Fort Magistrate's Court office assistant arrested over Rs. 500 bribe

An office assistant attached to the Fort Magistrate’s Court has been arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) over an alleged bribe of Rs. 500, the Daily Mirror and Hiru News reported.

The money was allegedly solicited and accepted in exchange for issuing a copy of a court judgment in a concluded financial dispute case, the Daily Mirror reported. Both outlets date the alleged solicitation to June 30, 2026.

Hiru News reported that CIABOC officers arrested the suspect at about 3.35 p.m. on Wednesday (16), within the premises of the Fort Magistrate’s Court itself. The suspect is to be produced before the Colombo Magistrate’s Court, and CIABOC’s investigation continues.

The Daily Mirror said CIABOC arrested the suspect after verifying the facts during its investigation.

Where the two accounts differ

Both outlets place the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau in the case, but not in the same role. The Daily Mirror says the underlying financial dispute case was originally filed by the Bureau. Hiru News says the CIABOC investigation was launched after information was received by the Bureau — that is, as the source of the tip rather than the litigant in the original matter.

The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive, but no outlet reconciles them, and the distinction determines how the alleged demand came to light.

The interval

Roughly eleven weeks separate the alleged solicitation on June 30 from the arrest on September 16. Neither report explains the gap, which on the accounts given covers the period in which CIABOC received the information and verified it.

The sum involved — Rs. 500, for a document a litigant is entitled to — is small enough to be its own point. Charges under the Bribery Act do not turn on the amount.

Not reported

Neither outlet names the suspect or gives an age, and neither says whether the person has been suspended or interdicted from duty. No bail position is recorded, the specific charges are not stated, and neither report says whether the copy of the judgment was in fact provided.