Why Is ACJU So Close to Namal Rajapaksa? Sri Lankan Muslims Demand Answers
For decades, the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU) has projected itself as the supreme religious authority of Sri Lankan Muslims. It claims moral leadership, theological legitimacy, and social influence over millions of believers. Yet today, for perhaps the first time in its modern history, the organisation faces a deep crisis of credibility from within its own community.
That crisis intensified recently when ACJU invited SLPP parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa to a major religious event in Tihariya. The optics were impossible to ignore. A religious body representing Muslims was openly embracing a political figure whose family presided over one of the most hostile periods in recent Muslim history.
For many Sri Lankan Muslims, this was not reconciliation. It was betrayal.
The Memory of Forced Cremations
The Rajapaksa era, particularly under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, will forever be remembered by Muslims for the policy of forced cremation of COVID-19 victims. More than 300 Muslim families were denied their final religious rites. Their loved ones were cremated against Islamic belief, despite international condemnation and medical evidence.
That policy was not an accident. It was the product of a climate of anti-Muslim sentiment cultivated under the SLPP government.
During the same period, fabricated narratives were promoted—claiming that Muslims were “forcing” Sinhalese to eat halal food, that Islamic institutions were “threats” to national security, and that Muslim identity itself was suspect. These stories were amplified by political actors aligned with the Rajapaksas.
It was this toxic atmosphere that eventually contributed to mass protests in 2022, in which Muslims played a decisive role. Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country amid public fury.
Against this background, ACJU’s cordial engagement with Namal Rajapaksa appears deeply tone-deaf.
A Leadership Without Rotation
At the heart of the controversy lies the question of leadership.
Rizvi Mufti has remained at the helm of ACJU for an unusually long period. There has been little visible leadership rotation, limited internal democracy, and almost no public accountability.
In most modern religious institutions, leadership renewal is essential to prevent stagnation and concentration of power. Yet ACJU continues to function as a closed circle.
Many Muslims now openly ask: Why is one group allowed to dominate indefinitely? Who oversees them? Who holds them accountable?
Where Are the Audits?
ACJU is registered as a charitable organisation. By law and by ethical obligation, such bodies must maintain transparent accounts.
Yet ACJU has never published comprehensive, independently audited financial statements for public scrutiny.
This raises uncomfortable questions:
-
How much money is collected annually?
-
How is it spent?
-
Who authorises expenditures?
-
Are office-bearers drawing allowances or benefits?
-
Are donations used strictly for religious and social welfare purposes?
Particularly sensitive is the issue of halal certification.
ACJU controls halal certification in Sri Lanka. Thousands of businesses rely on it. Yet there is little public information on:
-
How many certificates are issued,
-
What fees are charged,
-
How revenue is managed,
-
Whether there is independent oversight.
In any other sector, such monopoly power would demand strict regulation. In ACJU’s case, it operates largely in the shadows.
Sharia Advisory and Compliance
ACJU also advises on Islamic banking, finance, and personal law matters. These areas involve large sums of money and serious legal implications.
Yet there is no publicly available compliance framework, no published due diligence reports, and no independent supervisory mechanism.
For an institution wielding such influence, this lack of transparency is alarming.
From Religion to Politics
Traditionally, Sri Lankan Islam evolved through coexistence, moderation, and cultural integration. Muslims lived alongside Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians in relative harmony.
In recent years, however, critics argue that ACJU leadership has encouraged a more rigid, conservative interpretation of Islam—imported from abroad and disconnected from local traditions.
This shift has coincided with greater political involvement.
The Easter Sunday Commission episode, where Rizvi Mufti appeared with trays of wattalappam, became symbolic of this confusion between seriousness and spectacle. Many felt it trivialised a national tragedy.
More broadly, ACJU increasingly intervenes in public policy—most notably in debates over the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act—without broad consultation among Muslims themselves.
Decisions affecting millions are taken by a handful.
The Politics of Conflict
A growing section of Muslims believes that ACJU thrives during communal tension.
When Muslims feel threatened, they turn to religious authorities for protection. This increases ACJU’s influence, fundraising capacity, and political relevance.
Some therefore question whether ACJU has an incentive—consciously or unconsciously—to maintain a climate of insecurity.
Its proximity to controversial political actors raises further suspicions.
Is ACJU being influenced by external political interests?
Is it aligning itself strategically for protection?
Or is it attempting to play both sides of Sri Lanka’s polarised politics?
No clear answers have been given.
Diaspora Funds and Reconstruction
After the 2019 Easter attacks and subsequent unrest, ACJU collected large sums from the Muslim diaspora for reconstruction and community support.
To date, there has been no detailed public accounting of how these funds were used.
Calls are growing for:
-
Independent audits,
-
Publication of project reports,
-
Verification of beneficiaries.
Transparency is not hostility. It is trust-building.
Poverty, Education, and Neglect
While ACJU leadership enjoys prestige and influence, many ordinary Muslims face worsening poverty.
Madrasas and Islamic schools remain underfunded and poorly regulated. Youth unemployment is high. Educational outcomes are uneven.
Critics argue that ACJU has focused more on symbolic authority than practical upliftment.
Religious leadership without social responsibility is hollow.
Time for Regulation
The central question now confronting Sri Lankan Muslims is simple:
Is ACJU still fit for purpose?
If it is a religious body, it must remain transparent, accountable, and representative.
If it functions as a political actor, then it must be regulated like one.
Government oversight of charitable finances is not persecution. It is standard governance. Independent audits, compliance reviews, and public reporting should be mandatory.
No institution should be above scrutiny.
A Call for Reform
The anger directed at ACJU today does not come from outsiders. It comes from Muslims who care about their faith, their community, and their future.
They are not rejecting religion.
They are rejecting unaccountable power.
They want:
-
Democratic leadership,
-
Financial transparency,
-
Community consultation,
-
Ethical political engagement.
Until ACJU addresses these demands honestly, its relationship with figures like Namal Rajapaksa will only deepen mistrust.
Religious authority cannot survive on symbolism alone. It must be earned—through integrity, humility, and service.
The time for reform is no longer optional. It is overdue.