Disclosure, Double Standards, and Diplomatic Credibility: Questions Surrounding a Political Adviser at the British High Commission
Sri Lanka’s Parliament recently took a decisive step that has reignited a wider debate about ethics, disclosure, and institutional credibility—not only within domestic governance, but also in the conduct of foreign diplomatic missions operating in Colombo.
The Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, Chaminda Kularathna, was removed from office after it emerged that he had failed to disclose material information at the time of applying for his post. The decision, while controversial in some quarters, was defended as a matter of institutional integrity: senior public officials, particularly those occupying sensitive administrative roles, are expected to meet the highest disclosure and probity standards.
Yet this episode has now prompted uncomfortable questions elsewhere—particularly at the British High Commission in Sri Lanka, where a political adviser continues to hold office amid unresolved concerns about non-disclosure and family-linked corruption cases.
The Parliamentary Precedent
The removal of Chaminda Kularathna was significant not merely because of the individual involved, but because of the principle it established.
According to official findings, Kularathna ’s dismissal was not based on a criminal conviction, but on the failure to disclose relevant information during the recruitment process. Parliament took the view that non-disclosure itself constituted sufficient grounds for termination, regardless of whether the undisclosed matters directly implicated the official in wrongdoing.
The message was clear:
transparency is not optional, particularly for senior officials entrusted with democratic institutions.
This precedent now raises a legitimate question: should similar standards apply elsewhere—especially within foreign diplomatic missions that publicly champion governance reform and anti-corruption in Sri Lanka?
The Political Adviser Under Scrutiny
Attention has turned to Insaf Bakeer Makkar, a Political Adviser at the British High Commission in Colombo, whose role reportedly involves engagement with government and opposition parties, civil society actors, and political stakeholders, often on issues of governance, corruption, and institutional reform.
Multiple political and civil society sources allege that Mr. Bakeer Makkar did not disclose, at the time of his appointment, that close family members—specifically his uncles—had been charged and convicted by Sri Lankan courts in relation to a major VAT fraud case, involving billions of rupees in lost state revenue.
That VAT fraud case has been widely described by Sri Lankan authorities as one of the largest tax frauds in the country’s history, resulting in convictions in absentia after the accused failed to appear before court.
Several persons either directly or indirectly involved in the Rs. 3.5 billion widely-publicised VAT scam are reported to be happily ensconced in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Japan - away from the long arm of the law, informed sources said.
The VAT branch of the Department of Inland Revenue (IRD) has allegedly made unlawful refunds to non-existent companies amounting to Rs.3.5 billion. However Tax Commissioner General Mahinda Medagoda said ‘adequate precautionary measures have been taken to avoid such situations in the future.’
Twelve of the businessmen indicted for fraudulently obtaining VAT refunds had obtained these refunds without carrying out any production, a requirement to obtain such refunds and most of them are now living in foreign countries, IRD sources said.
The chief culprit in this massive VAT scam, Kamil Kuthubdeen is believed to be living in Dubai. Former Inland Revenue Deputy Commissioner Gnanasiri Z. Jayathilake, and Assistant Commissioner A.W. Ambeypitiya are still in prison, the sources said.
The former Commissioner General A.A Wijepala who was alleged to be indirectly involved in the scam is now serving as the Chairman of the National Insurance Trust Fund (Agrahara).
CID detectives are finding it difficult to trace the whereabouts of these suspects and most of their foreign transactions, as these funds may have gone through the money laundering route. A senior official of the CID said Interpol help has been sought to trace the suspects.
It is important to stress that Mr. Bakeer Makkar himself has not been accused, charged, or convicted of any offence. However, the issue being raised is not criminal liability—but disclosure, perception, and credibility.
Family, Politics, and Perception in Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, family connections and political identity are rarely treated as separable, particularly in public life. This is not merely a cultural observation, but a political reality—one that foreign missions operating in the country are well aware of.
As one senior political analyst noted:
“You may argue, correctly, that a person is not responsible for the actions of relatives. But in Sri Lankan politics, perception matters as much as fact. When you speak about corruption while carrying undisclosed family baggage linked to corruption, credibility becomes an issue.”
These concerns are magnified when the official in question is actively engaging political parties and lecturing on governance standards, while allegations of non-disclosure hang unresolved.
Opposition Politics and an Instructive Contrast
The controversy has been further sharpened by events within Sri Lanka’s opposition politics.
According to sources within the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Imtiaz Bakir Makar, the father of the British High Commission’s political adviser, was considered for a senior nationalist or organisational role within the party. However, those sources claim that the SJB leadership ultimately opted against the appointment, citing political sensitivity arising from the family’s connection to the VAT fraud case.
Instead, the position was reportedly assigned to Sujeewa Senasinghe.
If these accounts are accurate, they demonstrate that even Sri Lankan opposition parties—often accused of lax standards—recognised the reputational risk of proceeding with such an appointment.
This, in turn, raises an uncomfortable question:
why has the British High Commission not applied a similar level of caution?
Diplomacy, Ethics, and Institutional Risk
Foreign diplomatic missions operate under a delicate compact. While diplomats enjoy privileges and immunities, they are also expected to uphold higher ethical standards, particularly when engaging in governance reform advocacy.
The United Kingdom, through its High Commission, has been one of the most vocal international actors on anti-corruption, transparency, and rule-of-law reforms in Sri Lanka. British diplomats frequently meet political leaders, issue statements on accountability, and support governance-focused civil society initiatives.
In this context, critics argue that any perception of double standards—real or imagined—can seriously undermine diplomatic credibility.
A former senior Sri Lankan civil servant put it bluntly:
“If Parliament sacks its Deputy Secretary General for non-disclosure, but a foreign mission retains a political adviser amid unresolved disclosure concerns, it sends a damaging signal. It looks like standards apply only to locals.”
Disclosure Is Not Guilt—But It Is an Obligation
At the heart of the issue lies a simple distinction that is often blurred:
disclosure is not an admission of guilt.
No serious observer suggests that individuals should be penalised for the actions of relatives. However, in sensitive roles—particularly those involving political analysis, influence, and confidential engagement—full disclosure allows institutions to assess risk, perception, and suitability.
The Parliament of Sri Lanka concluded that failure to disclose alone was sufficient to justify removal. That conclusion now stands as a benchmark.
The British High Commission’s Dilemma
The British High Commission now faces a choice:
-
Ignore the issue, and risk ongoing reputational erosion and accusations of hypocrisy; or
-
Clarify the record, either by confirming disclosure was made and assessed, or by explaining why the circumstances were deemed immaterial.
Silence, in this context, is not neutral. It fuels speculation, particularly in a political environment already deeply sceptical of elite immunity and selective accountability.
Standards Must Travel Both Ways
Sri Lanka’s struggle with corruption has long been exacerbated by double standards—one rule for the powerful, another for the rest. Foreign missions have rightly criticised this pattern.
But credibility demands consistency.
If non-disclosure is grounds for dismissal in Sri Lanka’s Parliament, it is reasonable for Sri Lankan citizens and political actors to ask whether similar ethical thresholds apply to foreign advisers operating at the heart of Colombo’s political ecosystem.
This is not a demand for scapegoating. It is a demand for transparency, consistency, and institutional integrity—values that diplomatic missions themselves claim to champion.
Until those questions are answered clearly, the controversy will not fade. It will deepen—quietly, persistently, and to the detriment of trust on all sides.