The past few weeks have seen several high-profile arrests, much to the delight of critics of former rulers whose governments were widely associated with abuse of power, the suppression of democracy, political interference in key state institutions and corruption.

The arrest and remand of former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa have triggered what may be described as a social media feeding frenzy, with government propagandists having a field day. The Rajapaksas and their allies were accused of manipulating legal and judicial processes for political expediency and harassing the Opposition when they were in power. Today, the boot is on the other foot, and they are crying foul. If only they had realised then that those who manipulate the law for political ends might one day find themselves at the receiving end of the same treatment.

It is hardly surprising that the JVP-led government is accused of resorting to show arrests and detentions to divert public attention from pressing issues and advance its political agenda. The government has gone on the offensive, seeking to neutralise key Opposition figures politically. Its modus operandi brings to mind Maslow’s hammer, the cognitive bias of relying excessively on a familiar tool or approach to tackle every problem, much like someone who has only a hammer and sees every problem as a nail. Critics see the suppression of dissent as ingrained in the JVP’s political culture and consider it naïve to expect a JVP-led government to refrain from using state power against its political opponents. After all, successive governments have done so, setting deeply damaging precedents.

Minister and Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake took great pains in Parliament on Thursday to debunk the Opposition’s claim that the government has launched a witch-hunt against its political rivals. He sought to convince the House and the public that the government had nothing to do with most of the court cases and investigations against the Opposition politicians and their family members. He said all cases against Opposition politicians, except a few, had been filed during the Yahapalana and SLPP governments. If it is true that the cases were initiated under previous administrations, can the JVP/NPP leaders legitimately claim credit for fulfilling their pledge to punish the corrupt? Shouldn’t that credit go to the UNP and the SLFP, the two main constituents of the Yahapalana coalition?

Can anything be more disingenuous than politicians’ claims that they keep their hands off the legal process and the administration of justice? Governments in this country are notorious for making the wheels of justice turn at a politically expedient pace, often resorting to flimsy excuses to justify their shameful actions. While justice delayed is justice denied, justice hurried is justice buried. Justice must be neither delayed nor rushed to achieve political ends. It must be allowed to take its course, free from political interference. This has not happened under any government during the past several decades.

Some suspects are arrested and remanded or detained even before investigations against them get underway in earnest. Such action ought to be the exception, if it is warranted at all, rather than the rule. Otherwise, it could turn law enforcement into political theatre and investigations into a witch-hunt in the eyes of the public. The police and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption must therefore act with such impartiality and professionalism that they cannot reasonably be accused of staging arrests to help the government of the day score political points. As legal experts have pointed out, premature arrests before investigations have established reasonable grounds for suspicion, risk violating individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, compromising the gathering of reliable evidence, and undermining public confidence by making law enforcement appear politically motivated or driven by a desire for publicity rather than justice. Perceptions matter as much as reality when it comes to the dispensation of justice.

The incumbent leaders ought to remember that they, too, will eventually lose their grip on power and may sooner or later have to answer for their actions. Their administration is already facing very serious questions over several controversies, including the release of 323 shipping containers without mandatory inspections, coal procurement, the disappearance of US$ 2.5 million from Treasury funds and alleged import rackets. When the Rajapaksas were at the height of their power, who would have imagined that some of them, too, would one day find themselves in remand prison? The incumbent leaders and their associates would do well to learn from their predecessors’ predicament.

Saturday 10th October, 2026

It will soon be showtime in Parliament. The Opposition has submitted a motion of no confidence against Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne to Secretary General of Parliament Kushani Rohanadheera. Debates on no-confidence motions invariably descend into slanging matches, with members of both sides of the House trading insults and dragging one another’s reputations through the mud.

The motion of no confidence reportedly contains about 50 allegations, including misconduct, misuse of public property, financial irregularities, conflict of interest and violation of parliamentary procedures. The Opposition has called upon the Speaker to step down immediately.

The fate of no-confidence is not difficult to guess. What determines the outcome of a vote on such a motion is the numbers the opponents and the proponents can muster. There is no such thing as a conscience vote in the Sri Lankan Parliament. The Opposition has only 66 members as opposed to the government’s 159 including the Speaker. Some Opposition MPs are accused of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. They disappear during crucial votes in the House. So, the no-confidence motion against the Speaker is doomed. The Opposition cannot be so naïve as to expect a different outcome; it is apparently planning to use the motion to inflict maximum possible damage on the government.

Gone are the days when the Speakers acted impartially, commanding the respect of all members of the House. Over the past several decades, the Chair has been reduced to little more than an appendage of the government of the day. Hence the Opposition’s frequent complaints of grievances. Worryingly, the campaigners for democracy and rights and privileges of lawmakers act out of expediency rather than principle once ensconced in power.

Ideally, the Speaker should be independent of political parties if he or she is to act impartially. Time was when political parties did not field candidates to challenge the Speakers at general elections. That helped A. F. Peiris (1952) and R. S. Pelpola (1960) enter Parliament without facing competition. The practice was that a Speaker would not normally be opposed at the next general election, reflecting the expectation that the office should be impartial and above party politics.

There have also been instances where the Speakers were elected unanimously in Parliament. They include Speaker Wickramaratne, his predecessors Asoka Ranwala and the late Anura Bandaranaike. Sadly, Ranwala had to resign over a degree certificate issue and Dr Wickramaratne is facing a no-confidence motion.

A government with a parliamentary majority can shoot down no-confidence motions with ease, but the issues raised by the Opposition do not go away. The SLPP-UNP government defeated a no-confidence motion against the then Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella over a procurement scam, but subsequently he was prosecuted. It also defeated a no-confidence motion against Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena. But both the SLPP and the UNP suffered humiliating defeats at the last general election. Most of the SLPP MPs who voted to defeat the no-confidence motions against Rambukwella and Abeywardena could not even contest the last general election. The NPP MPs defeated a no-confidence motion against the Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, but he had to step down subsequently albeit over some other allegation and legal action. This is something the JVP/NPP politicians who think no end of their supermajority ought to take cognisance of.

Friday 9th October, 2026

Some crucial problems have remained intractable in the public sector because a chronic lack of inter-institutional cooperation has stood in the way of tackling them. The Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) has recently addressed one such issue. While examining the affairs of the Coconut Development Authority (CDA), the Coconut Research Institute, and the Coconut Cultivation Board, the COPE raised serious concerns over the food-safety risks posed by reprocessed and adulterated coconut oil entering the local food industry.

When COPE Chairman Dr. Nishantha Samaraweera pointed out that there had been about 150 instances of non-compliance with required standards in the coconut-oil manufacturing sector and asked what action had been taken against the errant companies, CDA Chairman Shantha Ranatunga said his institution could only trace such manufacturers and ensure corrective action. Dr. Samaraweera asked why the Health Ministry or the Consumer Affairs Authority had not been informed of those illegal practices, but he did not receive a clear answer. The officials only said they were not authorised to do so. Faulting most state institutions for working in silos with no cooperation among them, the COPE Chairman revealed the health risks posed by the waste cooking oil trade. He deserves praise for taking up this vital issue and calling for action to protect the public.

Sri Lanka’s edible oil problem has been a recurring food-safety concern for decades, with the evidence pointing to several forms of malpractice, from blending coconut oil with cheaper vegetable oils and reselling used oil to the distribution of products contaminated with aflatoxins. The repeated detection of such products also raises questions about the effectiveness of market surveillance, testing and enforcement.

In 2017, raids conducted by the Consumer Affairs Authority revealed that large quantities of used cooking oil had been placed alongside barrels of oil apparently processed with chemicals and colouring. Some samples were found to be adulterated. Officials said vendors had bought used cooking oil from food outlets and resold it after treating it with chemicals.

A 2021 study by a team of university researchers, has revealed an established chain in which hotels and restaurants sell used cooking oil to vendors, who filter it and remove sediments, before distributing it to small-scale restaurants for further use as cooking oil. Public health experts have pointed out that repeatedly heated, degraded or adulterated edible oils may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Volumes have been written about the waste cooking oil racket in the food industry, but it is doubtful whether any meaningful interventions have been made to eliminate it.

Media reports have shed light on another dimension of the waste edible oil racket. It has been reported that trade-data records indicate 67 shipments in the July 2024-June 2025 period under a category including “used cooking oil”, involving 31 Sri Lankan buyers and 38 suppliers. However, the database groups several oil categories together, and therefore this by itself does not prove that the imported used oil was intended for human consumption, but it is believed that at least a part of those imported waste cooking oil consignments entered the food industry. A thorough investigation is needed to prevent such illegal practices.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) reportedly account for about three-quarters of all deaths in Sri Lanka, making them the country’s dominant cause of mortality. Doctors have warned that the consumption of degraded, repeatedly heated or contaminated cooking oil may increase the risk of some NCDs, particularly certain cancers. Hence the pressing need for a comprehensive strategy to monitor and regulate the cooking oil trade and prosecute those who engage in illegal practices.

There are about 20 medical doctors in the current Parliament, including Health Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa. They ought to use their collective voice to press for the proper enforcement of existing laws, or for new legislation, where necessary, to put an end to the waste cooking oil racket and other such illegal practices that endanger public health.