\n
This ruling sent shockwaves through Sri Lanka’s legal, financial, and civil society communities. It raises urgent questions: Does the public have a right to see how their retirement savings are being managed? Or does financial secrecy actually protect<\/em> those savings? The answer, it turns out, is complicated \u2014 and it matters to every Sri Lankan worker.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Background: What Is the EPF, and Why Does It Matter?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Before we dive into the legal drama, let us understand what is actually at stake.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Employees’ Provident Fund is Sri Lanka’s largest retirement savings scheme. It holds the contributions of millions of private sector workers across the country. Every month, employees and their employers contribute a percentage of wages into this fund. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka manages it. The fund invests heavily in government securities \u2014 bonds and treasury bills \u2014 to generate returns.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
When those investments do well, workers’ retirement savings grow. When they do poorly \u2014 or when allegations of mismanagement arise \u2014 millions of ordinary Sri Lankans suffer. That is why watchdog organizations started asking hard questions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Case That Started It All: Verit\u00e9 Research Goes to Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The case originated from requests filed by Verit\u00e9 Research (Pvt.) Ltd in May 2017, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, seeking a range of information from departments of the Central Bank, including the Employees’ Provident Fund Department and the Public Debt Department.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Verit\u00e9 Research is a respected Colombo-based think tank known for evidence-based policy analysis. They wanted specific EPF investment data \u2014 not vague summaries, but real transaction-level details. They asked for purchase dates of government securities, the yields earned, the prices paid, and the names of counterparties involved in each deal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Why did they want this? Because understanding those details allows analysts to judge whether the EPF was getting good value for workers’ money, or whether politically connected dealers were benefiting at the fund’s expense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
While part of the request submitted to the Public Debt Department was resolved prior to adjudication, the EPF-related request remained disputed. In June 2017, the Central Bank, through its Information Officer, agreed to release certain information but declined to disclose other items, citing statutory exemptions. In particular, the Monetary Board stated that it could only provide a list of EPF investments as at December 31, 2016, noting that more recent data was provisional and subject to audit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Central Bank drew a clear line. General information? Fine. Transaction-by-transaction details? Absolutely not.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The RTI Commission Steps In \u2014 And Sides With Transparency<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Verit\u00e9 Research did not give up. They appealed internally to the Central Bank’s Governor under Section 31 of the RTI Act. The Governor rejected the appeal in September 2017. Verit\u00e9 then escalated to Sri Lanka’s independent RTI Commission under Section 32 of the Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
In November 2018, the RTI Commission delivered what many transparency advocates celebrated as a landmark win. The RTI Commission held that several exemptions cited by the Monetary Board \u2014 including Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d), 5(1)(h), and 5(1)(i) \u2014 were not applicable, and directed the disclosure of specified details relating to Item No. 6, particularly for the years 2015 and 2016.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Commission essentially told the Central Bank: your secrecy claims do not hold water. The public interest in knowing how public funds are invested outweighs your concerns. Hand over the data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
For a brief moment, it looked like transparency had won.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Central Bank Fights Back \u2014 And Wins Big<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The Central Bank did not accept the Commission’s ruling quietly. It took the case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the RTI Commission had overstepped its legal authority.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Years passed. Then, this week, the Court of Appeal delivered its answer \u2014 and it was decisive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
A bench comprising Justice R. Gurusinghe and Justice M.C.B.S. Morais held that the Commission erred in concluding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the potential harm arising from releasing the requested information. The bench emphasised that the information sought in this case fell squarely within the exemption provided under Section 5(1)(d) and therefore could not be ordered to be disclosed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Section 5(1)(d) of the RTI Act protects commercially confidential information where disclosure would harm a third party. The court decided that EPF transaction data clearly falls into this protected category.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Why Did the Court Say No? The Three Core Reasons<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The court’s reasoning went beyond simply citing a legal section. The judges explained why<\/em> protecting this specific information serves a legitimate purpose.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Reason One: Market Manipulation Risk<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The Court observed that releasing EPF transaction details could expose the fund’s investment strategies, enabling market participants to anticipate and outmanoeuvre its bids in Government securities auctions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Think of it like a poker game. If other players can see your cards, you lose every hand. The EPF participates in government securities auctions with hundreds of billions of rupees. If traders know in advance what prices and yields the EPF targets, they can adjust their bids to exploit the fund. Workers’ returns shrink. Dealers profit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Reason Two: Harm to Millions of Contributors<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The Court noted that this would place the EPF at a competitive disadvantage and potentially reduce returns, ultimately affecting millions of contributors to the Fund.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
This is not abstract legal theory. It directly affects every private sector worker in Sri Lanka who depends on the EPF for retirement security.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Reason Three: Existing Oversight Is Already There<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The court also noted something important: the EPF does not operate in complete darkness. Transparency in EPF operations is already ensured through statutory mechanisms, including annual reporting, audits by the Auditor General, and parliamentary oversight.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
In other words, accountability exists \u2014 just not at the granular transaction level that Verit\u00e9 Research requested.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The RTI Commission Exceeded Its Powers \u2014 A Stunning Legal Finding<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Perhaps the most legally significant part of the ruling was the court’s finding about the RTI Commission itself.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The court observed that while the RTI Commission is empowered to direct public authorities to disclose information, such authority is subject to the limitations set out in Section 5 of the RTI Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The court went further. It found that the Commission did not just make a wrong decision \u2014 it acted outside its legal boundaries entirely.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Court held that the RTI Commission had exceeded its powers by ordering disclosure in circumstances where a valid statutory exemption applied. The Commission’s order dated 27th November 2018 was accordingly set aside, and the appeal was allowed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
This is a significant constitutional point. Independent commissions in Sri Lanka hold important powers, but those powers have limits. The court ruled that when Parliament creates a clear statutory exemption under the RTI Act, no commission \u2014 however well-intentioned \u2014 can simply override it in the name of public interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
What Does This Mean for Sri Lanka’s Right to Information?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Here is where the ruling gets genuinely controversial \u2014 and where thoughtful Sri Lankans will disagree.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The RTI Act, passed in 2016, was hailed as a democratic milestone. It gave citizens the legal right to demand information from government bodies. It created an independent commission to enforce that right. Transparency advocates celebrated it as a tool to fight corruption, hold institutions accountable, and empower ordinary people.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The judgment affirms that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, commercially sensitive financial information held by public authorities may be lawfully withheld where disclosure would harm competitive interests and no overriding public interest is established.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Supporters of the ruling argue this is sensible. Not every piece of government data can be made public. A country’s central bank managing a national retirement fund needs operational secrecy to function effectively in financial markets, just as any professional investor does.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Critics, however, worry about a different outcome. They argue that secrecy around EPF investments has historically shielded mismanagement and corruption. They point to past allegations that EPF funds were invested in overpriced bonds benefiting politically connected dealers \u2014 allegations that detailed transaction data could have exposed or disproved. Without access to that data, accountability becomes nearly impossible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The court did not resolve this tension. It simply drew a legal line and said: this data is protected by law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Bigger Picture: Transparency vs. Financial Security<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
This case sits at the heart of a debate every democracy faces. How much transparency is too much? And when does transparency itself create harm?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
In financial markets, information is power. Public pension funds worldwide grapple with this question. In the United States, for example, state pension funds typically disclose investment holdings but often with a significant time delay \u2014 allowing them to complete transactions before revealing their positions. That balance protects both transparency and competitive advantage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Sri Lanka’s court has now effectively told the Central Bank that it can operate more like a private fund manager when it comes to transaction-level secrecy \u2014 at least until Parliament decides otherwise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Whether that protects millions of workers or shields the fund from legitimate public scrutiny remains an open and urgent question. Both things can be true simultaneously. The EPF needs some operational secrecy to function effectively. And Sri Lankan workers deserve robust independent oversight of how their savings are managed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
What Happens Next?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The ruling closes one chapter but opens others.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Verit\u00e9 Research and other transparency advocates may push for legislative reform \u2014 seeking amendments to the RTI Act that create clearer, time-bound disclosure requirements for public funds. Parliament could also strengthen the Auditor General’s mandate or create a dedicated independent EPF oversight body with full access to transaction data, even if that data remains confidential from the general public.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Central Bank, for its part, should recognize that winning in court is not the same as winning public trust. Millions of Sri Lankan workers deserve confidence that their retirement savings are being managed with integrity. Proactive, meaningful disclosure \u2014 even if not at the granular level Verit\u00e9 requested \u2014 would go a long way toward building that confidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Bottom Line<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
The Court of Appeal has handed the Central Bank of Sri Lanka a clear legal victory. Transaction-level EPF investment data stays secret \u2014 for now. The RTI Commission overstepped its powers, and the law protects commercially sensitive financial information from forced disclosure when no overriding public interest is proven.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
But this ruling is not the end of the conversation. It is a signal that Sri Lanka urgently needs a mature, nuanced framework for financial transparency \u2014 one that gives workers real assurance their savings are safe, without handing market competitors a roadmap to exploit the country’s largest pension fund.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The workers whose salaries feed the EPF deserve nothing less.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\u2753 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Q1. What was the Court of Appeal ruling on the EPF RTI case in Sri Lanka?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
A:<\/strong> The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, overturning a 2018 RTI Commission order that had directed the Central Bank to disclose detailed transaction-level information about Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) investments. The court held that such information falls under Section 5(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, which protects commercially sensitive financial data from public disclosure. The judgment was delivered by Justice R. Gurusinghe and Justice M.C.B.S. Morais.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Q2. Why did the Central Bank of Sri Lanka refuse to disclose EPF investment details?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
A:<\/strong> The Central Bank refused to release detailed EPF transaction data \u2014 including purchase dates, yields, prices, and counterparty names \u2014 arguing that disclosing such information would expose the fund’s investment strategies to market participants. The Bank warned that competitors could use this data to anticipate and outmanoeuvre EPF bids in government securities auctions, ultimately reducing returns for millions of Sri Lankan workers who depend on the fund for retirement savings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Q3. What is the Right to Information Act and how does it apply to this case?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
A:<\/strong> The Right to Information (RTI) Act No. 12 of 2016 is a Sri Lankan law that gives every citizen the legal right to request information held by government and public authorities. However, the Act also contains exemptions under Section 5 that protect certain categories of sensitive information from mandatory disclosure. In this case, the Court of Appeal ruled that EPF transaction data clearly falls within the Section 5(1)(d) exemption covering commercially confidential information, meaning the RTI Commission had no legal authority to order its release.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Q4. Who is Verit\u00e9 Research and why did they request EPF information?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
A:<\/strong> Verit\u00e9 Research is a leading Colombo-based independent think tank that conducts evidence-based policy research and analysis in Sri Lanka. In May 2017, they filed RTI requests seeking detailed EPF investment data to assess whether the fund was generating fair returns for workers and whether its investment decisions were free from political interference or mismanagement. Their case became a landmark legal battle that tested the boundaries of Sri Lanka’s transparency laws against the financial secrecy claims of public institutions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Q5. Does this ruling mean the EPF operates with zero accountability or oversight?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
A:<\/strong> No. The Court of Appeal specifically noted that the EPF does not operate without accountability. Existing oversight mechanisms include annual reports published by the Central Bank, independent audits conducted by the Auditor General of Sri Lanka, and parliamentary oversight processes. However, the ruling does mean that granular transaction-level investment details \u2014 such as specific bond purchases, yields, and dealer names \u2014 remain legally protected from public disclosure under the RTI Act, unless Parliament amends the law to require greater financial transparency for public pension funds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Court blocks EPF secrets: Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal rules Central Bank can legally withhold retirement fund investment details. What this means for YOU. A landmark Court of Appeal… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4885,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"no","rop_publish_now_accounts":{"twitter_205606689_205606689":""},"rop_publish_now_history":[{"account":"twitter_205606689_205606689","service":"twitter","timestamp":1774722430,"status":"error"}],"rop_publish_now_status":"done","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,16,13],"tags":[5080,5076,5077,5078,5075,5083,5079,5084,5082,5081],"class_list":["post-4884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-local","category-local-home","category-main-story","tag-cbsl-monetary-board-court-ruling","tag-central-bank-sri-lanka-epf-transparency","tag-court-of-appeal-sri-lanka-2025","tag-epf-investment-secrecy-sri-lanka","tag-epf-sri-lanka-rti-ruling","tag-epf-workers-rights-sri-lanka","tag-right-to-information-act-sri-lanka","tag-sri-lanka-financial-transparency-law","tag-sri-lanka-retirement-fund-controversy","tag-verite-research-epf-case"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4884"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4884\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4887,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4884\/revisions\/4887"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4885"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceylondailynews.lk\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}