, according to activist Amrit Muttukumaru.
The NDB banking crisis has triggered renewed questions over parliamentary oversight and financial governance, with anti-corruption campaigner Amrit Muttukumaru urging lawmakers and regulators to provide clearer answers over alleged governance failures and regulatory shortcomings.
Muttukumaru’s concerns focus on eight questions he submitted to senior Opposition figures before Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe appeared before Parliament.
The questions were addressed to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, Committee on Public Finance Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva, committee member Ravi Karunanayake and Member of Parliament Mujibur Rahman.
According to Muttukumaru, the reported Rs.13.2 billion NDB incident deserves urgent parliamentary attention because of its potential impact on public confidence in Sri Lanka’s banking system.
Among his most significant questions is whether the Central Bank exercised adequate supervisory oversight over NDB Bank and whether accountability should extend beyond employees who reportedly faced disciplinary measures.
He also questions why the NDB Board of Directors continues to function while scrutiny has reportedly focused mainly on individual staff members.
Muttukumaru argues that shareholders, depositors and the wider public deserve a transparent explanation regarding responsibility at both board and regulatory levels.
NDB Banking Crisis Raises Oversight Questions
The activist has also questioned why the interim forensic audit prepared by Deloitte remains confidential after NDB stated that the report is protected under the terms of its engagement.
According to Muttukumaru, greater transparency is essential because the investigation involves a major financial institution in which the public sector holds a significant ownership interest.
The controversy has also intensified scrutiny of Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance.
Muttukumaru argues that questioning officials alone is insufficient unless Parliament follows up with meaningful action and publicly communicates its findings.
He specifically urges Dr. Harsha de Silva, who has consistently advocated stronger governance and accountability, to take additional steps and ensure the public receives a clear explanation of the committee’s conclusions.
The activist further raises questions about whether Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe should continue in office.
In doing so, he refers to provisions within the Monetary Law Act that permit the removal of a Governor under specified circumstances if the President determines that valid grounds exist.
Muttukumaru contends that the President, who also serves as Minister of Finance, has a responsibility to consider concerns surrounding the leadership of the Central Bank.
Calls for Greater Accountability
Muttukumaru also questions why Opposition leaders have not given the NDB banking crisis the same level of public attention as other financial controversies that have dominated political debate.
He believes Parliament should provide stronger oversight where matters involving financial governance and public confidence arise.
Meanwhile, Sri Lanka continues to await Deloitte’s final forensic audit, which Muttukumaru says is expected during July 2026.
Until that report becomes available, questions surrounding governance, regulatory oversight and institutional accountability remain unresolved.
Ultimately, the NDB banking crisis has evolved into more than an investigation into a single financial institution.
It has become a broader test of whether Sri Lanka’s financial oversight framework, Parliament and regulatory authorities can respond transparently when concerns arise within the banking sector.
The coming months may determine whether the controversy becomes a catalyst for stronger banking governance or another unresolved chapter in Sri Lanka’s continuing debate over financial accountability.
