Who Really Holds Sri Lanka’s Alcohol Import Licences?

Questions raised over licences issued during the Mangala Samaraweera era — and whether licence holders are the real beneficiaries

COLOMBO — Questions are increasingly being raised about the system under which licences and approvals were issued for the importation of alcoholic beverages into Sri Lanka, particularly during the period when the late Mangala Samaraweera held senior responsibility for the Finance Ministry.

The issue now facing the National People’s Power (NPP) Government is straightforward but potentially far-reaching:

Who was granted licences to import alcohol, when were those licences granted, and were the named licence holders actually operating the businesses involved?

Sri Lanka’s existing regulatory framework confirms that alcohol and spirits are among the commodities subject to import-control licensing. The Sri Lanka Trade Information Portal states that an import-control licence is required for alcohol and spirits under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.

The Excise Department also confirms that it is responsible for licensing and regulating liquor manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and other businesses involved in the liquor trade.

That makes the ownership and operation of these licences a legitimate matter of public interest.

The Ruwan Ferdinandez question

One name that should be examined as part of any comprehensive investigation is Ruwan Ferdinandez, who has been described publicly as having close connections with Mangala Samaraweera.

The important point is not whether someone was personally acquainted with a former Finance Minister. Personal relationships, by themselves, establish no wrongdoing.

The question is whether Ruwan , or companies connected to him, was ever granted an alcohol-import licence or related regulatory approval during the relevant period — and, if so, whether he was the genuine operator and economic beneficiary of the business.

That can be answered only by examining the official records.

The Government should therefore publish, subject to applicable legal restrictions:

• the names of alcohol-import licence holders;
• the dates on which licences were issued;
• the companies associated with each licence;
• the directors and shareholders of those companies;
• the beneficial owners where legally required;
• the quantities and values of alcohol imported;
• the countries from which the products were imported;
• customs declarations and relevant tax records;
• the officials who recommended or approved the licences; and
• any subsequent transfers, changes in ownership or changes in control.

Such an exercise would replace political speculation with documentary evidence.

Is the licence holder actually running the business?

This is perhaps the most important question.

A licence may be registered in one person's name while the commercial operation is allegedly conducted by another party. If that occurred, investigators would need to determine why.

Was the named licence holder genuinely investing capital, purchasing the goods, receiving the profits and carrying the commercial risk?

Or was the individual merely the nominal licence holder, while another person or company financed and controlled the operation?

The distinction is critical.

A person acting as a genuine businessman under a valid licence is entirely different from a person allegedly lending his or her name to conceal the identity of the real owner or controller.

The Government therefore needs to establish the beneficial ownership and actual control behind every alcohol-import licence that raises questions.

A question for CIABOC

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) now has a strengthened statutory framework under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. The Commission says its mandate was expanded to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of bribery and corruption.

The Anti-Corruption Act also provides for preliminary inquiries following information or complaints where an alleged act may disclose an offence.

Accordingly, if credible evidence exists that a public official improperly influenced the granting of an alcohol-import licence, investigators should establish:

Who recommended the licence?
Who approved it?
What criteria were applied?
Were those criteria applied consistently to competing applicants?
Was there any political intervention?
And did anyone connected to the decision subsequently benefit financially?

These are proper investigative questions, not conclusions of guilt.

The money-laundering question

There is also a separate financial-crime issue.

It would be wrong to automatically describe the use of a nominee or proxy arrangement as money laundering. Money laundering requires the statutory elements of the relevant offence to be established.

However, if investigators discovered that a person was deliberately used to conceal the true ownership, control or origin of criminal proceeds, that could potentially raise issues under Sri Lanka's financial-crime legislation.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006 remains part of Sri Lanka's anti-money-laundering framework, alongside the Financial Transactions Reporting Act. CIABOC itself lists both Acts among Sri Lanka's relevant legislation.

Therefore, the appropriate approach is not to declare that a particular individual has committed money laundering, but to ask whether the underlying transactions warrant examination by the relevant investigative authorities.

Why should the NPP Government investigate?

The NPP Government has repeatedly presented itself as a government committed to transparency, accountability and dismantling networks of political privilege.

If that commitment is to be credible, the investigation cannot stop with individuals associated with previous governments.

The same standards must apply to everyone — politicians, businessmen, media figures, former officials and their associates.

If the licences were issued lawfully, the investigation should establish that fact.

If the licence holders were genuine business operators, the records should demonstrate it.

If licences were transferred or commercially exploited in accordance with the law, that should also be established.

But if documentary evidence reveals politically connected nominees, undisclosed beneficial owners, preferential treatment, irregular approvals or unexplained financial arrangements, then the public deserves to know.

The records should speak

The strongest investigation would therefore begin not with political accusations but with the official files.

The Finance Ministry, Department of Import and Export Control, Excise Department, Sri Lanka Customs, Registrar of Companies and relevant financial-intelligence authorities should be asked to examine the complete chain of transactions.

The central question is simple:

Who received the licence, who actually controlled the business, who supplied the capital, who imported the alcohol, who received the profits and who authorised the arrangement?

If Ruwan Ferdinando was never an alcohol-import licence holder, the records should establish that clearly.

If he was a licence holder, the Government should disclose the relevant regulatory history, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements.

And if companies connected with him or other politically connected individuals benefited from licences granted during the relevant period, the public interest requires a transparent examination of how those licences were obtained and operated.

Sri Lanka has spent decades confronting allegations that political connections can provide access to valuable economic privileges.

The NPP Government now has an opportunity to demonstrate that the rules have changed.