The “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” Ghost Fund: Why Has the NPP Government Included Controversial Business Figures?
Is the so-called “Rebuilding Sri Lanka” fund, established by the NPP government following the devastating “Ditwa” cyclone, a legitimate and legally constituted recovery mechanism — or merely a public relations exercise?
This question has gained urgency after a recent Right to Information (RTI) investigation by the BBC Sinhala Service revealed troubling inconsistencies regarding the fund’s legal status, governance, and financial transparency.
BBC RTI Findings Raise Serious Concerns
Journalist Amandika Kuré of the BBC Sinhala Service filed an RTI request on January 23, 2026. The responses received from the Presidential Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance on February 24 exposed several key issues:
-
No clear institutional ownership – The Ministry of Finance stated that the fund does not fall under its purview and instead belongs to the Presidential Secretariat.
-
Fund not yet legally established – The Presidential Secretariat admitted that steps are “being taken” to establish the fund, meaning that even months after its public launch, it has not been legally constituted.
-
No legal framework in place – Although Sri Lanka already has a Disaster Management Act (2005), the government says a new draft bill is being prepared for this fund. Collecting public donations without an enacted legal basis raises serious governance questions.
-
No clarity on auditing mechanisms – Since the fund is not formally established, no clear audit procedure has been defined.
-
Confusion over financial data – While the official website shows billions of rupees collected, RTI responses did not confirm precise figures.
-
Governance contradictions – Earlier media statements referred to a “management committee,” yet RTI replies speak of a “governing board.”
-
Limited powers clarified later – Initial announcements suggested broad authority over fund allocation, but later clarifications reduced their role to providing “strategic guidance” and community engagement.
If the fund is still in the process of being established, why were bank accounts opened and donations collected? Why were prominent business leaders publicly appointed before a clear legal structure was in place?
Why Appoint Controversial Corporate Figures?
The governing board reportedly includes leading corporate executives such as:
-
Mohan Pandithage (Chairman of Hayleys PLC)
-
Krishan Balendra (Chairman of John Keells Holdings)
-
Ashroff Omar (CEO of Brandix)
-
Ishara Nanayakkara (Executive Chairman of LOLC Holdings)
-
Parakrama Dissanayake (Managing Director of Aitken Spence)
Many of these business leaders have previously faced criticism over labor practices, particularly regarding plantation worker wages. Political analysts are now asking:
-
Why would a government elected on a promise of systemic change rely on corporate elites long accused of exploiting labor?
-
Does appointing such figures undermine the NPP’s political identity as a reformist, people-centered movement?
-
How does this align with its anti-corruption narrative?
Leading political commentators argue that the NPP government must safeguard its reformist image by associating with individuals of unquestionable credibility — especially when handling public disaster relief funds.
A Question of Scale and Credibility
According to World Bank estimates, direct physical damage from the “Ditwa” cyclone amounts to approximately $4.1 billion (over Rs. 1.2 trillion). Yet as of February 10, 2026, the official website indicates that only around Rs. 6 billion and $10 million have been raised — less than 1% of the estimated need.
If the amount collected is relatively small compared to reconstruction requirements, why risk reputational damage through opaque structures and controversial appointments?
Echoes of the Past?
Some critics recall the 2004 tsunami-era “Helping Hambantota” controversy involving Mahinda Rajapaksa. While the current situation is not identical — and there is no evidence that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake or his family personally control this fund — the absence of a clear legal and parliamentary framework invites comparison.
As economist Harsha de Silva has pointed out, funds reportedly remain in a Deputy Treasury Secretary account rather than in a properly constituted statutory fund. His warning is blunt: without a legal foundation, one should not even speak of a “Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund.”
The Core Question
A government that came to power promising “system change” must hold itself to a higher standard.
Why create a fund before legally establishing it?
Why announce a powerful management structure and later redefine its authority?
Why appoint corporate figures whose reputations are contested, instead of independent and widely respected public trustees?
The public does not expect ceremonial launches or elite-dominated boards. They expect a transparent, legally grounded, and accountable disaster relief mechanism.
If the NPP government wishes to protect its political identity and credibility, it must ensure that reconstruction efforts are led by individuals whose integrity is beyond question — and that every rupee collected in the name of rebuilding Sri Lanka is managed with full transparency under the law.