Questions Over Vetting and Public Confidence at the British High Commission
The appointment of a political adviser, Insaf Bakir Makkar, to the British High Commission has prompted renewed questions in some political circles about transparency, vetting standards and potential conflicts of interest.
At the centre of the debate are allegations that members of the adviser’s extended family may have been linked, directly or indirectly, to past financial scandals in Sri Lanka, including the long-running controversy surrounding the alleged VAT fraud cases that dominated political headlines in previous decades.
No evidence has publicly emerged showing that the adviser himself was involved in any wrongdoing. Nor has any court found him personally responsible for any financial offence. However, critics argue that where there are family connections to individuals accused, investigated or politically associated with a major corruption scandal, diplomatic institutions must be prepared to answer legitimate public questions.
The issue is not merely one of personal guilt. It is one of perception, public trust and institutional credibility.
Sri Lanka has spent years attempting to rebuild confidence in its anti-corruption framework. Political appointments, business links and family networks have long shaped the country's power structure. Against that background, critics say any individual serving in a politically sensitive diplomatic role should be subject to especially robust vetting.
If a political adviser has close relatives who were investigated, accused or politically exposed in relation to major corruption allegations, the public may reasonably ask whether those connections were disclosed during recruitment and whether the relevant authorities were satisfied there was no conflict of interest.
Such questions are particularly important when the adviser’s role may include reporting on governance, corruption, political accountability and rule of law issues within Sri Lanka.
How, critics ask, can the public have complete confidence in anti-corruption messaging from the British High Commission if there are unresolved questions surrounding the background of one of its own advisers?
The matter also places pressure on the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office in London. British diplomatic missions frequently advocate for transparency, good governance and stronger anti-corruption measures in developing countries. Those standards, some argue, must apply equally within their own institutions.
If allegations exist regarding the relatives of a senior adviser, then the High Commission should be willing to clarify whether appropriate due diligence was carried out, whether any family associations were disclosed, and whether those associations were deemed relevant to the appointment.
Diplomatic credibility depends not only on actual integrity, but on the appearance of integrity.
Sri Lanka’s political history is filled with examples of public institutions losing trust because they failed to address perceived conflicts of interest early enough. Even where no wrongdoing exists, silence can fuel suspicion.
For that reason, observers say the wisest course for the British authorities would be to address the issue directly, explain the recruitment process, and make clear whether any concerns were reviewed before the appointment was approved.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether a person should be judged solely by the actions of relatives. That would be unfair.
The real issue is whether diplomatic institutions that claim to champion accountability are willing to apply the same standards of openness to themselves when difficult questions arise.