From Panama to Pandora – but never to Hulftsdorp

Despite new laws and action plans, Sri Lanka's response to the Pandora Papers has yielded press releases but no prosecutions - leaving Hulftsdorp absent from the accountability trail

- 

ICIJ's leaks sparked loud announcements, interagency hand-offs and new laws. Four years on, Sri Lanka has asset portals and press releases – but still no public indictments from Pandora. Where, exactly, does this investigation lead?

FOUR years after the ICIJ's Pandora Papers exposed offshore holdings linked to Sri Lankan political figures, the country's legal response remains stalled. While the Anti-Corruption Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the National Anti-Corruption Action Plan (2025-2029) have expanded the formal framework, no indictments or tax outcomes tied to Pandora have been brought before court. The article uses the Lasantha Wickrematunge case to illustrate how prosecutorial volatility erodes public trust and underscores the wider pattern of announcements without enforcement. With a new Chief Justice and sharper statutory tools, the institutional architecture exists; yet outcomes depend on whether charge sheets are filed, defended and seen to conclusion. Unless reforms are tested in open court, Sri Lanka risks repeating the cycle where global leaks produce committees and portals but not convictions, leaving Hulftsdorp absent from the story.

1.Lede - outrage peaks, institutions blink

"First came the Panama Papers then the Pandora Papers," Groundviews warned in December 2021—and, as usual, "after the furore... the charges are all but forgotten."[1] The names were public; deadlines were proclaimed; committees were formed. Yet Hulftsdorp remains conspicuously absent from the story.

2.What Pandora showed - and why it matters