Presidential Commissions of Inquiry (PCoIs) in Sri Lanka have long been a tool used by successive Governments to investigate matters of public concern. These commissions, appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, No. 17 of 1948 as amended, are meant to uncover the truth, provide recommendations, and hold wrongdoers accountable. In theory, they serve as mechanisms for transparency, justice, and institutional reform.

However, in practice, they have often been criticised as mechanisms for political maneuvering, whitewashing crimes, or targeting opponents rather than achieving genuine justice. Over the years, PCoIs have been used as instruments to manage political crises rather than to bring about meaningful reforms. The bitter truths about PCoIs in Sri Lanka are their inefficacy, political bias, the lack of implementation of recommendations, and their use as instruments of public deception.

Political instrumentalisation of PCoIs

One of the harshest realities of PCoIs in Sri Lanka is that they are frequently weaponised for political gain. Rather than serving as independent investigative bodies, commissions are often established by ruling Governments to either target political opponents or exonerate allies. The appointment of a commission provides an opportunity for Governments to control the narrative surrounding major scandals or controversies.

For example, the PCoI to Investigate, Inquire and Report on the Issuance of Treasury Bonds During the Period from 1 February 2015 to 31 March 2016 (2017) was established under President Maithripala Sirisena, which largely focused on implicating members of the previous United National Party (UNP)-led administration. While the inquiry exposed irregularities, critics argue that it was also used to politically weaken opponents. Similarly, commissions have been used in the past to shield Government allies from scrutiny, further eroding public trust in their impartiality.

Conversely, the PCoI to Investigate Allegations of Political Victimisation During the Period Commencing 8 January 2015 and Ending 16 November 2019 (2020), appointed under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, faced allegations of attempting to absolve loyalists and discredit cases against them. The said PCoI’s recommendations, which sought to overturn court cases and target prosecutors, raised concerns about interference in judicial independence. This selective use of commissions to protect political allies while punishing opponents is a common trend in Sri Lanka’s governance system.

Lack of implementation of findings

Another bitter truth is that the recommendations of PCoIs often go unimplemented. While commissions may produce voluminous reports with detailed findings, successive Governments rarely act upon them. The lack of follow-through raises questions about the real purpose of appointing these commissions, especially when their recommendations gather dust instead of leading to meaningful reforms.

For instance, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (2010), which was established in response to international pressure after the end of the internal conflict, made several recommendations regarding accountability and reconciliation. However, most of these recommendations were ignored, and no meaningful action was taken to address allegations of human rights violations. This pattern reflects a broader issue in Sri Lanka, where commissions appear to serve symbolic purposes rather than drive change.

Similarly, the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints Regarding Missing Persons (2013-2015) identified numerous cases of enforced disappearances but failed to result in concrete legal action. Despite extensive evidence and witness testimonies, no significant prosecutions followed. This lack of implementation diminishes public confidence in the commission system and reinforces the perception that these bodies are mere political tools rather than effective instruments of justice.

Compromised independence/credibility

Despite being legally mandated to operate independently, many PCoIs are criticised for their lack of neutrality. Commissions are appointed by the President, and often it is alleged that these members are individuals with close ties to the Government. This raises doubts about their ability to conduct impartial investigations. Many observers argue that commissions often serve as extensions of the ruling party rather than as unbiased truth-seeking bodies.

For instance, in the case of the PCoI to Investigate Allegations of Political Victimisation During the Period Commencing 8 January 2015 and Ending 16 November 2019 (2020), some of the PCoI’s recommendations directly interfered with ongoing legal proceedings, leading to widespread criticism from legal experts and the civil society. By attempting to overturn judicial decisions and absolve key political figures, the PCoI undermined the Judiciary's independence and weakened public trust in the legal system.

Similarly, the PCoI to Investigate and Inquire into and Report or Take Necessary Actions on the Bomb Attacks on 21 April 2019 (2019-2021), though extensive, was accused of being selective in its scrutiny, avoiding deep investigations into possible State intelligence failures and political negligence. While the PCoI produced detailed reports, it failed to fully explore the role of Government agencies in preventing the attacks. This selective approach further illustrated the lack of genuine independence within PCoIs.

Public deception and delay tactics

PCoIs have frequently been used to placate public anger while delaying genuine justice. Governments often appoint commissions in response to major scandals or crises, but this serves as a temporary measure to deflect public scrutiny rather than address systemic issues. The establishment of a commission often creates the illusion of accountability without producing concrete outcomes.

For instance, after the Easter Sunday bombings in 2019, there was massive public demand for accountability. In response, multiple Commissions were set up, but their conflicting findings and lack of decisive action left victims frustrated. These Commissions appeared more focused on controlling the political fallout rather than ensuring justice for the victims and their families.

Similarly, commissions appointed to investigate high-profile corruption cases have rarely led to meaningful prosecutions, as successive administrations use these inquiries to create an illusion of action while shielding those responsible. The public is often given the impression that investigations are ongoing, while, in reality, little is done to punish the guilty parties. This cycle of deception further erodes public trust in the Government and the legal system.

Failure to achieve justice for victims

The most tragic consequence of ineffective PCoIs is the failure to deliver justice to victims of human rights violations and corruption. Victims and their families place their hopes in these commissions, expecting accountability and closure. However, the reality is that commissions often fail to deliver tangible results, leaving victims in a perpetual state of uncertainty.

For example, the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints Regarding Missing Persons (2013-2015) established to investigate internal conflict time disappearances, heard testimonies from thousands of affected families. However, its findings were largely ignored, and families continue to seek justice years later. The absence of legal follow-up has left many questioning whether these commissions serve any purpose beyond political optics.

Similarly, the PCoI to Investigate, Inquire and Report on the Issuance of Treasury Bonds During the Period from 1 February 2015 to 31 March 2016 (2017) did highlight financial irregularities, but, the legal follow-up has been slow and selective, reinforcing the notion that economic crimes by those with political connections go unpunished. Without proper implementation, these commissions remain ineffective, failing to address corruption and uphold the rule of law.

Conclusion

While PCoIs in Sri Lanka have the potential to be effective instruments of justice and governance, their actual operation reveals a different reality. These commissions are often politically motivated, lack real independence, and fail to result in meaningful action. Their misuse has led to public disillusionment, as people have lost faith in their ability to address key national issues.

Instead of being mechanisms for truth and justice, they have become tools for manipulation, deception, and delay. Until genuine reforms are made to ensure the impartiality, transparency, and enforcement of their findings, PCoIs will remain largely ineffective. Without structural changes and genuine political will, Sri Lanka’s CoIs will continue to serve as instruments of political convenience rather than pillars of justice.

(Thilakarathna is an attorney and a Law lecturer at the Colombo University. Dr. Harankaha is a Senior Law lecturer at the same University)

…………………………………………………

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication