By Ceylon Signal 
Colombo | 20 August 2026 — The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has been formally asked to investigate two matters concerning Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, following a detailed request submitted by Fair Comment, an independent investigative journalism programme headquartered in the United Kingdom and Montenegro.
In a letter dated 19 August 2026, Editor Jezeem Jameel urged CIABOC to establish the facts surrounding the acquisition of a high‑value apartment by a close relative of the Chief Justice, and the handling of vehicle import permit entitlements that may have been issued to him as a senior public officer.
“We make no allegation of guilt. We set out two matters of concern… and respectfully ask the Commission to establish the facts,” the letter states.
High‑Value Apartment Transfer Raises Questions
The first matter concerns the transfer of Apartment 6, 12th Floor, 64 Ward Place, Colombo 07, part of the luxury development The Grand. According to the letter, the property was transferred by its previous owner, Nihal Hettiarachchi, to a close relative of the Chief Justice.
Units in the development have been publicly advertised at around Rs. 185 million, prompting Fair Comment to question whether the acquisition aligns with the lawful and declared income of the individuals involved.
“Our concern is solely whether the acquisition of an asset of this value is consistent with the lawful and declared income… a question we are not in a position to answer,” the letter notes.
Fair Comment has asked CIABOC to obtain the registered title and transfer details from the Land Registry and determine whether the purchase is financially consistent with declared income under the Anti‑Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.
Vehicle Permit Entitlement and Asset Declaration
The second matter relates to the Chief Justice’s declaration of assets and liabilities dated 4 June 2025, which records that the only motor vehicle he has purchased was acquired in 2013.
Fair Comment notes that a public officer of his seniority would ordinarily have been entitled to multiple concessionary vehicle import permits over the years. The organisation says it has received information suggesting that a permit entitlement may have been transferred to a third party, contrary to the purpose of the Treasury’s concessionary scheme.
“A concessionary vehicle permit is a personal entitlement… and is not issued to be sold or traded; its sale or monetisation would be contrary to the terms and purpose of the scheme,” the letter states.
The organisation has requested CIABOC to determine:
whether the Chief Justice received any vehicle permits since 2013,
what became of each permit,
whether any permit was sold or transferred, and
whether all entitlements and proceeds were fully declared under Part II of the Anti‑Corruption Act.
No Response From Chief Justice
Before approaching CIABOC, Fair Comment wrote confidentially to the Chief Justice through the Supreme Court Registry seeking comment or clarification. According to the letter, no response was received.
“We record this only for completeness, and draw no inference from it; no person is under any obligation to respond to the press.”
Call for Authoritative Determination
Fair Comment argues that public confidence in the judiciary is under strain amid widespread speculation on social media. The organisation says only an authoritative determination by CIABOC—whether confirming or dispelling concerns—can restore trust.
“An environment in which suspicion circulates unchecked and unanswered is itself corrosive of public trust… We bring these matters to the Commission in that spirit.”