By Rusiripala Tennakoon –
Rusiripala Tennakoon
Recent newspaper reports titled “Court dismisses People’s Bank appeal on RTI disclosure” reveal an important and troubling pattern in the conduct of public institutions.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by People’s Bank, thereby affirming a directive issued by the Right to Information Commission requiring the Bank to release information sought by a customer under the Right to Information Act, subject to lawful redaction.
The Bank had resisted disclosure on the ground that the requested material could contain third-party information. However, the Court noted that the Bank had failed to satisfactorily explain why severability was not possible, despite repeated requests by the RTI Commission to do so. This failure proved decisive.
A recurring pattern of evasion
This judgment exposes a broader malaise: the systematic reluctance of public institutions—especially State-owned banks—to disclose information when such disclosure is inconvenient.
Institutions vested with autonomy frequently use that very autonomy to:
* Retain expensive external legal counsel at public expense
* Prolong litigation unnecessarily
* Deter citizens through cost asymmetry
While the institution bears no personal consequence, the ordinary citizen—often the RTI applicant—faces financial and emotional exhaustion. Justice, in such circumstances, becomes unequal.
RTI experience from within the system
In one instance, the writer sought disclosure under RTI of aggregate payments made to contract-based special recruits in a State bank—figures involving unusually high remuneration and perks inconsistent with public-sector norms.
The request was resisted for nearly two years on the claim of “personal information”, even refusing to disclose total sums without identifying individuals. When the RTI Commission finally ordered disclosure, the Bank complied in bad faith—by releasing illegible printouts, rendering the information unusable.
Such conduct is unbecoming of public institutions accountable to citizens.
Litigation as intimidation
In another episode, the Bank initiated multiple defamation actions claiming exorbitant damages against individuals, newspapers, and trade unions for publicly questioning a flawed digitalisation project involving billions of rupees in public funds.
Senior and highly paid counsel were retained. Yet when the matter gained parliamentary attention, all cases were quietly withdrawn on undisclosed terms. To date, the public remains uninformed of the legal costs incurred in this futile exercise.
The issue later came before the Committee on Public Enterprises, where those responsible were reprimanded. Notably, the then Chairman admitted that the Board had been misled by officials and that a project initially estimated at Rs. 600–700 million had exceeded Rs. 1 billion.
No penalties. No recoveries. Losses simply absorbed.
Autonomy without accountability
A similar pattern emerges in labour matters. When a pensioners’ association pursued relief before a Labour Tribunal, the Bank again deployed costly external counsel to challenge even the locus standi of pensioners. Though the Tribunal ruled in their favour, the Bank appealed—forcing financially constrained retirees into submission after years of delay.
This raises a fundamental question:
How does a bank fully capitalised by the Treasury escape scrutiny, despite Treasury representation on its Board?
Lessons from history ignored
The problem is not new. The oil hedging losses incurred by People’s Bank—exceeding Rs. 4 billion—were written off after years of delay. Earlier still, history records how governance failures led to the near insolvency of public banks in 1991, following a World Bank-led audit that exposed severe non-compliance with prudential norms, including what later came to be formalised under the Basel Accords.
An urgent policy wake-up call
The refusal of public banks to honour transparency obligations—especially under RTI—should serve as an urgent warning to policymakers.
Banks are among the most heavily regulated institutions, overseen by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and governed by statute. Autonomy was never intended to become a shield for arbitrariness, opacity, or institutional arrogance.
If left unchecked, history shows where such derelictions lead.
Transparency is not a concession.
It is a public duty.
