Rajeev Amarasuriya

SHAPING LEGAL FRONTIERS

“Corruption has become a systemic issue across society and in every sphere”

Sri Lanka’s justice system, which is one of the oldest in Asia, has long been the cornerstone of our democratic framework. Today, it faces numerous challenges that reflect the evolving needs of a modern society – including issues pertaining to access to justice, delays in the judicial process, and concerns over judicial independence and transparency.

The vision for the future is to create a system that’s not only efficient but also ensures equality before the law.

In line with this vision, attorney-at-law Rajeev Amarasuriya was elected the 29th President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) for 2025/26, having secured an impressive 4,497 votes.

Amarasuriya is a distinguished legal professional; and he’s a multifaceted figure in Sri Lanka’s legal and financial landscape. Known for his extensive experience in public law and civil litigation – particularly in the appellate court – he has made notable contributions to the legal profession, governance and policy-making.

His career is marked by a blend of legal expertise, academic involvement and leadership roles, across numerous national and international platforms. It is also characterised by an unwavering commitment to governance and policy development – he has played a role in shaping the country’s monetary policies.

Amarasuriya’s journey exemplifies the values of professionalism, leadership and academic excellence. Whether in the courtroom, at the policy-making table or in the education arena, his contributions have had an indelible impact on the country’s legal landscape.

– Compiled by Tamara Rebeira

“There is a perception that the legal system can be misused by those with resources – rightly or wrongly, this is a common view, and it must be addressed and rectified”

Q: Your role as the President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) comes with great responsibility and intense public scrutiny. How do you view the rule of law as it is – and what reforms would you like to see in the legal system in this country?

A: The BASL, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, has played a pivotal role in the country’s legal sphere.

In this formulation, a primary objective of the BASL is “the consideration of matters of national importance relating to the rule of law and administration of justice – and if need be, making of representations thereon to the government and/or any other relevant authority, and taking any further steps in respect thereof including filing of actions or intervening in actions in courts of justice.”

Similarly, it is imperative that the legal fraternity supports legitimate measures that will develop the country and in turn, benefit the wider citizenry.

If Sri Lanka is to reach its fullest potential, then new and sufficient investments are needed, new industries must commence and the system must become more efficient. At the same time, corruption, inefficiency and wastage must be eradicated or minimised.

In this process, the legal system has a vital role to play. When considering investments, we must not only have sound laws and dispute resolution mechanisms but also ensure that Sri Lanka is investor friendly.

This means that legitimate overseas investors must have the confidence to bring in capital with the assurance that they will be treated equitably and fairly without being at a disadvantage. Investors must also be able to conduct business in an environment that’s not overly rigorous.

Similarly, the legal system should not create unnecessary blocks or hurdles, nor should it suffer from inefficiencies or delays. To that extent, one could also describe the legal system as a support service for the country – one that must be effective, efficient and streamlined.

Corruption has become a systemic issue across society and in every sphere; and it must be eradicated. Those who have perpetrated corrupt practices must be held accountable and dealt with to prevent such behaviour from continuing in the future.

While our legal system has a rich heritage, we need to harness its strengths, eliminate its weaknesses and facilitate overall improvement. Although this is easier said than done, it is crucial to identify the specific areas that are in need of reform. One such area is improving and expediting legal proceedings.

We can’t have disputes taking years to reach a conclusion. Procedures must be simplified and the severe backlog of cases must be addressed. This is not a problem unique to Sri Lanka – many if not most countries around the world have faced similar issues and several of them have been resolved in the last two decades.

In an ideal situation, when a crime is committed, there should be a very high probability that the perpetrators will face due punishment without undue delays. There is a perception that the legal system can be misused by those with resources – rightly or wrongly, this is a common view, and it must be addressed and rectified.

Similarly, law enforcement agencies must  be efficient, effective and free of corruption. These concerns aren’t unique to Sri Lanka and therefore, rather than reinventing the wheel, we must learn from such practices and ensure meaningful change.

Q: How can Sri Lanka modernise its court administration and processes, to make them more efficient, transparent and responsive to the multitude of challenges we face?

A: Many of the issues we face today with court administration have been seen in most jurisdictions around the world. The difference is that in many of them, these issues were addressed in the 1990s through the introduction of case management, and the adoption of automation and technology.

I was a member of a BASL delegation that visited Singapore and Malaysia in 2016. During this visit, we were shown the system of administration in both jurisdictions; and we learned that they had faced all these issues as well. However, they found ways and means to overcome them.

Their secret to success was case management, automation and digitisation. This system needs to be comprehensively introduced into our system sooner rather than later. In fact, there was a committee under the ministry of justice that looked into automation and digitisation, and substantial work was conducted and completed three years ago. However, at the stage of selecting a suitable supplier, we underwent a change of administration.

Parallelly, several projects under the judiciary are working on setting up model courthouses in different parts of the country. While there has been progress, in my view we are still 25-30 years behind in the utilisation of case management, automation and technology in our court system.

The legal system falls under the third pillar of democracy, which is the judiciary. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state and the government to ensure that we have an independent, efficient and effective system for the administration of justice.

This also requires the allocation of adequate resources to institutions such as the Attorney General’s Department and law enforcement agencies such as the Sri Lanka Police, the addition of more courthouses across the country and an increased number of judges to address the pressing issue of the backlog of cases, which Sri Lanka currently faces.

It is the duty of the state and the government to take all necessary steps and measures to bring court administration and processes on a par with the best in the world – that is what we expect. Nevertheless, successive governments haven’t given adequate priority to this.

Over the years, we have spoken about defence expenditure, and education and healthcare funding, but we haven’t paid sufficient attention to budget allocations for the judiciary.

The reports and plans are available, and the legal fraternity is anxiously calling for change. Now it is up to the state and the government to secure the necessary resources and mobilise them, to upgrade the legal system and restore it to international standards.

Additionally, the BASL has a role in ensuring that the system is effective and efficient from the point of view of its membership and the public. Under my leadership, it will constructively engage with the relevant stakeholders to expedite this process, and support initiatives and programmes that serve the national and public interest.

“It is the duty of the state and the government to take all necessary steps and measures to bring court administration and processes on a par with the best in the world”

Q: The 2025 budget proposed the introduction of 11 new laws under reform initiatives. What laws do you believe are most critical for establishing a robust legal foundation that supports sustainable economic stability and growth?

A: Several laws were proposed in the 2025 budget speech and they’re important for economic development. In my view, Sri Lanka isn’t lacking in legislation, and many if not most laws are well-drafted.

However, the issue lies in the stringent implementation and enforcement of these laws, and the bureaucratic processes that have evolved to cast a web around them. On the one hand, existing laws must be applied uniformly across the board so that everyone is treated fairly and equitably.

On the other hand, as a nation, we must discourage those who attempt to seek loopholes and circumvent these laws for profit. While circumventing the law is not necessarily illegal, one can question the legitimacy and bona fides of such actions.

Regarding the 11 proposed laws, the Investment Protection Law will be particularly important as there is an urgent need to encourage investments into the country. Apart from developing or amending laws, another area that Sri Lanka needs to strengthen is policy consistency.

Over the years, we have seen diametrically opposite policies driven by successive governments, which have hindered the country’s positive trajectory. We must also consider introducing a legal framework to ensure that policies affecting the nation’s forward momentum and growth are as far as possible maintained even with changes in government.

Additionally, we need to explore ways and means to strengthen government bureaucracy, making it more independent and merit based, in order to support the continuity of policies across different regimes and governments.

“The issue lies in the stringent implementation and enforcement of these laws, and the bureaucratic processes that have evolved to cast a web around them”

“Over the years, we have seen diametrically opposite policies driven by successive governments, which have hindered the country’s positive trajectory”

Q: Ensuring the judiciary remains free of political or financial influence is critical to upholding the rule of law. What measures do you believe could strengthen judicial accountability without compromising the independence of the judiciary?

A: An independent judiciary is a sine qua non for a free, fair and just society. The independence of the judiciary is assured by the constitution. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution further strengthened the appointment process, placing responsibility on the constitutional council.

However, to further strengthen judicial independence, additional measures can be implemented.

For instance, under the 21st Amendment, while the approval of the constitutional council is required for appointments to the supreme court and court of appeal, it is still the president as the executive who nominates candidates.

In several jurisdictions, appointments to the higher judiciary are made from within the judiciary or through constituted panels of retired judges. The systems governing the facilities and benefits provided to judges still fall within the bureaucratic processes.

Measures must be introduced to ensure that these aspects are also independent of the executive. We must also encourage systems and policies that place weightage on merit in judicial promotions.

Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that those in the judiciary are financially secure and don’t need to rely on external sources of income. Salaries and remuneration of the judiciary must be on a par – at least to a substantial degree – with earnings outside the judiciary.

Jurisdictions such as Singapore have set a strong example by ensuring that judges are well remunerated and taken care of.

Consistency within the system is also essential. In this regard, the academic community has a vital role to play, as seen in many other developed jurisdictions where the work of the judiciary is regularly reviewed and commented upon. I believe the Sri Lankan system is lacking in this area and needs to improve.

Furthermore, there is a need for increased training for judges – particularly specialised training in specific areas related to industry and commerce. Certain disputes are highly specialised in nature and judges must receive the necessary training to handle them effectively.

 

Q: Sri Lanka has introduced a spate of anticorruption laws; yet, implementation remains weak. In your view, what are the main obstacles to enforcing these laws – and how can they be addressed?

A: Currently, the Anti-Corruption Act  No. 9 of 2023 is the principal piece of legislation governing the anticorruption framework in Sri Lanka. The previous framework was set out under the Bribery Act of 1954 and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act of 1994 (CIABOC).

However, issues arose due to the lack of adequate prosecutions especially of high-ranking officers under the previous legal regime. Anticorruption reforms must be safeguarded and protected from political influence, to ensure their independence and integrity.

While the anticorruption regime is embedded in our constitution, amendments to these provisions have been enacted through parliamentary majorities without going before the public. This means that if a parliamentary majority at any point deems it necessary to tamper with the process, it wouldn’t be too difficult to do so – and that would end up compromising the status quo once again.

There is an ongoing discussion about drafting a new constitution. It may be appropriate to consider whether the anticorruption enforcement framework can be adequately entrenched in it so that it would be difficult to amend or tamper with it.

For instance, the 17th to 21st Amendments to the Constitution show that while the 17th Amendment established the constitutional council and created an efficient check on the executive, the 18th Amendment reversed these safeguards. The 19th Amendment then reinstated them, only to be reversed again by the 20th Amendment. This was reversed and revived once again by the 21st Amendment.

All these changes were enacted legally through parliamentary majorities and they demonstrate how easily a political majority can alter fundamental governance structures. The same risk applies to the anticorruption framework – a political majority can force and completely change the course of any progress on anticorruption processes.

Therefore, we must entrench these measures in the constitution to make them difficult to change, even when governments hold strong majorities. My view is that substantial resources must be allocated for the implementation and enforcement of anticorruption laws.

These resources should be directed towards recruiting and training the best investigators and prosecutors, as well as investing in technology that can facilitate efficient and swift detection and enforcement.

As an independent body, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption has the necessary safeguards in place. With the new act, there is also secured tenure of office for its members.

I am hopeful that with the required resources, the commission will be able to bridge the gap that has persisted over the past several years.

“There is an ongoing discussion about drafting a new constitution. It may be appropriate to consider whether the anticorruption enforcement framework can be adequately entrenched in it so that it would be difficult to amend or tamper with it”

Q: While corruption in the public sector is widely discussed, the private sector is also guilty of aiding and abetting corrupt administrators. How can legal frameworks be improved to hold private entities accountable for corrupt practices?

A: The new Anti-Corruption Act includes provisions to address private sector corruption (as reflected in Section 106); this represents a key change and improvement in the anticorruption framework.

While this is a welcome improvement, the overall ethos and sphere in which it is implemented must be reconsidered. As much as we find fault with corrupt practices in the public sector, it is the private sector that influences or entices public sector officials to engage in such misconduct. Therefore, the private sector has a duty to discourage these practices that have been taking place over a period of time.

Additionally, one must look at ways and means of blacklisting companies that engage in corrupt practices. This should not be limited to an individual who partakes in or influences corrupt practices. The consequences must be collectively shared by the organisations too.

Strengthening corporate governance is mandatory and codes of conduct must be actively encouraged. The values upheld by the private sector must also be reinforced and should not be a case of profit at any cost. We must transition towards systems where profit is earned within the parameters of legitimacy and lawfulness.

“As much as we find fault with corrupt practices in the public sector, it is the private sector that influences or entices public sector officials to engage in such misconduct”

Q: It is widely believed that corruption has spread to the security apparatus and even the legal profession. Why hasn’t this been addressed over the years – and what action can the likes of the BASL take to address this?

A: Corruption is endemic across our community and isn’t limited to any particular group of people. As a nation, we have become accustomed to corrupt practices. Several decades ago, such practices would have been shunned by society – but today, corruption seems to have gained a certain level of acceptance in society.

It exists in both the public and private sectors, various professions and industries, the security apparatus, the legal profession etc. There must be zero tolerance for corrupt practices.

As a community and country, we must find ways to change the way we perceive and address these issues. It could be through education in schools; and in the short term, through a nationwide programme or initiative to educate people on the subject of corruption, its fallout, consequences and how it ultimately affects everyone.

Additionally, there is an urgent need to immediately and effectively enforce laws when instances of corruption are identified. This is not only to punish the individuals involved but also demonstrate that corruption is not permitted – and if detected, the law will punish you firmly and effectively.

Q: With the world moving towards greater digital governance, what legal gaps exist in the country’s data protection laws – and how should they be addressed to safeguard the privacy of citizens?

A: Although there is sectoral protection of data through legislation such as the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act, the data protection regime in terms of generalised legislation is still emerging.

The newly introduced Personal Data Protection Act No. 9 of 2022, although not in operation yet, is commendable for its comprehensive coverage of all the bases, and the provision of adequate safeguards and regulations in respect of data protection, and it is on a par with international best practices.

Sri Lanka is ahead of other countries in the region in the creation of this law.

As far as what this legislation covers, it only extends to personal data rather than nonpersonal data. In the digital landscape, there could be difficulties in assessing exactly what would fall into the category of personal data given the public and transparent nature that digital governance entails. These areas may require further improvement once the law is fully operational.

With the introduction of this new legislation, we have witnessed a wave of organisations and institutions aligning their systems so that they will comply with the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act, once it comes into force.