Sri Lanka’s creditors were unlikely to classify the recent USD 2.5 million Treasury fund heist as a technical debt default, Deputy Minister of Finance Anil Jayantha Fernando told Parliament yesterday (05), citing assessments by the Government’s financial and legal advisors engaged in the debt restructuring process.

Responding to queries raised by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, Fernando said the incident is expected to be treated as a cybercrime matter rather than a failure or refusal by the State to honour its debt obligations.

“Although the funds remitted by Sri Lanka were not received by the Australian creditor, this does not indicate an inability or unwillingness on the part of the Government to repay,” he said, adding that given the nature of the incident and Sri Lanka’s relations with Australia, advisors believe neither Australia nor Paris Club members are likely to deem it a debt default.

Fernando said debt restructuring advisors had been consulted on whether the episode could amount to a technical default, while investigations are continuing to establish the nature of the alleged fraud.

Outlining the sequence of events, he said the Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Readiness Team was notified on January 9, 2026, with the Criminal Investigation Department also informed the same day. He said Australia Export Finance later notified Sri Lankan authorities on March 23 that the funds had not been received. A complaint was subsequently lodged with the CID by the Director General of the External Resources Department on March 24, while the Financial Intelligence Unit was informed on April 1.

Rejecting allegations that the Government had withheld information from Parliament, Fernando said there had been no attempt to suppress facts, noting that disclosure had been delayed pending further clarity from ongoing investigations, particularly regarding possible official involvement and internal control lapses.

He assured that all findings would be presented to Parliament in due course.

Premadasa questioned the delay in informing the House, given the timeline of events.

Fernando also cautioned against unverified speculation surrounding the death of a Ministry official linked to the incident, urging both the Opposition and the media to refrain from disseminating unsubstantiated claims.

Responding to claims raised by Premadasa that the deceased official was the first to detect and report the fund diversion, Fernando declined to confirm or deny the assertion, warning that such speculation could mislead the public and aggravate the situation.

He said investigations by the CID, in collaboration with the Finance Ministry’s External Resources Department and the Public Debt Management Office, are ongoing, adding that the continued service of the Ministry Secretary would not impede impartial inquiries.

“I am not prepared to present unverified information until investigations are concluded,” he added.

By Saman Indrajith

The BASL yesterday (05) said that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s May Day statement, regarding an impending judicial decision, may erode public confidence in the Judiciary.

The Text of the BASL statement: “An independent judiciary stands as the bedrock of a vibrant and enduring democracy, safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring that justice prevails without fear or favour.

The Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic provides that the independence of the judiciary as being part of the intangible heritage that guarantees the dignity and well-being of succeeding generations of the People of Sri Lanka.

Article 111 C (1) of the Constitution further provides that “Every judge, presiding officer, public officer or other person entrusted by law with judicial powers or functions or with functions … shall exercise and perform such powers and functions without being subject to any direction or other interference proceeding from any other person except a superior court, tribunal, institution or other person entitled under law to direct or supervise such judge, presiding officer, public officer or such other person in the exercise or performance of such powers or functions”. Article 111 C (2) of the Constitution further makes such acts an offence.

Judicial independence is not merely an institutional safeguard, it is fundamental to preserving the dignity of the individual, upholding the rule of law, and sustaining the moral authority of a democratic society.

It is in this light that we express grave concern at the statement made by H.E. the President at the recent May Day Rally referring to a Judicial decision due to be delivered on 25th May 2026 stating that the audience would be able to applaud the decision when delivered. The tenor of the statement is open to the suggestion that there is interference with the judicial process and as such the BASL apprehends that the statement may erode public confidence in the Judiciary.

In the past, whenever the independence of the judiciary has been under threat, whether it be from the executive arm or any other quarter, the BASL and its members throughout the island have fiercely opposed such interference.

The BASL is committed to ensure that the independence and integrity of the judiciary is at all times protected and safeguarded and will take all necessary steps towards that end and will continue to do so in the interests of democracy, the rule of law and the need to protect and safeguard the Constitution.”

Kurunegala District SJB MP Dayasiri Jayasekara yesterday (05) asked in Parliament whether Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne was utilising two official residences, triggering a heated exchange in the House.

Raising an oral question, Jayasekara alleged that despite earlier claims that he did not use an official residence, the Speaker was currently occupying both the official Speaker’s residence for official purposes and a separate unit in a government apartment complex, under the Ministry of Public Administration, for personal use.

He further queried whether a housing unit in the same complex had been allocated to the Speaker’s private secretary.

Responding on behalf of the Government, Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya said the Speaker used the official residence strictly for official duties, while a separate house in a Ministry of Public Administration housing complex had been allocated for his private residence.

Chief Government Whip Dr Nalinda Jayatissa, addressing concerns over staff privileges, said neither the Speaker’s secretary nor any other member of his staff had been provided with official housing.

The exchange grew increasingly heated as members on both sides pressed their arguments, with the issue drawing attention to broader concerns over transparency, accountability and the use of State resources.

Amid the tense exchanges, Opposition MP Ravi Karunanayake injected a note of levity, suggesting that if the Speaker was unwilling to reside in the official residence, he could instead take up residence at Karunanayake’s own home, located adjacent to the Speaker’s quarters.

“The best solution to this issue is for you to come and stay at my house—it is right next to the Speaker’s official residence,” he quipped, drawing laughter in the Chamber.

By Saman Indrajith