Wednesday 24th June, 2026

The JVP-NPP government yesterday did not scruple to deprive the Opposition of an opportunity to debate some vital issues affecting the judiciary, in Parliament. The Opposition made a request to the Speaker, under Standing Orders, for a debate on the vacancies numbering four each in the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeal (CA) and an alleged move to raise the retirement ages of the SC and CA judges. But the government raised objections and put paid to the Opposition’s efforts, triggering protests in the House. It was obvious that the government members did not want even a brief debate on the aforementioned issues as they could not defend their position.

Some Opposition MPs rightly pointed out that the judicial power of the people was exercised by the legislature through courts, etc., according to the Constitution, and therefore Parliament was duty bound to debate issues, such as vacancies in the judiciary and a questionable government move to increase some judges’ retirement ages. Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Rathnayake took a swipe at the Opposition, recalling an attempt by some MPs to summon the Supreme Court judges before a parliamentary committee over a judgement during the previous government. True, the members of the SLPP-UNP government, currently in the Opposition, undermined the judiciary by criticising judges whose rulings were not to their liking and by postponing elections in violation of court orders. But two wrongs do not make a right.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association, etc., have severely criticised the alleged government move to extend the retirement ages of judges of the SC and the CA and urged it to fill the vacancies in those two courts. The Opposition has gone to the extent of claiming that the government is trying to leverage judges’ promotions, etc., to further its political interests at the expense of the integrity of the judiciary. These are issues that must be debated in Parliament urgently.

As the dynamic balance of Vata, Pitta and Kapha is to a person’s wellbeing, in Ayurveda, so is the harmonious functioning of the three branches of government, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, to a country’s democratic health. In both cases imbalance invites trouble. Unfortunately, no government has fully adhered to the principle of the separation of powers during the last several decades, and the Executive Presidency has made a bad situation worse. All Executive Presidents have meddled with the legislature and the judiciary. ‘Change’ that the current administration promised during its election campaigns has become pie in the sky. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stands accused of having the legislature under his thumb and undermining the judiciary.

JVP/NPP politicians never miss an opportunity to boast of their two-thirds majority. Minister Rathnayake yesterday reminded the Opposition of the government’s supermajority. A common trait of all Sri Lankan politicians is that they let power go to their heads. Steamroller majorities are apparently jinxed in this country. Intoxicated with power, governments exude arrogance, become aggressive, suppress dissent and dig their own political graves in the process. No government with a supermajority has secured a second term at a free and fair election in this country. The J. R. Jayewardene government, which had a five-sixth majority obtained under the first-past-the-post system, retained its hold on power in 1982 through a heavily-rigged referendum. The UNP won the 1989 general election mainly because of the JVP’s reign of terror, which prevented many people from voting and created a situation where the UNP could stuff ballot boxes. Two-thirds majorities could not save the SLFP-led United Front government (1970-1977), the Mahinda Rajapaksa government (2010-2015) and the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government. Such is the transient nature of political power and huge parliamentary majorities.

The JVP-NPP government can abuse its parliamentary majority to bulldoze its way through, but there is no way it can justify its refusal to allow issues affecting judicial independence to be debated in Parliament. It ought to remember that the power of the people is far greater than the people in power, as a saying goes.

Tuesday 23rd June, 2026

The Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) has uncovered a large-scale foreign exchange fraud and arrested a Colombo-based businessman who is reported to have transferred millions of US dollars out of the country through a large number of shell companies since 2023. He has been allegedly involved in money laundering and illegal transfer of funds for phantom imports, according to media reports. The FCID deserves praise for its successful raid, but there is reason to believe that it is only scratching the surface of the problem. Much more needs to be done.

There are many other foreign currency racketeers who deprive Sri Lanka’s banking system of a colossal amount of dollars annually through various illegal operations. Among them are many exporters. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala told Parliament about two weeks ago that investigations had revealed that a large number of import-export entities operated only for short periods of around six months. He said the Customs had identified 105 local companies operating 227 accounts in 13 banks, with funds transferred overseas on 26,108 occasions between 01 January, 2023 and 30 September, 2025, for phantom imports. Besides, there are many businessmen who park most of their export proceeds overseas and resort to unlawful practices, such as misinvoicing, to mislead the Customs.

Informal fund transfer systems like hawala and undiyal have thrived under successive governments due to better exchange rates offered by them, faster transfers, virtual absence of documentation and, most of all, secrecy. They facilitate unregulated forex flows with impunity, much to the detriment of the economy. It has been reported that many expatriate Sri Lankan workers use these informal channels to transfer funds.

The country gains only when migrant workers send remittances through official channels, for foreign currency enters the banking system; the Central Bank can accumulate reserves, and remittance inflows appear in official balance-of-payments statistics. When remittances are diverted through hawala or undiyal networks, foreign exchange bypasses the banking system, distorting balance-of-payments data, reducing official reserve accumulation and making the Central Bank lose regulatory oversight on foreign currency flows. These informal fund transfer systems not only take their toll on the country’s foreign currency reserves but also pose a threat to national security as they are used for funding illegal activities including terrorism. Curiously, there has been no all-out effort to neutralise these networks.

One may recall that when the first signs of a foreign currency crisis appeared in 2021, the media raised the issue of unregulated forex flows through informal fund transfer systems with the then government leaders, who sought to make light of the situation, claiming that there was no need for action against such operations. A few months later, the country was left with no forex even for essential imports, and those leaders had to outrun protesters. The present-day leaders are likely to face a similar fate unless illegal fund transfer operations are disrupted and everything possible is done to build foreign currency reserves. which are under tremendous pressure.

There is a pressing need for stronger laws to deal with foreign currency racketeers. The abolition of the Exchange Control Act of 1953 and the introduction of the Foreign Exchange Act of 2017 during the UNP-led Yahapalana government have stood foreign currency racketeers in good stead, as we pointed out in a previous editorial comment. The Exchange Control Act was the primary legislative framework governing foreign currency, gold, securities, and cross-border financial transactions in Sri Lanka. The Foreign Exchange Act introduced under the pretext of liberalising the foreign currency flow converted non-bailable criminal offences into civil offences. The incumbent government should seriously consider restoring the Exchange Control Act if it is to deal with racketeers effectively and shore up foreign currency reserves.

Monday 22nd June, 2026

The JVP-NPP government, like all its predecessors, has got obfuscation down to a fine art. It muddies the water whenever issues concerning fuel prices are raised in Parliament or elsewhere. Its leaders give evasive answers to questions about fuel cost calculations in a way that makes one wonder if they stretch the truth and pluck figures out of the air to support their arguments. Curiously, their claims go unchallenged. The Opposition is apparently at sea; it lacks focus. A wag says it seems to have been affected by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

An Opposition MP has at long last realised the need to challenge the government’s claims about its fuel pricing methodology and pump prices. SLPP National Organiser and MP Namal Rajapaksa has called upon the government to disclose how fuel prices are worked out and make public a full cost breakdown so that consumers will know whether its claim of a fuel subsidy is true or false. This is something the Opposition should have done much earlier. MP Rajapaksa has also asked the government to reduce fuel prices in keeping with world oil price decreases following the signing of an interim peace agreement between the US and Iran.

Interestingly, MP Rajapaksa’s contention is at variance with the position of some Opposition parties which are protesting against a government claim that funding will not be available for “the current fuel subsidy” after June. What one gathers from the aforementioned protests is that a section of the Opposition believes that fuel is actually subsidised and the subsidy must be retained. Given these contradictory claims about the so-called fuel subsidy, what needs to be done is to pressure the government to provide fuel cost breakdowns so that they can be examined independently. Figures given by government politicians apparently do not add up where fuel prices are concerned.

Last month, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake publicly stated that a litre of diesel cost as much as Rs 720 though it was sold at Rs. 392 at that time. (The current diesel price is Rs. 407 a litre.) The President also claimed the government provided a subsidy of Rs. 100 per litre on diesel. Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya has recently repeated the President’s claim in a bid to support her argument that it is not possible to reduce local fuel prices immediately in keeping with global oil prices drops. Going by the President’s claim, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the private fuel companies suffer huge losses.

The government has chosen to remain silent on taxes and a special loss recovery levy of Rs. 50 on a litre of fuel. There have been attempts to have this levy converted into a cess so that the Treasury can recover it from the private fuel companies as well, but they have been in vain, according to some Opposition politicians. This issue must be raised in Parliament. Will the Opposition officially seek an explanation from the government?

It is believed that the government imposes an unconscionably high price mark-up on fuel to recover losses caused by the extensive use of diesel for producing extra power to compensate for the Norochcholai generation loss caused by substandard coal procured fraudulently. The CPC has admitted that it purchased diesel shipments at prices ranging from USD 281 to USD 303 per barrel at the height of the Iran war to prevent supply disruptions. Perhaps, it would not have been so desperate if there had been no coal procurement racket and the Norochcholai coal-fired power plant had operated at full capacity, producing 900 MW.

It is nothing but fair to demand that the CPC and the Finance Ministry provide accurate cost breakdowns whenever fuel prices are revised so that the public can see whether official figures add up or fuel prices are increased arbitrarily. The incumbent government, which came to power promising to usher in good governance, should uphold transparency in the process of determining fuel prices.

Successive governments have used the cost reflective fuel pricing formula, claiming that it helps determine fuel prices in a rational and fair manner. If so, the question is why they have not cared to make it legally enforceable and ensure transparency and accountability.