27/02/2026 marks eleven years since the Central Bank bond controversy first erupted into public view. Eleven years since trust was shaken. Eleven years since numbers were cited, reports were tabled, responsibility debated and outrage promised to be converted into action.
And yet — here we are.
The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) examined the matter in depth. It recorded findings. It assigned responsibility in various respects. It recommended action. Names were discussed. Figures were quoted. Losses were debated in the public domain. The political class assured the nation that accountability would follow.
What followed instead was delay.
It must be stated clearly and carefully: allegations are not convictions. Commissions do not replace courts. Due process is not optional. But neither is political will.
When a matter of such magnitude lingers for over a decade without final closure — without a clear judicial endpoint that satisfies the public conscience — something deeper is wrong.
Watergate was a burglary. Within two years, the investigation ran its course. Individuals were prosecuted. Political consequences followed. A sitting President resigned under threat of impeachment. The legal system moved. The political system responded. History recorded closure.
Sri Lanka’s bond scandal — whatever terminology one prefers — was not a minor administrative lapse. It was a defining governance crisis that shook the Central Bank itself. It eroded confidence in financial stewardship. It fractured political alliances. It became shorthand for cronyism, insider advantage and systemic weakness.
And yet, eleven years on, the public still asks: where is the line drawn?
Where is the legal full stop? Why is the apparent Cover Up still not unshackled?
This is not an attack on any one party. It is not the property of one administration. It spans governments, oppositions, alliances, defections and rebrandings. Those who held office. Those who still hold office. Those who sought office and were defeated. The entire political class stands within the shadow of this unfinished chapter.
The people were told that accountability would be swift. That reform would be structural. That lessons would be learned. Instead, the story has drifted through investigative stages, institutional reshuffles and political transitions.
The shame does not lie in the existence of an investigation. It lies in the absence of visible finality.
Sri Lanka deserves legal closure — whether that results in convictions, acquittals or exonerations. The public deserves a conclusion grounded in evidence and adjudicated by courts of law, not perpetual insinuation.
Eleven years is not a procedural delay. It is a generational pause.
Confidence in institutions cannot be rebuilt while foundational controversies remain unresolved. Financial governance cannot regain credibility while the most prominent case in modern Central Bank history hangs unfinished.
This is not about vengeance. It is about institutional integrity.
If wrongdoing occurred, it must be proven and punished according to law. If wrongdoing cannot be proven, that too must be declared decisively.
Ambiguity serves no one — except those comfortable in grey zones.
The shame today is collective. It belongs to a political culture that has not demonstrated the urgency required to draw a firm legal boundary under one of the most bitter financial episodes in recent memory.
The people are watching.
They are not asking for theatre. They are asking for closure. Eleven years. Enough.
