Mattala Airport: A Rs. 3 Billion Annual Burden on Sri Lankan Taxpayers – Who Must Answer for the Rajapaksa-Era Investment?
Fifteen years after its construction was initiated, Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport remains a major question mark over Sri Lanka's public investment strategy. With reported annual losses running into billions of rupees, taxpayers deserve answers about the original decision, the loans, the choice of location and the economic assumptions behind the project.
A White Elephant Built with Borrowed Money
The question facing Sri Lankan taxpayers is straightforward: why was an international airport constructed in a location where the commercial demand was insufficient to justify such a massive investment?
The latest figures provide a sobering answer. According to the 2024 annual audit of Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Ltd, Mattala Airport incurred operating expenditure of Rs. 3,600.8 million against revenue of just Rs. 242.2 million in 2024. That represents an operating loss of Rs. 3,358.6 million in a single year.
More concerning is the accumulated financial damage. The Auditor General reported cumulative net losses of Rs. 39,369 million by the end of 2024. This figure relates to the audited period from 2018 to 2024 and does not represent the airport's entire financial history.
In July 2026, officials reportedly informed President Anura Kumara Dissanayake that the airport was losing between Rs. 6 million and Rs. 7 million every day, equivalent to approximately Rs. 4 billion annually.
These are not merely accounting figures. They represent public resources that could otherwise have been invested in hospitals, schools, transport infrastructure, agricultural development and essential public services.
The Rajapaksa family must answer some difficult questions
The Mattala project was developed during Mahinda Rajapaksa's presidency, when the administration pursued an ambitious programme of large-scale infrastructure development.
The airport was presented as an important component of the Hambantota development strategy. Its supporters argued that it would encourage tourism, international aviation, cargo transportation and economic activity in the Southern Province.
But more than a decade later, the central question remains: where was the commercial evidence supporting this investment?
Was a comprehensive independent feasibility study undertaken before committing billions of rupees of public money?
What passenger volumes were projected? Which international airlines had expressed a credible intention to use the airport? What cargo volumes were anticipated? What independent assessment was made of the airport's long-term financial sustainability?
And, perhaps most importantly, why was Mattala selected instead of alternative locations that might have offered stronger commercial prospects?
These questions deserve answers from the former administration, including Mahinda Rajapaksa and the ministers and officials responsible for approving the project.
Rs. 36.5 billion investment and foreign borrowing
The financial details make the need for accountability even more compelling.
The Auditor General's findings recorded construction expenditure of approximately Rs. 36,564 million, equivalent to US$247.7 million, including price escalations and variations.
The original foreign borrowing included a US$190 million loan for construction. The audit also recorded approximately Rs. 2,053 million in annual interest payments associated with the foreign debt.
Consider the original expectations.
Mattala was designed to handle approximately one million passengers annually. Yet, according to the audit, only 321,577 passengers passed through the airport over the six-year period examined.
The difference between the original projections and actual passenger movements raises serious questions about the quality of the feasibility assessment.
Was the airport constructed ahead of demand? Were the commercial projections realistic? Did political considerations take precedence over independent economic advice?
A public infrastructure project cannot be justified simply because it creates an impressive building or runway. It must demonstrate economic value, generate sustainable revenue or provide a clearly established strategic benefit.
Environmental concerns and runway safety
There were also serious concerns about the airport's environmental and operational suitability.
The location of a major international airport in an area associated with wildlife movements required careful environmental assessment and effective wildlife-management arrangements.
Reports of animals entering airport premises, damaged fencing and wildlife hazards raised questions about the adequacy of the original planning and subsequent maintenance.
The situation has reportedly improved. In 2026, the Deputy Aviation Minister stated that the authorities had repaired infrastructure, restored wildlife-management arrangements and obtained certification confirming that the airport was free from wildlife risks.
That is an important development. The present administration should be credited for addressing operational deficiencies, but resolving safety problems today does not eliminate the responsibility to investigate whether adequate environmental and technical assessments were undertaken before the original investment.
Was this an economic decision or a political prestige project?
This is the fundamental question that an independent investigation should address.
The issue is not whether Sri Lanka needs international airports. Nor is it whether the Southern Province deserves infrastructure investment.
The issue is whether the location, scale, financing and projected commercial returns of Mattala were properly assessed before public money was committed.
Sri Lanka was already carrying substantial foreign debt. Every major borrowing decision therefore required rigorous scrutiny.
An independent investigation should establish:
Who originally proposed Mattala as the location for the international airport?
What feasibility studies and independent commercial assessments were conducted?
What environmental impact assessments were completed before construction?
Who approved the original foreign loans, and on what financial terms?
Were the construction contracts competitively awarded and independently evaluated?
Were warnings about insufficient passenger demand or wildlife risks raised and ignored?
Did any individual or company benefit improperly from the procurement, financing or construction arrangements?
If evidence of corruption, abuse of office or financial misconduct emerges, the relevant authorities should pursue the appropriate legal proceedings.
It would be premature to declare criminal liability without such evidence. However, the scale of the expenditure and the subsequent financial losses provide ample grounds for serious public scrutiny.
Can the NPP government turn Mattala into an economic asset?
The current government now faces a difficult challenge: how to prevent Mattala from continuing to drain public finances.
There are encouraging indications that the authorities are exploring private-sector investment. In April 2026, the Government announced plans to attract a joint-venture partner, while subsequent reports indicated interest in aviation-related businesses, solar power and airport management.
The airport should not necessarily be abandoned. Its infrastructure, geographical position and potential role in regional aviation and cargo operations could still have commercial value if a credible business model can be developed.
However, attracting investors must not become another opportunity to transfer public assets on unfavourable terms.
The Government should publish a transparent investment prospectus, commission an independent commercial valuation and invite competitive proposals. Any partnership must clearly establish investment obligations, revenue-sharing arrangements, operational responsibilities and protections for the public interest.
The taxpayers deserve an answer
The Mattala airport controversy is ultimately about accountability in public investment.
For years, Sri Lankan taxpayers have carried the financial consequences of decisions made by successive administrations. They deserve to know why billions were borrowed and spent on an airport that failed to achieve its original commercial objectives.
The Rajapaksa administration should explain the reasoning behind the project, the choice of location and the financial assumptions presented to the public.
The NPP government, meanwhile, has a responsibility to establish the full financial history of the airport, investigate any evidence of wrongdoing and develop a commercially sustainable future for the facility.
An international airport should be an engine of economic development, not a permanent financial liability.
The people of Sri Lanka should not be expected to pay indefinitely for an investment whose original justification has never been adequately explained.