By: Ovindi Vishmika
September 03, Colombo (LNW): Sri Lanka’s fight against corruption is being reshaped by a law passed more than forty years ago. The Offences Against Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982, long considered one of the most stringent pieces of legislation in the country, has become the foundation of a sweeping campaign to prosecute officials accused of misusing state assets. Its revival underscores both the seriousness of today’s anti-corruption drive and the unique power of a law designed to put public property beyond private reach.
A Law Ahead of Its Time
When Parliament certified the Act in March 1982, it responded to growing fears that state property was being exploited for personal or political gain. Unlike many other statutes of the time, it cast a wide net, covering assets belonging not just to ministries but also to state banks, corporations, cooperative societies, and unions. The drafters recognized that corruption could take many forms, and so they deliberately gave the law sweeping definitions to capture any misuse of resources tied to the state.
Covering More Than Theft
The Public Property Act was not limited to obvious crimes such as robbery or mischief. It also criminalized dishonest misappropriation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and financial fraud. By explicitly including forgery and falsification of accounts, the law ensured that paper-based corruption would be punished as seriously as physical theft. In effect, the Act recognized that corruption could be hidden in documents as easily as in stolen goods, and it gave prosecutors the tools to pursue both.
Punishments Designed to Deter
Penalties under the Act remain among the harshest in Sri Lankan law. Anyone convicted faces a minimum of one year and up to twenty years in prison. In addition, fines must be either at least Rs. 1,000 or three times the value of the loss, whichever is higher. The statute also empowers courts to seize property belonging to offenders to recover unpaid fines. Where forfeiture is impractical, community service can be ordered instead, ensuring that every conviction carries a tangible consequence. These provisions reflect the Act’s clear purpose: to make corruption too costly to risk.
Little Room for Bail
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Act is its approach to bail. If the alleged loss exceeds Rs. 5,000—a modest figure by today’s standards—the accused is usually held in remand until the trial concludes. Courts may release an individual only in exceptional circumstances, and judges must record specific reasons when doing so. This rule has proven crucial in cases involving politically powerful figures, reducing the risk of interference with investigations and signaling that accused officials will be treated no differently than ordinary citizens.
A Former President in the Dock
The reach of the law was dramatically illustrated in August 2025, when former President Ranil Wickremesinghe was arrested under its provisions. He was accused of misusing about Rs. 16.6 million in state funds during an overseas trip in 2023, which allegedly included a private detour to London. In line with the Act’s strict bail rules, he was initially remanded before being released on health grounds. His arrest marked the first time a former head of state faced prosecution under the Public Property Act, a development widely seen as a turning point in the country’s anti-corruption campaign.
A Growing List of Defendants
Wickremesinghe is far from alone. In recent months, the Act has been used to prosecute a wide range of political figures. Former State Minister Shasheendra Rajapaksa was charged with misusing nearly Rs. 900,000 in compensation funds. Ex-Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella faced allegations linked to counterfeit drug imports. Former ministers Nalin Fernando and Mahindananda Aluthgamage were convicted over procurement scandals costing millions. Land fraud and forgery cases have also implicated figures like Prasanna Ranaweera and Mervyn Silva. Collectively, these prosecutions show that the law is being applied to both financial crimes and abuses of administrative power.
Public Support and Political Debate
The Act’s revival has been welcomed by citizens long frustrated with corruption and political impunity. For many, the message is clear: misuse of public assets will no longer be tolerated, regardless of who commits the offense. Yet critics argue that enforcement is sometimes politically selective, targeting rivals more aggressively than allies. International observers have also emphasized that the credibility of Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption effort depends on impartial and transparent application of the law.
From Law to Lasting Change
The Public Property Act remains the backbone of Sri Lanka’s legal response to corruption. Its broad definitions, uncompromising bail rules, and severe punishments make it uniquely powerful. The arrest of a former president under its authority shows that even the highest offices are no longer beyond reach. Whether the current momentum produces lasting change, however, depends on how consistently and fairly the Act is enforced. If applied without bias, it could help build a culture of accountability that Sri Lankans have demanded for decades.
