Features

Was Jesus a Peasant?

Published

5 years ago

2020/12/27

by Fr. Dr. Claude J. Perera, omi

Our common knowledge about Jesus belonging to the rural peasantry in Galilee has been challenged by recent archaeological discoveries done in an ancient town, Sepphoris by name. At the very outset, we got to clarify the term ‘Peasant.’ The Cambridge English Dictionary has two definitions to the word ‘Peasant.’

1. “a person who owns or rents a small piece of land and grows crops, keeps animals etc. on it, especially one who has a low income, very little education, and a low social position. This is usually used of someone who lived in the past or of someone in a poor country”:

2. “a person who is not well educated or is rude and does not behave well.”

Does any of these definitions correctly and adequately describe who Jesus was? In trying to answer this question, one first thing we need to examine is what St. Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus was by profession. Was he a peasant? There is no evidence to substantiate an argument to that effect.

Jewish historian Josephus (37/38 – 100 CE) presented Jesus of Nazareth as belonging to an artisan class, but his social class is said to be below peasants (contrary to the general understanding that artisans were above peasants) and was likely illiterate. Jesus’ foster-father Joseph’s occupation (tekt?n in Greek, in Mk 6:3) has been variously rendered as ‘carpenter’ (2 Kgs 22:6); ‘craftsman,’ ‘workman’ (Is 44:12); ‘smith’ (1 Sm 13:19); ‘woodworker’ and ‘stonemason’ (2 Sm 5:11); ‘worker in brass’ (1Kgs 7:2) and ‘unskilled day laborer.’ (Cf. LEH Greek- English Lexicon of the Septuagint). His knowledge and the use of vivid imagery related to rich landowners and masters who had slaves and servants seem to suggest that he was no mere rustic frog in a well. These suggest that he would have been aware of a mixed sociological surrounding. Whether or not artisans were above or below peasants may not be too relevant. Jesus’ occupation may not have much to do with his literacy. But what really matters for his literacy is the place where he lived. If he had lived in a backwater area, then probably he would have been illiterate because he did not come from a wealthy merchant or priestly family whose children alone had the patrimony of education at that time. Education being expensive and rare, it was beyond the reach of artisans and peasants. Such high society did not lived in rustic hamlets, but in cities

Scholars debate as to whether Jesus was literate. Chris Keith in “Jesus and Literacy,” in http://bibleodyssey.com/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/jesus-and-literacy (access 12.11.2020) rules out the possibility of Jesus being literate, whereas Craig A. Evans in Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (SPCK, 2013) pp. 63–88 advances arguments to the contrary. However, there is little evidence to say that Jesus had any formal education. His knowledge of Scripture is most likely resulting from listening regularly to sacred texts and commentaries at the synagogue. Interestingly, the question of Jesus’ education and mentorship was intriguing to Christians in the late second century. During his youth at Nazareth, Jesus would have been an artisan like his foster-father Joseph. But during his public life, Jesus was a teacher, a wise person. He was not an academic, but with the kind of the oral education of a God-fearing and good Jewish family as well as his Jewish home-upbringing in the Nazareth region.

He would have been trilingual, namely, Aramaic, Greek, and the liturgical language of Hebrew. Aramaic was an ancient Semitic language, now mostly extinct, was the language of the Aramaeans from about the late 11th century B.C.E. A version of it is still extant in some Chaldean Christian communities in Iraq and Syria. With trade and military expeditions, Aramaic language had spread in that region by the 7th century B.C.E., and it had become the lingua franca in much of the Middle Orient. In the first century CE, it would have been the most common language of ordinary Jewish people. Most religious scholars and historians agree that historical Jesus and his disciples spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. Hebrew belongs to the same linguistic family as Aramaic. At the time of Jesus, Hebrew was also the language of religious scholars and of Holy Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible almost in its entirety was written in Hebrew, although it contained some small section in Aramaic. The Bible had been already translated into Greek already by the third century BCE.

Together with Aramaic and Hebrew, the colonial languages of Greek and Latin were also common in Jesus’ time. As Alexander the Great invaded Archaemenid Persian Empire and defeated the Persian Emperor Darius III at the battle of Issus in 333 BCE, Greek replaced other languages as the official language of the region by and large. With the Roman conquest of the Greek Empire in 146 BCE, in its Eastern region to which belonged Judea kept Greek as its lingua franca. The use of Latin (the official language of the Roman Empire) was reserved for legal and military matters. According to Jonathan Katz, a Classics lecturer at Oxford University, Jesus’ would have probably known some Greek, as it was a common language of the people with whom he spoke regularly, although most likely he may not have been too proficient. He further says that his knowledge of Latin probably would have been restricted to a few words. For sure, he would not have spoken Arabic since it began to be used in Palestine only after the first century CE. In conclusion, we can say that Jesus’ most common spoken language was Aramaic, but he was still familiar with three or four different tongues even if not fluent, or even proficient.

The apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas written ca 185 CE says that Jesus was not educated in the strict sense of the word, but he excelled much more than his teachers at the synagogue (Chapters 6 -8). However, certain linguistic and rhetorical heritage found in the synoptics as well as in the Fourth Gospel could be explained by the Redaction Critical Approach (Redaktionsgeschichte- ‘Redaction Criticism’) to the gospels, where such sophistications should be understood as the work of evangelists who reworked the oral forms that were circulating in the Apostolic Community (Formgeschichte – ‘Form Criticism’). The sacred authors left their imprints, (i.e. traces of the instrument (by the Instrumental Authors) on their final products (i.e. gospels) which are attributed the Principal Author, God although His Spirit inspired the sacred authors. The language and rhetorical abilities that come to the fore are not from Jesus, but from the evangelist. But the saving message they convey came from Jesus’ wisdom as the Son of God.

Recent discussions of Jesus’ social class locate him within the social structures of Mediterranean society generally, or particularly in the Galilean society of the first century. There seems to be a debate among many contemporary scholars about Jesus as to whether he was really a peasant or someone higher in the socio-economic strata. We know in general he was from the lower class, by the standards of the Roman imperial aristocracy or even of the ruling class of Palestine, the Herodian client kings. He may have been an artisan, but he does not seem to have been a peasant in the strict sense, someone who was working the land for a living. However, he was close to peasant society. The images used in his parables and aphorisms show that he was firmly rooted in peasant society (Mt 13:4-9, 18-32, 44-50; 18:31ff.; 24:32; 25:14ff; Lk 12:24-32; 15:4-7; 21:29-32). But they also call upon images of landowners and bailiffs (Lk 12:13-21; 20:1-16) and relationships between slaves, masters, (Lk 16:13; 19:11-27; Mt 10:24; Jn 8:33) and servants (Lk 16:1-8, 19-31; 18:18-23). So, Jesus knew the social stratification of the time well. He may well have stood in some relationship to it.

Prescinding from settling into the easy answer of resorting to Jesus’ divine omniscience as the source of his knowledge (while not contesting the same in any manner), were there other natural situations that would have made him more literate and having a higher social standing? Our common knowledge about Jesus belonging to the rural peasant in Galilee has been challenged by recent archaeological discoveries done in an ancient town, Sepphoris by name.

Jesus grew up in the bucolic village of Nazareth in the Lower Galilee which would have had a small population of about 100 -200 people. Was Jesus a backwater from a hinterland, totally cut of from the neighbouring urban life? Some fascinating recent archaeological discoveries prevent us from giving an affirmative answer. This archaeological site containing the ruins of the then active ancient city center of Sepphoris is less than four miles from Nazareth. Sepphoris is said to have been the capitol of the Galilee. The name Sepphoris is from Hebrew sipphoris meaning ‘bird.’ For It was called so because it lay on a mountain like a bird perched on it. It was the first capital of Herod Antipas (20 BCE to 39 CE) who was Herod’s son, who succeeded him as the tetrarch, or governor of Galilee and Perea. He changed the city’s new name to Autocratoris, rebuilt it mingling Jewish and Greco-Roman architecture, calling it ‘the jewel/ornament of the Galilee’ because of its beauty and wealth (Josephus, Ant. 18.27). It was the wealthy trade center for the area. Like the splendid City of Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean coast, it had all the attractions of Greco-Roman urban life and functioned as the center of political activity. That explains the excavations at Sepphoris revealing of humongous buildings, theaters, amphitheaters akin to any contemporary city centre. Sepphoris lay on the major land route between Caesarea on the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee. That was the secret of its being a cosmopolitan city. Its inhabitants would have spoken several languages like Aramaic, Greek, Latin, in addition to their liturgical language Hebrew. Market place weights registered in both Aramaic and Greek have been found at the site. Besides, it was possible that they would have managed to communicate with their gentile neighbours in Phoenician and Syrian as various people drew into the cosmopolitan centre for trade and other civic needs. Sepphoris could not have been merely a self-contained city with its administrative institutions, houses, waterworks etc., but it had also satellite settlements around. Nazareth and the cluster villages would have been satellite villages of municipality of Sepphoris, which provided agricultural and other raw materials needed for industries.

However, Jesus has never mentioned the name Sepphoris, although his early life was not far it. He nowhere describes the civic life or archaeological ornamentations of contemporary great cities, except his references to Jerusalem which for Jesus had always a theological significance (Mt 24:1-28; Mk 13:1-23; Lk 21:5-24). The biggest city he seems to have gone during his public life seems to be Jerusalem. According to Luke’s Gospel, his career culminated there, and that with very unfortunate consequences. However, Jesus who inherited a traditional Jewish culture could not have been a stranger to this lively intersection of Greek urban culture at Sepphoris without seeing its sophisticated urban culture. Whether he was influenced by it is a different question and the extent its influence on him is questionable. But surely, he would have been aware of its existence.

Between a peasant artisan and a peasant farmer, the former who has been deprived of his land is said to be lower in the social ladder in a world there was no middle class but only the two classes of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Anthropologists say that being a peasant-artisan was no compliment. In the ancient world, city was in antithesis to village. In Sepphoris, there were aqueducts that brought in water from rural hills to it. The interaction between the city and village was not a happy one. A city had nothing much to give to poor villagers except imposition of taxes, violence, and oppression. Most of the needs of the simple villagers were met within the villages which were self-sufficient units containing their necessities of life.

Whoever Jesus was or to which social category he belonged, synoptic gospels were written to rural audiences. It could be that in the gospels Jesus appears as a rural man speaking to fellow-rural men. Jesus seems to spend his entire public career interacting with Jews in small townships or villages in the Galilee and Judah. Synoptic materials deal with ordinary, day to day, rural experiences and knowledge related to a rural populace. They presume no profound academic knowledge in the Greek sense of the word. The kind of knowledge Jesus had was true to the Hebrew concept of knowledge. For the Hebrews knowing was not something intellectual but an experiential event. Knowledge was intimacy. Knowledge meant being profoundly related. Jesus’ relationship to the Father was one such. It was never an intellectual contemplation of the Father in the Greek sense of the word.

In ancient times, the sharp contrast and social tension between town and country as we have it in our times, did not exist because the villages were often bordering towns. Yet, there was some sharp contrasts in some areas. For example, it was in the cities or the large towns where the big landowners, tax collectors, public officials and judges lived. It was there that the more ostentatious so called ‘Respectable People’ lived. Their ways of life had sharp contrasts between sophistication and simple rustic living. Jesus and his followers were not townsmen. They felt at ease only in a country surrounding.

During His public life, Jesus seems to have avoided Sepphoris and Tiberius, the two substantial settlements or cities in the Galilee. That was not where interests lay or where he felt welcome. He was more at home with villages and the small towns, where the peasants and artisans inhabited. Young Jesus of Nazareth would not have gone to Sepphoris for the purpose of entertainment and pleasure as their only day off was the Sabbath (Saturday) and the pious Jews spent the Sabbath in a very holy manner with prayers and works of piety pleasing to the Lord without breaking the third commandment (Ex 20:8-11). If at all Jesus ever went to Sepphoris, it may have been for the purpose of artisan work which his profession involved. This city was four kilometers away from Nazareth would have been the place where all teenagers would have flocked together for work. This must have been particularly so when Herod Antipas was building that city in 17 CE and later, for maintenance of the same when many technicians and artisans were needed. At that time, Jesus was a teenager and/or youth. Possibly, Jesus had his dealings related to work with this commercial hub, while being a resident in the hamlet of Nazareth. Her may have walked to work from home.

Another fact that supports Jesus’ literacy is speculations about his connection with Joseph of Arimathea. We have no verifiable details about Joseph except that he was quite wealthy. We may presume that he was an elderly man at the time of the crucifixion who had the courage to bury Jesus. Some claim that although Joseph of Arimathea was not one of the twelve, he had an important role. He was a member of the Sanhedrin. He is mentioned in all four gospels (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42). For in Luke and Mark, he was not a disciple of Jesus, but someone who was awaiting the Kingdom of God. As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was aware of the opposition Jesus had from the Jews and we surmise that he did not vote to surrender Jesus to Pilate in view of passing death sentence. For John he was a crypto-Christian. But for Matthew he was already a true disciple. Only Matthew mentions that it was Joseph’s own tomb hewn out of the rock himself. “Only in Matthew is Joseph wealthy (cf. Isa 53:9), which coheres with his owning an expensive tomb, but not with his hewing it out himself. ……… Joseph’s wealthy status also places him in solidarity with (some of) the members of the Matthean Church, themselves more wealthy than average.” (Cf. Eugene Boring, (1995) “The Gospel of Matthew,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press) 494). According to some extra-biblical and legendry claims, Joseph of Arimathea, (known in the later non-biblical tradition as Joseph of Glastonbury) was a paternal uncle of Mary, mother of Jesus as evidenced by the family tree of Jesus traced up to Adam kept in the Herald’s Office at the English College of Arms in London which is also confirmed by the Harley Manuscripts held in the British Museum. A claim is also made that Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant in metals and who eventually took young Jesus with him on his business travels. trips to England, India, and even to South America. Joseph of Arimathea has been called ‘Nobilis Decurio’ or Minister of Mines by the Roman Government. If that were the case, Joseph of Arimathea would be one of the wealthiest of all Judea. It could be that Joseph of Arimathea if he had been a relative of Mary, he would have cared for Mary’s family after St. Joseph’s demise. It may be this kinship that he had to Jesus that would have partially motivated him to bury Jesus.

What can we conclude from this Joseph of Arimathea episode? The idea that Jesus traveled about with him, a fact which may have contributed to his literacy and the knowledge of languages is of legendry origin. If Jesus had sojourned in Europe and in the Orient, with His maternal uncle Joseph of Arimathea, he would have picked up something of the European languages and would have made references to Europe and the Orient in his teachings. Through the trade routes, ideas spread to the Mid-Orient. Those things never entered to his theology and spirituality and so there is absolutely no evidence for a claim that Jesus’ alleged travels influenced him. Furthermore, even if Jesus had associated the upper-class business in Palestine as well abroad, and thereby had become an upper middle-class citizen, all because of Joseph of Arimathea, why did he not own his belonging to that middle class? On the contrary, he only referred to their empty ways of life and those of the rich and spoke of their attachment to wealth which he named ‘the mammon’ (Mt 6:19-21, 24; Lk 16:13). Mammon was a Syrian deity that enslaved people to wealth. Jesus had no allegiance to such wealth or wealthy. Jesus lived an extremely simple life (Mt 8:20-21). In the Lukan Infancy Narrative, the protagonists were all the riff raff of the society (Lk 2:7ff.). He was found fault by the high society of this day for associating the marginalized like the poor, sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes (Lk 4:18; 15:1-2; Mt 21:31-32). Mary’s Magnificat speaks of a reversal of the socio-political order (Lk 1:51-53). It is a non-violent revolution of the change of hearts. When Jesus did not want to count equality with God as something to be held on to but totally emptied himself, would he have ever held on to an upper class? No, not at all. The best way to describe Jesus is that he would have been an artisan of some sort of the lower middle class. But He stood above all such social distinctions. Jesus as the Son of God was classless. For His Kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:36). His struggle was a spiritual transformation of the humanity to make them heaven-ward. But in that heaven-bound journey, basic earthly needs were not ignored. He accepted that people needed to eat and drink etc. (Mt 13:52). Where there were people deprived of life’s necessities, the covenant community was expected to share their resources and provide for the needy (Mt 25:31-46; Act 2:44-45).

Bibliography:

Frontline, “Jesus’ Social Class: Recent Archaeological Findings Challenge the Image of Jesus as a Peasant Preaching in a Pastoral Backwater,” See Harold Attridge, “Now what do you think we can know about Jesus’ social class based on recent evidence and discussions?” L. Michael White, “The Galilee and Sepphoris”; Holland Lee Hendrix, “Not a Humble Carpenter”; John Dominic Crossan, “A Peasant Boy in a Peasant Village”; Shaye I. D. Cohen, “Jesus Avoids Cities”; Paula Fredriksen, “Sepphoris Didn’t Make Much Difference,” and Eric Meyers, “Jesus Probably Trilingual,” Cf. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/socialclass.html (access 05.12.2020).

Aubin, Melissa M. (2000). The Challenging Landscape of Byzantine Sepphoris. ASOR Publications.

Barzilai, Omry; et al. (19 August 2013). “Nahal Zippori, the Eshkol Reservoir – Somekh Reservoir Pipeline,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel. (No. 125).

Chancey, Mark A. (2005). Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee Jesus. Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, S. J. D. (2002). Josephus and Rome: His Vita and Developments as a Historian. Brill: Leiden.

Evans, Craig A. Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. SPCK, 2013, 63–88

Keith, Chris. in “Jesus and Literacy.” in http://bibleodyssey.com/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/jesus-and-literacy (access 12.11.2020).

Miller, Stuart S. (1984). Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Brill: Leiden

Rowan, Yorke M.; Baram U. (2004). Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past Rowman Altamira.

All News Advertisement

Features

Foreign funding and private donations for CIABOC

Published

15 hours ago

2026/05/18

Thilina Walpola

Reform of the Anti-Corruption Act – Part I

The Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) announced last month that amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023 were on the cards so as to restrict public access to the assets and liabilities declarations filed with the Commission. The information, released in 2025, caused profound embarrassment to the present government, but was received very well by the public and any attempt to restrict that information flow at this stage, may prove to be very unpopular.

The popular demand now would be that organisational entities, like political parties and trade unions, also be required to file assets and liabilities declarations with the CIABOC, instead of just the individuals holding positions in such bodies.

Be that as it may, there are some serious issues that need to be rectified in the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023. Foremost among them is Section 31(4) (b) which states that the fund of the CIABOC can receive money “by way of donations, gifts, bequests, or grants from any source whatsoever, whether within or outside Sri Lanka, subject to the approval of the Minister assigned the subject of Finance.”

Those who would be motivated to give gifts and donations to a body like the CIABOC would only be those who want to influence it in some manner to achieve a collateral purpose. While the English version of the Anti-Corruption Act states that the CIABOC can receive such funds “from any source whatsoever whether within or outside Sri Lanka”, the Sinhala version of the Act has sought to disguise that intention by using more opaque wording which goes as: “Sri Lankawa thula ho Sri Lankawen pitatha pihiti yam mulashrayakin”.

The English “any source whatsoever” has been diluted in the Sinhala version by the use of the phrase “yam mulashrayakin” which roughly translates as ‘from a certain source’. When the Sinhala word ‘yam’ is used and nothing more is specified, in practice it becomes “any source whatsoever”! The difference in the way Section 31(4) (b) has been worded in the English and the Sinhala versions of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023 clearly reveals the villainous intention behind this provision.

Giving the Finance Minister a say in approving such donations gives an incumbent Finance Minister undue leverage over the Commission. We must be mindful of the fact that the Finance portfolio has often been held by the President.

The Indian policy

Section 31(6) of the Anti-Corruption Act states that the source and purpose of such foreign and local private donations have to be made public by the Commission, within one month. However, even if funding is received openly, that does not mean that such funding is given without a collateral purpose. Journalists, like Shamindra Ferdinando, and Malinda Seneviratne, have taken up cudgels in the past about foreign interested parties, like USAID openly funding organisations, such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, and certain associations of journalists. Does anyone remember what President Donald Trump said about the activities of USAID? A law enforcement agency, like the CIABOC, should never be left open to the contagion of private funding by local and foreign interested parties.

India imposes strict limitations on all Indian citizens with regard to the receipt of foreign funds under the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act of 2010. These limitations apply to politicians at all levels of government, judges, public servants and even journalists, cartoonists and political activists. The Indian restrictions apply not only to money or property but even to foreign trips and other forms of foreign-funded hospitality.

India would never allow its premier anti-corruption law enforcement body to directly receive funding from abroad or from private donors within India. The Indian anti-corruption body that corresponds to Sri Lanka’s CIABOC is the Central Vigilance Commission of India. Section 13 of the Indian Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 states that all expenses of the Commission will be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. In Sri Lanka, too, all expenses of the CIABOC should be a charge on the Consolidated fund of Sri Lanka.

Because of the enormous power that it wields over the lives of all politicians, public servants, and judicial officers in Sri Lanka, the receipt of foreign funding or private donations by the CIABOC impacts negatively on the national interest and even the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. The power of the CIABOC is such that it’s like the Police Department, Attorney General’s Department, parts of the judiciary and the executive presidency all rolled into one. Sections 32 to 72 of the Anti-Corruption Act outlines the wide ranging powers wielded by the CIABOC.

The CIABOC has complete and total control over their officers and employees. The appointment, salaries, conditions of service, promotion, disciplinary control and dismissal of their employees is handled entirely by the Commission itself. In contrast to this, such matters with regard to the Police, the Attorney General’s Department and the Judiciary are handled by the National Police Commission, the Public service Commission and the Judicial Services Commission, respectively. The checks and balances that apply to other law enforcement entities do not apply to the CIABOC.

The CIABOC can recruit staff from other parts of the public service (which includes the Police Department). However, the police officers taken into the Commission do not function under the IGP but under the authority of the Commission which effectively gives the CIABoC its own police force. Authorised officers of the CIABOC can manhandle and arrest suspects without an order from a Magistrate, enter and search any premises, or vehicle, seize any article deemed necessary for their investigations and use force if necessary in carrying out these functions. They can carry out undercover operations and use bugging devices.

The Commission can summon any person and examine him on oath or affirmation; obtain details of transactions and accounts from banks, obtain information from the Inland Revenue Department, freeze bank accounts, order the Controller of Immigration and Emigration to impound passports. With the sanction of a Magistrate the CIABOC can direct any person to unlock or unencrypt digital devices and intercept messages. Following such investigations, the CIABOC can institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the Magistrate’s Court or the High Court.

Under Sections 67 and 71, the CIABOC can withdraw or defer the indictment against the accused after taking into account considerations such as the national interest and public interest; the views of the victims of the offence; and representations that may be made by the accused person or his lawyer. In withdrawing such indictments, the CIABOC may impose on the accused conditions such as publicly expressing remorse and apology before the High Court, providing reparations to victims of the offence, publicly pledging to refrain from committing further offences or to permanently refrain from holding elected or appointed public office.

Most powerful law enforcement agency

Thus, we see that the CIABOC controls the entire gamut of law enforcement in relation to offences coming within its purview. From manhandling and arresting suspects, obtaining statements under oath, seizing documents and other goods, searching premises, freezing bank accounts, impounding passports, to conducting criminal prosecutions in Magistrate’s Courts and High Courts, and even granting clemency to accused individuals, the Commission controls the entire process.

No single institution, whether it be the Police Department, the Attorney General’s Department, the Judiciary or the Executive Presidency, wields such extensive power over the lives of key government functionaries, public servants, judges and ordinary citizens. Even the President’s power to pardon offenders is restricted in so many ways. However, the Commission can grant clemency to anyone facing legal proceedings on nothing more than the representations made by the alleged offender’s lawyer and on the condition of not committing such offences again or agreeing never to hold public office again.

Leaving an exit pathway, such as that envisaged in Section 67 and 71, is a good policy in criminal justice administration, especially when it comes to bringing to a conclusion cases with many grey areas. Hence, we do not question the power conferred on the CIABOC to grant clemency under Sections 67 and 71. However this provision, when taken together with the other powers of the Commission, immeasurably increases its power. In the hands of the wrong people, the powers of the CIABOC can be used to pressurize and remove targeted individuals from public life.

Any foreign or local interested party that provides private donations to the CIABOC, under Section 31(4) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act, will in effect be buying influence over Sri Lanka’s most powerful law enforcement agency.

In 2010, over half a million US Dollars in cash was found in the possession of a close relative of a candidate at the Presidential election. In December 2014, foreign currency totaling well over one million USD was discovered in the possession of a relative of another presidential candidate. In more recent times, many media personalities have commented on the manner in which the 2025 assets and liabilities declarations of certain government figures reveal large inflows of cash in 2022 – the regime change year.

Against such a backdrop, allowing an all-powerful law enforcement agency, like the CIABOC, to accept donations from foreign and local interested parties, can hardly be in the public interest. Hence, Section 31(4) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act should be repealed.

(To be continued tomorrow)

by A Special Correspondent

Features

Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa

Published

2 days ago

2026/05/17

Thilina Walpola

The death of Mr Kapila Chandrasena (KC), the former CEO of SriLankan Airlines, caused quite a stir in the country. A few politicians, particularly from the opposition, tried to take advantage of the confusion surrounding his death, whilst social media went into a frenzy, with everyone having a theory as to the cause of death.

Even Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), the independent anti-corruption watchdog, issued a public statement urging the Government to ensure a full, transparent, and credible investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kapila Chandrasena’s (KC’s) death. TISL further emphasized that the Government bears a responsibility to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that individuals connected to high-profile investigations are able to participate in proceedings in a safe and secure environment.

While such concerns are understandable, I strongly believe that it is necessary to await the findings of the magisterial inquiry before reaching conclusions regarding the cause of death. To speculate irresponsibly, particularly to fit pre-existing political beliefs, is unfair not only to the deceased but also to his grieving family and loved ones.

First and foremost, I wish to convey my sincere condolences to the family of KC. I understand personally the trauma and anguish associated with losing a loved one unexpectedly and under tragic circumstances.

My brother’s death

Unfortunately, the death of KC also resulted in renewed interest in the death of my brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, in June 2020. Some individuals on social media attempted to link his death to the newspaper article he published on the Airbus scandal involving SriLankan Airlines, KC and his wife.

Some people even circulated photographs of my brother’s body at the site of the incident across social media platforms. This was deeply insensitive and extremely distressing to my sisters and me. The loss of a sibling under tragic circumstances is something from which one never fully recovers. It took our family years to come to terms with his passing, and to have those painful images resurfaced in connection with an entirely unrelated event reopened old wounds unnecessarily.

On behalf of my sisters and myself, I wish to state unequivocally that my brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, took his own life in June 2020 due to personal circumstances. His death had absolutely no connection whatsoever to his writings regarding the Airbus scandal. Neither the Rajapaksas, nor any political actor, nor any state agency was involved in his death. The magisterial inquiry into the matter returned a verdict of suicide.

Those who know me personally are aware of my forthright and combative nature. Had there been even the slightest credible suspicion surrounding my brother’s death, I would never have rested until justice was pursued. Since this was clearly established as a case of suicide, I sincerely hope that those who continue to circulate unfounded theories will finally allow the matter to rest with dignity.

The Sri Lankan Airbus scandal

The alleged payment of a USD 2 million bribe by Airbus SE to a shell company established in Brunei by the wife of a senior SriLankan Airlines official came to light following the approval of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus SE.

The DPA was approved on January 31, 2020 by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, sitting at the Crown Court in Southwark. The award represented one of the largest global anti-corruption settlements in modern corporate history.

The Airbus investigation by the SFO extended far beyond Sri Lanka. It involved allegations of bribery and corrupt practices linked to aircraft purchases by AirAsia and AirAsia X in Malaysia, SriLankan Airlines, TransAsia Airways in Taiwan, PT Garuda Indonesia, Citilink Indonesia, and military aircraft transactions involving the Government of Ghana.

The approved judgment contained specific references to the SriLankan Airlines transaction (page 12, points 41 to 44). It alleged that Airbus employees, contrary to Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010, failed to prevent bribery involving individuals connected to the airline’s aircraft procurement process between July 2011 and June 2015.

According to the Statement of Facts, Airbus engaged the wife of an individual connected to the aircraft acquisition process through a shell entity described as “Company Intermediary 1”. Airbus employees allegedly offered up to USD 16.84 million in commissions in relation to SriLankan Airlines’ purchase of ten Airbus aircraft and the lease of four additional aircraft. Ultimately, only USD 2 million was allegedly paid.

The judgment further stated that Airbus employees sought to disguise the identity of the beneficial owner behind the intermediary company and misled the United Kingdom Export Finance Agency (UKEF) regarding the intermediary’s qualifications, aviation experience, and role in the transaction.

The smoking gun from Sri Lanka that commenced the UK SFO investigation

The matter became particularly significant because it was the concerns raised by UKEF regarding the SriLankan Airlines intermediary that ultimately triggered the wider SFO investigation into Airbus. UKEF questioned why an individual with little aviation experience and who was domiciled outside Sri Lanka had been engaged as a business partner in such a major transaction.

Airbus reportedly provided misleading and inaccurate responses to those concerns in February 2015. Unsatisfied with the explanations provided, UKEF escalated the matter, which subsequently contributed to the formal investigation launched by the SFO in July 2016.

Ironically, what appears to have been a poorly concealed and amateurishly structured bribe involving SriLankan Airlines ultimately became one of the catalysts for a global corruption investigation that resulted in Airbus paying penalties approaching EUR 4 billion across the United Kingdom, France, and the United States.

Under the settlement approved in the UK, Airbus agreed to pay approximately EUR 991 million into the UK Consolidated Fund, including disgorgement of profits and financial penalties. Simultaneously, French and American authorities imposed additional penalties amounting to nearly EUR 3 billion.

Aircraft procurement and corruption

The Airbus matter once again highlighted a longstanding global reality: aircraft procurement has historically been highly vulnerable to corruption. The purchase of aircraft involves enormous financial values, complex financing arrangements, confidential negotiations, intermediaries, export credit agencies, and political influence. These factors create conditions for improper payments and abuse of authority.

Globally, there have been numerous allegations over several decades involving commissions, hidden intermediaries, and questionable consultancy agreements linked to aircraft purchases by both commercial airlines and governments. It is generally believed that the average commissions paid are between 3% to 5% of the order value.

The cost to Sri Lankan taxpayers

One of the most undesirable aspects of the Airbus affair is the financial burden ultimately borne by ordinary Sri Lankan taxpayers.

In 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka decided to cancel the order for four Airbus A350 aircraft as they were deemed unsuitable. As a consequence of that cancellation, SriLankan Airlines incurred penalties estimated at approximately USD 140 million, equivalent to roughly Rs. 19.2 billion at the time.

While Sri Lankan taxpayers absorbed these enormous losses, the United Kingdom taxpayers benefited financially from the Airbus settlement. The UK Consolidated Fund received almost EUR 1 billion arising from the penalties imposed on Airbus.

The contrast is stark. Sri Lanka suffered substantial financial losses as a result of a transaction tainted by allegations of corruption, while foreign governments received the benefit of the resulting fines and penalties.

The questions raised by my brother

My late brother, Rajeewa Jayaweera, wrote an article about the Airbus scandal in an article published in the Sunday Island on February 16, 2020, titled “SriLankan Airlines Airbus Deal”. In the article, he referred to a SriLankan Airlines Board meeting held on October 27, 2016.

According to his article, Board Minute 7.3 dealt specifically with reports that Airbus was under investigation in Europe for bribery-related offences. Rajan Brito, who was then a director of the airline, reportedly informed fellow board members about the investigations and tabled draft letters intended for Airbus, Rolls-Royce, and AerCap.

Those draft letters reportedly suggested that the aircraft transactions may not have been based solely on commercial considerations and sought information regarding the role of facilitators and intermediaries.

However, according to my brother’s article, Brito’s proposal to send those letters was reportedly ignored on the basis that the airline was negotiating favourable terms to cancel aircraft purchase commitments and that sending such letters might sour relations and disadvantage the airline.

However, my brother believed that the decision not to proceed with Brito’s letters was controversial and highly questionable, and that the airline could have sought the assistance of the PNF (Parquet National Financier) to investigate the deal and seek financial restitution, given that the order was allegedly tainted by corruption, particularly given the emerging evidence of corruption surrounding the transaction.

Even today, an important question remains unanswered: did the Government of Sri Lanka or any subsequent board of SriLankan Airlines seriously attempt to recover the USD 140 million cancellation penalty, along with any inflated amounts paid after the global corruption findings against Airbus became public?

The slow pace of Sri Lankan justice

Following the public release of the UK judgment on January 31, 2020, Sri Lankan authorities moved relatively quickly to initiate legal proceedings against KC and his wife.

On February 4, 2020, arrest warrants were reportedly sought. On February 6, 2020, KC and his wife surrendered to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and were remanded until March 4, 2020, when they were released on bail.

The allegations reportedly related to accepting a USD 2 million bribe and engaging in money laundering activities. Press reports also indicated that travel restrictions had been imposed.

However, six years later, the matter still appears unresolved. Based on publicly available information, indictments were reportedly filed before the Colombo High Court in 2022. Since then, several hearings dealing with procedural and preliminary issues have reportedly taken place, but the substantive trial itself has yet to properly commence. With KC now deceased and reports suggesting that his wife may have absconded, the prospects of successfully prosecuting the matter appear increasingly uncertain.

Many Sri Lankans understandably feel frustrated by the slow pace at which corruption-related cases proceed through the judicial system. This frustration is particularly acute where allegations involve politically connected individuals or transactions involving massive losses to the public.

The public perception is that investigations move slowly, prosecutions are delayed for years, and accountability is often ultimately avoided through procedural delays, political changes, or the passage of time.

To be fair, corruption cases involving international financial transactions are inherently complex. They require cooperation between multiple jurisdictions, access to banking records, mutual legal assistance processes, forensic accounting, and substantial documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the extraordinary delays contribute to growing public cynicism regarding the administration of justice.

It is also worth noting that the UK proceedings against Airbus did not publicly identify KC by name. Much of the public discussion in Sri Lanka has therefore relied on local investigations and media reporting rather than the UK judgment itself.

According to information available in the public domain, the alleged funds connected to the USD 2 million payment ultimately found their way into an Australian bank account linked to KC. Given the reputation of Australian authorities for cooperating with international law enforcement investigations, many members of the public expected a faster and more decisive legal process in Sri Lanka.

In that context, a detailed public explanation by the Attorney General’s Department regarding the legal and evidentiary challenges affecting the case may help improve public understanding and confidence.

SriLankan Airlines: A continuing national burden

The Airbus controversy cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader failures surrounding SriLankan Airlines over several decades.

The national carrier has accumulated debts estimated at approximately USD 1.2 billion, equivalent to nearly Rs. 350 billion. This translates to a burden of roughly Rs. 16,000 per Sri Lankan citizen, including millions who have never travelled on the airline.

Successive governments have interfered extensively in the airline’s operations. Political appointments, weak governance, lack of commercial discipline, and poor strategic decision-making have contributed significantly to the airline’s decline.

Far too often, individuals lacking meaningful aviation expertise have been appointed to key board and management positions. Political loyalty has frequently taken precedence over competence and experience.

The decision to terminate the management and ownership partnership with Emirates remains one of the most controversial episodes in the airline’s history. Many industry observers believe that decision alone cost Sri Lanka billions of rupees in lost opportunities and operational deterioration.

Despite repeated financial losses and mounting taxpayer burdens, very few individuals have ever been held accountable for the disastrous decisions that contributed to the airline’s decline.

The current Government faces an unavoidable reality. SriLankan Airlines cannot continue indefinitely as a financially unsustainable state enterprise funded by taxpayers already struggling under severe economic hardship. Decisions regarding the future of the airline must be guided by commercial reality rather than political ideology or emotional nationalism.

Ultimately, the Airbus scandal is not merely about one individual or one alleged bribe. It reflects deeper structural weaknesses involving governance, political interference, accountability, and institutional failure within Sri Lanka.

Sadly, a relatively young man has now lost his life amidst these events and controversies. Regardless of the allegations against him, that remains a human tragedy. At the same time, the country must continue to demand transparency, accountability, and institutional reform so that such scandals are never repeated.

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any organization or institution with which the author is affiliated).

By Sanjeewa Jayaweera

Features

High stakes and hidden hands: Navigating the maze of electronic financial fraud

Published

2 days ago

2026/05/17

Thilina Walpola

Electronic or digital financial fraud is the current, extremely distasteful description of a blight that has hit the entire globe; a menace that is perpetrated through an unbelievable labyrinth of interconnected dishonourable and nasty manoeuvres. In an era where our financial lives are increasingly becoming digital, the “perfect financial crime” no longer requires a getaway car. It just needs a high-speed internet connection and stupendously brilliant, depraved and Machiavellian minds.

Modern scams have advanced far beyond the poorly spelt emails of the past. They are now extremely sophisticated operations exploiting psychological manipulation and deep-fake technology. Financial fraud has evolved from simple street-level deception into a complex, multi-billion-dollar industry. It has been manipulated through many different currencies in different parts of the world. In Sri Lanka, the landscape of scams has shifted from traditional “pyramid” schemes to sophisticated digital heists and institutional bond scandals that threaten the very fabric of our national economy. From an international outlook, financial fraud is becoming increasingly transnational. Sri Lanka is currently under intense scrutiny by the FATF (Financial Action Task Force). Sri Lanka falling onto the “Grey List” again would have severe repercussions, potentially causing international banks to suspend payments to the island, severely upsetting our exporters.

The financial fraud profile of Sri Lanka has gone from “Bonds” to “Glitches”. Our country has been rocked by high-profile financial irregularities that serve as a stark warning about institutional integrity. First was the Treasury Bond Scandal. Often cited as the largest financial scam in the nation’s history, the Central Bank bond issuance of 2015 highlighted the risks of Insider Trading and the manipulation of government securities. The fallout cost the public billions of rupees, demonstrating how high-level collusion can bypass traditional safeguards.

The recent problem where the Treasury remitted a very large amount of foreign currency to a different portal to which money should not have been sent is a special type of Financial Fraud problem that seems to have been instigated by a deceptive email. It is under investigation at present, and it appears that it is the money that had been earmarked for foreign debt reconciliation. It is the taxpayers’ money that has been allowed to be swindled by unscrupulous crooks.

Then there is the National Development Bank (NDB) “Glitch” Controversy.

The entire banking sector was shaken to its roots by reports of a massive multi-billion-rupee fraud at the NDB. This incident, often referred to in local circles as “The Glitch,” involved the alleged diversion of funds through a sophisticated manipulation of the bank’s internal accounting systems.

Then there are the perceived Guardians, who often serve as Whistleblowers. The fight against such deep-seated corruption rarely begins with a regulator; it often starts with an individual. It is just someone who smells a rat. Maya Senanayake, a forensic expert at NDB, has emerged as a symbol of integrity in this landscape by identifying anomalies that others chose to ignore. Whistleblowers like Senanayake face immense personal and professional risks. Their role is a “Herculean effort”, very often battling institutional stonewalling to bring the truth to light. Without such individuals, “Suspense Account” spikes and “shell-company diversions” would remain invisible to the public eye.

Having mentioned just two of the buzz phrases in circulation, given in Italics above, it is pertinent to provide definitions for some of these phrases that are being bandied about very frequently in articles on the main subject of this article.

· SCAM – It is a fraudulent scheme or deceptive act performed by an individual or group to trick a victim into giving up something of value, typically money, personal information, or assets. It is a blatant lie or a misrepresentation of the truth. Unlike theft (where something is taken by force), a scam usually involves the victim “willingly” handing over assets because they believe the fraudster’s story. Scams often rely on psychological manipulation, such as creating a sense of urgency, fear, or the promise of a “too good to be true” reward.

· HACKERS –

The term has evolved significantly and carries different meanings depending on the context. In the broadest sense, a hacker is someone who uses technical skills to overcome a problem or bypass a system’s limitations. The cybersecurity industry generally classifies hackers by their intent, often using a “hat” colour system.

The White Hat Hackers are an ethical group that is hired to detect vulnerabilities. They are legal and helpful as they improve security by reporting bugs.

The Black Hat Group are cybercriminals who break into systems illegally. They are malicious, steal data, plant malware, or disrupt services.

The Grey Hats Individuals who may break laws to access a system, but without malicious intent. They are individuals who might find a bug without permission and then offer to fix it for a fee.

· MONEY LAUNDERING – It is the process of “cleaning” illicitly-earned money by passing it through complex bank transfers or commercial transactions.

· TREASURY BOND –

A government debt security that provides a fixed interest rate. Manipulating these affects the nation’s debt and interest rates.

· WHISTLEBLOWER –

It is an “insider” who reports and even makes public, concealment of illegal or unethical activities within an organisation to the public or relevant authorities.

· SUSPENSE ACCOUNT –

A temporary account used to hold funds while their final destination is determined. These are frequently used in fraud to “hide” money during transfers.

· SHELL COMPANY –

No., NO…, it is not the Shell Company that deals with fuel. This terminology refers to a company that exists only on paper and has no active business operations. It is very frequently used to obscure the identity of those moving money. They become “Ghosts”.

· FORENSIC AUDIT –

An examination of financial records to find evidence that can be used in a court of law or for legal proceedings.

When one examines some of these frauds and scams, it becomes clear that at the bottom of the distasteful occurrences lie systemic inadequacies. Scrupulous attention to all details of financial transactions, trustworthy and fool-proof systems dealing with financial transactions, utmost vigilance and a very high degree of suspicion are the incontrovertible needs of the hour. The powers-that-be in all things that deal with financial transactions must consist of people with unblemished honesty, unbridled integrity and honour.

International best practices now emphasise a shift from “rules-based” to “risk-based” oversight, even going to the extent of utilising Artificial Intelligence (AI) to detect suspicious patterns in money laundering and financial fraud that a human eye might miss.

For individuals and the general public, the Three Golden Rules for Protection are as follows”

· Demand Transparency:

Whether you are an investor or a depositor, always ask for the audited financial statements of the institution.

· Verify the Chain:

In government securities, ensure you are dealing through registered primary dealers.

· Support Protections:

Advocate for stronger Whistleblower Protection Acts to ensure that those who speak the truth are not penalised by the system they seek to save.

The trick is to protect ourselves from the Invisible Thief by protecting ourselves from Modern Scams. Here is a breakdown of the most prevalent threats today and how to safeguard your assets.

A. The “Urgent Authority” Tactic

Scammers often impersonate trusted institutions such as banks, financial institutions, tax offices, or law enforcement. They create a sense of artificial urgency, claiming your account has been compromised or you owe an immediate fine.

· The Red Flag: Any request to move money to a “safe account” or pay via untraceable methods like gift cards or cryptocurrency.

· The Defence:

Hang up immediately or delete the message if it is on email. Contact the institution using a verified phone number from their official website or the back of your bank card to check the veracity of the request.

B. Investment and “Get Rich Quick” Schemes

With the rise of digital assets, “pig butchering” scams have become rampant. Fraudsters build a relationship with the victim over weeks (the “fattening”) before suggesting a “guaranteed” investment opportunity in crypto or forex (the “slaughter”).

· The Red Flag: Returns that consistently outperform the market with “zero risk.”

· The Defence:

If an investment opportunity sounds “too good to be true”, it almost always is. Professional financial advisors do not solicit clients via WhatsApp or dating apps.

C. Phishing and Smishing (SMS Phishing)

These are deceptive messages designed to steal login credentials. You might receive a text stating a package delivery failed, or your Netflix subscription has lapsed, followed by a link to a “login” page that looks identical to the real thing.

· The Red Flag: Unusual URLs (e.g., wellsfarg0.net instead of wellsfargo.com) and unexpected attachments.

· The Defence:

Never click links in unsolicited messages. Use Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) on all sensitive accounts; even if a thief gets your password, they won’t get the secondary code.

4. The AI Impersonation (The Grandparent Scam)

Advancements in AI voice cloning allow scammers to mimic the voice of a loved one in distress. They may call claiming to be in a car accident or legal trouble, begging for immediate funds.

· The Red Flag: High emotional pressure and a demand for secrecy.

· The Defence:

Establish a “family password” – a unique word or phrase only your inner circle knows. If the caller cannot provide it, they are not who they say they are.

The Three Golden Rules for Financial Safety are

· Slow Down and Do Not Get Frightened:

Scammers rely on panic. Taking five minutes to think or consult a friend usually breaks the spell of the scam. It is also important to realise that some scammers try repeatedly.

· Verify the Source:

Never trust Caller ID, as numbers can be easily “spoofed” to look local or official.

· Protect Your Data:

Be wary of how much personal information you share on social media. Scammers use these details to make their impersonations more convincing.

Your bank will NEVER EVER ask for your Personal Identification Number (PIN), your Account Password, One-Time-Password (OTP) or request you to transfer money to an entirely new, unknown account. If any such request comes, do not fall for it and immediately contact the institution through their standard publicised telephone lines to check on the veracity of the request.

If you suspect you have been targeted, report it to the bank or financial institution, your local authorities and the legal investigative portals…, IMMEDIATELY.

(Some of the material presented

in this article was extracted with the help of AI.)

by Dr B. J. C. Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
An independent free-lance correspondent.