Corporate Grip on Rebuild Fund Raises Alarms over Transparency

Sri Lanka’s ambitious Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund, launched to consolidate donor financing and rebuild cyclone-ravaged communities, is already under heavy scrutiny. What was announced as a national, inclusive platform for recovery has shifted into a governance battle over corporate influence, opaque decision-making and inadequate safeguards.

At the centre of the controversy is the 11-member Management Committee, comprised solely of men—most of whom are chairmen, CEOs and senior directors of leading conglomerates.

Their simultaneous roles as custodians of public reconstruction money and heads of companies likely to benefit from reconstruction contracts have triggered conflict-of-interest warnings from economists, legal experts and civil society.

The Fund’s mandate, as published, grants sweeping powers: raising money, prioritising recovery projects, approving disbursements, and designing long-term development interventions.

However the public has been given no clarity on the Fund’s legal structure, whether it is constituted by Act, Gazette or executive authority. This absence of legal grounding, critics argue, exposes billions of rupees to risks of misallocation.

Even more concerning is the lack of a public procurement framework governing how reconstruction tenders will be awarded.

Without transparent criteria, independent audits, or parliamentary reporting obligations, analysts warn the Fund could become a “parallel state” operating beyond normal financial controls. Critics say this opens the door for preferential treatment, insider contracting and politicised resource distribution.

The Fund’s oversight is nominally attached to the National Disaster Management Council, but officials have not clarified whether this oversight is binding or merely advisory. In the absence of detailed rules, watchdog groups warn that supervision may be symbolic.

Civil society groups say the committee’s composition violates basic principles of disaster-governance: diversity, inclusion, technical expertise and community representation.

Entire sectors including women, regional communities, humanitarian experts, environmental specialists and local-level responders are absent from the committee. This, they argue, undermines the Fund’s credibility and threatens reconstruction outcomes.

The appointment of four presidential nominees among the six non-corporate seats further erodes confidence, fueling accusations that the platform has become an extension of executive authority rather than a participatory national recovery mechanism.

The controversy emerges amid a wider pattern. Recent all-male appointments to the Clean Sri Lanka Presidential Task Force and the Archaeological Advisory Committee signal a worrying institutional trend that sidelines women and minority communities.

Analysts warn that Sri Lanka cannot afford another credibility crisis. With expectations that the Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund will grow into a multi-billion-rupee pool attracting foreign contributions, the absence of legal, ethical and procedural safeguards could jeopardise donor confidence and reconstruction timelines.

Civil society groups are urging the government to reconstitute the committee, establish a legally-binding governance structure, and implement strict conflict-of-interest and procurement regulations. Without such reforms, they argue, the Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund risks becoming a symbol of exclusion rather than a vehicle for national recovery