Sri Lanka’s rapidly expanding network of Internal Affairs Units has triggered concerns over whether a programme presented as an anti-corruption and ethics initiative could eventually create an additional mechanism of control over the country’s politically independent public administration.
The latest development came with a one-day workshop at Temple Trees on developing institutional Codes of Ethics, marking the second phase of a programme covering 244 Internal Affairs Units established in State institutions. The programme was led by Presidential Secretary Dr. Nandika Sanath Kumanayake, with senior officials including Bureau for Promoting Integrity Head Chandima Wickramasinghe and Senior Additional Secretary to the President K. Prasanna Chandith contributing as resource persons.
Government policy documents state that the Internal Affairs Units are intended to prevent corruption, promote transparency and accountability, protect whistleblowers, conduct corruption-risk assessments and strengthen ethical governance. The Presidential Secretariat’s 2025 circular called for IAUs to be established across Government institutions and provided for monitoring and reporting mechanisms.
However, former Minister and MP Ravi Karunanayake has expressed concern that the Government’s approach could eventually bring the public administration machinery under the stricter control of the governing party, potentially threatening the independence of State officials.
His concern goes to the heart of the distinction between accountability and political control.
Sri Lanka already has a longstanding administrative structure governing public servants through the Administrative Regulations, Financial Regulations and Establishments Code. These frameworks regulate official conduct, financial responsibility, disciplinary procedures and the exercise of administrative authority.
The introduction of a large network of Internal Affairs Units therefore creates an important question: how will these new structures interact with the existing system?
The Government’s stated objective is to strengthen integrity. Nevertheless, if Internal Affairs Units acquire extensive monitoring, investigative or reporting responsibilities, public officers could potentially find themselves subject to scrutiny beyond the traditional administrative chain.
This is particularly significant because the Government’s own framework envisages IAUs receiving complaints concerning corruption, misconduct and irresponsible work practices, while maintaining links with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.
Karunanayake’s concern therefore centres on institutional independence rather than the principle of fighting corruption.
A professional public service must be able to implement lawful Government policy while retaining protection from partisan interference. If ethical monitoring becomes associated with political loyalty, rather than objective standards applied equally to all officers, the traditional neutrality of the public service could become an issue.
The Government consequently faces a major transparency test.
It should clearly disclose who appoints Integrity Officers, who receives their reports, what investigative powers they possess, how complaints are handled, what safeguards exist for officers and how IAU findings relate to formal disciplinary procedures under established administrative rules.
With 244 units already incorporated into the programme, these are no longer theoretical questions.
The success of the initiative will ultimately depend on whether it strengthens professional accountability or creates uncertainty over whether public officers remain answerable primarily to the law and established administrative procedures.