By Adolf

This is our second story on the recent revelations surrounding the alleged massive fraud of LKR 13.2 billion at National Development Bank PLC (NDB). The public has reached out to us seeking information, reflecting widespread concern. This governance failure has once again raised serious questions about the strength of governance, internal controls, and regulatory oversight within Sri Lanka’s banking system. Depositors have expressed fear and uncertainty to LNW about the safety of their money. While investigations are ongoing, early indications suggest that this may not be an isolated incident. The implications for the broader banking sector — and for public confidence — are deeply concerning.

Other Banks Impacted

Reports indicate that the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) has already visited several banks that received funds linked to the alleged NDB fraud. Sampath Bank PLC appears to be the most impacted, with suspicious funds reportedly moving through accounts within the bank. Other major banks, including Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Hatton National Bank PLC, and Seylan Bank PLC, may also have been used by perpetrators as channels for fund layering, a common technique in financial crime to obscure the origins of illicit funds.

CBSL Must Respond

If confirmed, these developments point to systemic weaknesses in anti-money laundering (AML) systems, transaction monitoring frameworks, and interbank surveillance mechanisms. The movement of funds across several leading banks suggests that existing safeguards were not robust enough to detect suspicious patterns early. At the heart of this issue is a fundamental principle: the primary fiduciary responsibility of a bank is not to its shareholders or directors, but to its depositors. Banks hold public deposits and carry a far greater obligation — the duty to protect the money entrusted to them. Fraud within a regulated bank directly undermines that trust.

CBSL’s Fiduciary Responsibility

The responsibility of CBSL is therefore critical. As the regulator and guardian of financial stability, CBSL has a moral obligation to ensure that banks are governed by individuals with the competence, integrity, and experience required to manage institutions entrusted with public funds.

Poor Regulatory Supervision

Recent governance decisions raise serious concerns. Allowing individuals without substantive banking experience to hold leadership positions in systemically important banks reflects a troubling regulatory lapse. The appointment of figures such as Suresh Shah, whose primary experience lies in industries like tobacco and beer rather than banking, to lead Hatton National Bank PLC, is a striking example. Systemically important banks — including Commercial Bank, HNB, National Savings Bank, Bank of Ceylon, and People’s Bank — hold billions in public deposits. Chairpersons of these institutions cannot treat their roles as ceremonial; these positions require deep knowledge of banking, risk management, financial regulation, and a fiduciary duty to depositors.

CBSL Must Wake Up

CBSL must urgently revisit its governance framework and enforce strict eligibility criteria requiring prior banking or financial services experience for chairpersons of systemically important banks. Leadership standards cannot be diluted without jeopardizing depositor confidence. Beyond strengthening AML and transaction monitoring systems, regulators must ensure that the right people with the right expertise are entrusted with safeguarding public money.

Ultimately, depositor confidence is the foundation of the banking system. When fraud occurs and governance standards are compromised, the credibility of the entire system is questioned. In this instance, CBSL and auditor E&Y have failed the country and its depositors, and urgent corrective action is imperative.

Previous Articles: NDB 13 B Fraud: Total Failure of Directors, the Central Bank and Auditors. Should be sued?

Roger Srivasan

Colombo | April 2026

It would be tempting—seductively so—to reduce the present confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran to a crude binary of aggression and resistance. Yet such reduction collapses under scrutiny. Once parsed, the reality reveals a far more nuanced and stratified interplay of cohesion, coercion, and brinkmanship.

The crisis has been defined, above all, by brinkmanship—the deliberate march to the edge of catastrophe. Ultimatums have been issued, deadlines imposed, and strategic pressure exerted in ways that test not only resolve but restraint. This is not diplomacy in its classical form; it is diplomacy conducted at the precipice, where signalling is amplified through escalation.
Beneath this theatre lies coercion—the hard mechanics of power. Economic lifelines are targeted, strategic chokepoints leveraged, and military force deployed to compel compliance. The message is unmistakable: yield, or be made to yield. Yet coercion, for all its force, has limits. It can extract concessions, but it rarely secures legitimacy.

Set against this is cohesion—a quieter, more durable force. Cohesion does not announce itself with spectacle; it binds. It is found in the internal resolve of states under pressure, in the alignment of allies, and in the fragile frameworks that prevent escalation from spiralling into open conflict. The recent pause in hostilities, however tentative, reflects not resolution but restraint—an instance where cohesion, however briefly, has held.

This is the critical triad. Brinkmanship creates the crisis; coercion intensifies it; cohesion contains it. The present moment is not one of resolution, but of tense equilibrium. Each force remains in play, none fully ascendant.

To characterise events as one side calling the bluff of another is to misread the deeper structure. What we are witnessing is not capitulation, but calibration—a contest of will conducted under the shadow of consequence.
There was no bluff to call—only a contest of will. Brinkmanship pushed to the edge, coercion pressed its weight, and cohesion intervened just long enough to avert rupture. But where coercion lingers and brinkmanship remains the instrument of choice, any peace secured is, at best, a temporary reprieve.

Sri Lanka’s accelerated push to introduce large-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) has sparked a new wave of scrutiny, as policymakers attempt to stabilise a power grid increasingly strained by the rapid expansion of renewable energy. While officials present the move as a necessary evolution in energy planning, analysts warn that the speed and scale of implementation raise critical concerns about preparedness, cost, and long-term effectiveness.

 The Cabinet of Ministers recently approved a series of interconnected measures to deploy battery storage capacity, including an additional 50 MW system linked to existing solar power plants. This component is expected to be procured through a competitive bidding process managed by the Renewable Energy Supply and Operations Supervision Division of National System Operator Ltd., a successor to the Ceylon Electricity Board.

Authorities argue that the decision is driven by emerging system imbalances. Data indicate that night-time electricity demand is rising significantly earlier than projected in national forecasts, exposing structural weaknesses in managing daytime solar generation alongside evening consumption peaks. Battery storage is seen as a technical solution to capture excess solar energy during the day and release it when demand surges after sunset.

However, critics point out that the urgency surrounding these decisions may be masking deeper systemic issues. The revised plan fast-tracks the deployment of 300 MW of battery storage capacity originally scheduled for 2031-2032 to as early as 2028–2029. While this reflects an adaptive policy response, it also raises questions about whether sufficient feasibility studies, cost-benefit analyses, and grid integration assessments have been conducted.

Energy experts caution that large-scale BESS deployment is not merely a plug-and-play solution. It requires extensive upgrades to grid infrastructure, sophisticated management systems, and skilled operational oversight. Without these supporting elements, the effectiveness of battery storage in stabilising the grid could be significantly compromised.

Further complicating the issue is the reliance on private sector participation through a build-own-operate (BOO) model. While this approach may reduce immediate fiscal pressure on the Government, it introduces long-term financial obligations and potential tariff implications that have yet to be fully disclosed. Transparency around contract structures and pricing mechanisms remains limited.

The plan also includes 25 standalone battery projects, each with a capacity of 10 MW/40 MWh, to be connected directly to the medium-voltage distribution network. While technically promising, the decentralised nature of these systems could create coordination challenges, particularly in a grid that is still adapting to renewable integration.

Ultimately, while the expansion of renewable energy is widely welcomed, the rapid introduction of battery storage systems appears to be a reactive measure rather than part of a carefully sequenced strategy. Without comprehensive planning, stakeholder engagement, and clear regulatory frameworks, Sri Lanka risks investing heavily in solutions that may not fully resolve the underlying challenges of its evolving energy landscape.

Sri Lanka’s latest push toward digital governance has come under intense examination following the approval of a Rs 626 million Digital Communication and Collaboration Platform for Government employees. While the project is framed as a vital step in modernising public administration, emerging concerns suggest that its implementation may be outpacing preparedness within the public sector.

The platform, approved under the Government’s Digital Economy Plan, is designed to unify communication, enhance coordination, and introduce structured workflow management across State institutions. Authorities claim it will strengthen decision-making processes and improve overall efficiency, aligning Sri Lanka with global trends in digital governance.

However, critics argue that the initiative appears to lack a solid foundation. Reports indicate that many public sector officials those expected to use the system daily have little to no awareness of its existence. This disconnect highlights a critical weakness in the rollout strategy, raising doubts about user adoption and long-term sustainability.

Equally concerning is the absence of a clearly communicated feasibility assessment. Large-scale digital systems typically require detailed analysis to determine cost-effectiveness, technical compatibility, and organisational readiness. In this case, the decision to proceed with a substantial financial commitment without publicly available evaluation metrics has fueled skepticism.

The Government has justified the move by emphasising urgency, noting that such a platform should have been introduced years earlier. While this argument underscores the need for reform, experts caution that urgency should not replace due diligence. Rushed implementation, they warn, often leads to inefficiencies and diminished returns on investment.

Comparisons with countries like India have also been used to support the initiative. Yet, analysts stress that successful digital transformation depends on contextual adaptation. Factors such as workforce training, infrastructure reliability, and institutional culture play a decisive role in determining outcomes.

The financial scale of the project has further intensified public debate. With Rs 626 million allocated from taxpayer funds, there is increasing demand for accountability and transparency. Stakeholders are calling for clearer explanations regarding procurement processes, performance benchmarks, and expected benefits.

Moreover, the lack of structured training programs for public sector employees could significantly undermine the platform’s effectiveness. Without adequate capacity-building measures, even the most advanced systems can fail to deliver their intended impact.

As the Government moves forward with implementation, the spotlight remains firmly on execution. The project’s success will ultimately hinge on whether it can bridge the gap between policy ambition and operational reality. If these challenges are not addressed, the initiative risks becoming an expensive experiment rather than a meaningful step toward digital transformation.

In the golden grasslands of Yala National Park, where tourists flock daily for a glimpse of elusive leopards, a troubling question now looms: has the pursuit of wildlife tourism begun to endanger the very animals it celebrates?

The controversy surrounding “Lucas,” a well-known male leopard feared dead after a suspected safari jeep incident, has reignited debate about the cost of Sri Lanka’s booming safari industry.

Authorities from the Department of Wildlife Conservation have confirmed an ongoing investigation, even suspending a jeep believed to be linked to the case. If negligence—or worse—is proven, legal consequences will follow under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance.

But for many observers, the issue runs deeper than a single incident.

Yala is one of the world’s best places to spot leopards, a reputation that has driven a surge in safari vehicles competing for sightings. This intense pressure often results in overcrowding, aggressive driving, and risky maneuvers all in the name of giving tourists a closer look.

Lucas thrived in this environment until, perhaps, he didn’t.

The silence surrounding his disappearance is unsettling, made worse by conflicting claims. While safari operators deny knowledge of any accident, social media tells a different story, though one yet to be verified. In the absence of clarity, speculation fills the void.

This moment also places responsibility on policymakers under the National People’s Power government, backed by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. Can they balance economic growth with ecological responsibility? Will stricter controls on safari operations follow?

For local communities, guides, and drivers, tourism is a livelihood. For conservationists, it is a double-edged sword. Done right, it funds protection. Done poorly, it accelerates harm.

The story of Lucas whether it ends in tragedy or relief has already become a turning point. It highlights the fragile line between admiration and exploitation, between showcasing nature and safeguarding it.

In the end, the fate of one leopard may shape the future of an entire ecosystem. Because if theforest’s most iconic predator is not safe in its own domain, what does that say about the system meant to protect it?

The world is watching. And Yala must now decide: is it a sanctuary, or a spectacle?

The recent exposure of a massive internal fraud at NDB Bank has sent shockwaves through Sri Lanka’s financial sector, raising urgent concerns about governance failures, weak internal controls, and broader systemic risks. What initially surfaced as a relatively modest Rs. 380 million discrepancy rapidly ballooned into a staggering Rs. 13.2 billion scandal pointing to deep-rooted operational lapses that may have persisted undetected for years.

According to official disclosures, the fraud was not the work of a single rogue actor but a coordinated effort involving multiple employees in collusion with external parties. The scheme reportedly exploited vulnerabilities within a specific operational unit, allowing funds to be siphoned off over an extended period. The sheer scale and duration of the fraud suggest not merely isolated misconduct, but fundamental weaknesses in oversight mechanisms, internal audits, and real-time monitoring systems.

While the bank has moved swiftly to contain the fallout suspending implicated staff, tightening system access, and launching a forensic audi these measures are largely reactive. The central question remains: how did such a large-scale fraud evade detection for so long? For analysts and stakeholders alike, the issue extends beyond operational failure to potential lapses in accountability at both senior management and board levels.

From a financial standpoint, the bank has attempted to reassure investors by emphasizing its resilience. Even under a worst-case projection, the estimated loss of Rs. 4 billion for the first quarter of 2026 appears manageable compared to its reported Rs. 11 billion profit in 2025 and a substantial asset base nearing Rs. 990 billion. Capital adequacy ratios are expected to remain above regulatory minimums, indicating that the bank’s immediate solvency is not under threat.

However, the reputational damage may prove far more difficult to contain. Market reaction has already been swift and negative, with banking sector stocks declining and NDB’s shares temporarily halted from trading. In an industry built on trust, the erosion of confidence can have lasting repercussions impacting investor sentiment, increasing funding costs, and weighing on long-term valuation.

Beyond the immediate crisis, the incident highlights a persistent issue within the banking sector: the disconnect between regulatory compliance and effective risk management. Institutions may meet capital and liquidity requirements on paper, yet still remain vulnerable to internal governance failures capable of triggering significant financial and reputational shocks.

Ultimately, the NDB fraud is more than a story of financial loss it is a stark warning. It underscores the critical need for robust internal controls, continuous monitoring, and a culture of accountability that goes beyond box-ticking compliance. The real test now lies in whether meaningful reforms will follow, or whether the response will merely address the symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem.

Sri Lanka’s official reserve assets declined by 3.5% to USD 7,019 million in March 2026, down from USD 7,270 million recorded in February, according to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL).

The total reserves figure includes proceeds from the currency swap arrangement with the People’s Bank of China, the CBSL noted.

The renovated Central Bus Terminal in Fort reopened to the public today, Wednesday (08), following the completion of the first phase of refurbishment under the Clean Sri Lanka programme.

The upgrade includes improvements to existing buildings, the establishment of a new information centre, and enhanced sanitation facilities aimed at improving convenience for commuters.

Authorities have also introduced a designated external queuing area for buses, along with measures to upgrade the overall environment of the terminal.

The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) will provide electricity for Sinhala and Tamil New Year festivals and related events across the country from Wednesday (15) to Sunday (19), subject to payment, Minister Vijitha Herath announced.

Speaking at the weekly Cabinet decisions briefing held on Tuesday (07), the Minister said organisers can obtain electricity for festive events by making the relevant payments to the CEB.

He noted that arrangements have already been made to facilitate power supply for a range of activities, including New Year festivals and musical shows planned during the holiday period.

“Electricity is essential for these celebrations, but it should be used sparingly during the season,” Herath said, urging organisers to ensure efficient energy consumption.

The Minister added that the initiative aims to support cultural festivities while promoting responsible use of electricity during the holiday season.