Connect with us

News

Ravi denies being in charge of Central Bank during bond scam

Published

on

Ravi

Former Finance Minister and NDF MP Ravi Karunanayake yesterday told Parliament that the Central Bank had not been under his purview when the bond scams took place.

“At no point during my tenure as the Minister of Finance I was assigned the Central Bank. This is the first time I am publicly mentioning this,” Karunanayake said.

He said so making a special statement under the provisions of the Section 27/8 Standing Order of Parliament. The Standing order provides for a personal explanation that could be made by an MP for the purpose of vindicating the personal conduct of that MP in response to a reference which has been made by another MP in the House while he was not present in the House.

Karunanayake said that he was making the special statement with the intention of rectifying a statement made by Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, on 26 November, to the House, where she was answering a question pertaining to the Bond Scam. The Central Bank was under then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and the State and Private Banks were under the then Minister Kabir Hashim.

The Central Bank had always been under the Minister of Finance, except during the time that I held the office of Finance Minister,” Karunanayake said.

He said that incumbent Prime Minister Dr Amarasuriya’s statement on Nov 26 to the House implied that he was responsible for the Bond Scam. “That implication is a violation of my rights. It is misleading and damaging my rights. I make this statement not against PM Amarasuriya personally but to rectify the error and to set the record straight,” Karunanayake said.

Karunanayke said that PM Amarasuriya had stated that her answer was grounded in the recommendations contained in the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. “This is factually incorrect and misleading, for the Presidential Commission of Inquiry in their entire report did not find me guilty of anything or find me wanting in any way whatsoever,” he said.

The full text of MP Karunanayake’s statement: “I rise to bring to your notice a serious matter concerning a violation of my parliamentary privileges, and to seek your leave to make a personal explanation in terms of Standing Orders 21 and 27.

On 26 November 2025, during answers given in this House relating to the 2015 Treasury Bond issue — a matter pending before court for nearly five years — the Prime Minister made a statement that had the effect of attributing ministerial responsibility to me in a manner that is factually incorrect, misleading, and damaging to my reputation as a Member of Parliament.

In her response, the Prime Minister stated that her position regarding those responsible for the Central Bank bond transactions was “based on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI).”

Although she did not expressly say that “the Central Bank came under Minister Ravi Karunanayake,” the clear implication of her answer — particularly when citing the PCoI — was that I bore ministerial responsibility for the Central Bank and its actions during that period. This implication is entirely incorrect, unsupported by the PCoI, and directly contradicted by the official Gazette notifications issued under Article 44(1) of the Constitution.

According to the Prime Minister’s response, I was described as “the Minister in charge of Finance” during the time of the alleged bond transactions, suggesting that ministerial authority over commercial banks rested with me. This is false. It misrepresents my official role, misleads the House, and prejudices ongoing judicial proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, at no point during my tenure as Minister of Finance I was assigned the subject of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. The constitutional and administrative record (gazette ) is unambiguous:

The Central Bank has historically and at all times been under the Minister of Finance, except exceptionally , during the period I held that office. I did not exercise ministerial oversight over the Central Bank, its Monetary Board, or its regulatory actions during my tenure.

Ministerial oversight on the Central Bank had been assigned to the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs, Ranil Wickremesinghe. Cabinet records, Gazette notifications, and administrative circulars confirm this position beyond any dispute.

Similarly, commercial banks at the time in question fell under the purview of the Minister of Public Enterprise Development, Kabir Hashim.

His portfolio included State banks, Commercial banks, Bank of Ceylon, People’s Bank, National Savings Bank (NSB), SME Bank, and Banking governance functions.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the Prime Minister stated that her answer was grounded in the recommendations contained in the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. This is factually incorrect and misleading , for the Presidential Commission of Inquiry in their entire report did not find me guilty of anything or find me wanting in any way whatsoever.”

By Saman Indrajith



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Gnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling

Published

on

Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero was not at his temple in Rajagiriya when prison officials visited the premises yesterday to take steps following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified the presidential pardon granted to him, police sources said.

Prison officials who visited the temple on Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, were reportedly informed by those present that the Thero’s whereabouts were unknown. The development comes a day after the Supreme Court declared former President Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Gnanasara Thero null and void.

The three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath B. Abayakoon held that the pardon was arbitrary, violated the public trust and principles of natural justice, and was made beyond the proper exercise of the President’s constitutional discretion.

The case arose from Gnanasara Thero’s conduct at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court in January 2016 during proceedings relating to the disappearance of journalist and political cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda.

The Court of Appeal convicted him on four counts of contempt of court in 2018 and imposed concurrent prison terms amounting to six years. He had served about nine months when Sirisena granted him a presidential pardon on May 23, 2019.

The Supreme Court found that although Article 34 empowers the President to grant pardons, that power is held in trust for the people and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. The Court concluded that Sirisena had effectively acted on the recommendation of the Additional Secretary (Legal) without demonstrating that he had independently considered the relevant material.

Justice De Silva held that the pardon was “arbitrary”, violated public trust and the rules of natural justice, and was ultra vires the President’s powers. The Court consequently found that the decision violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The ruling effectively restores the legal position under the original conviction, leaving Gnanasara Thero without the benefit of the 2019 pardon. The Supreme Court also clarified that a pardon does not erase a conviction or sentence, but merely relieves an offender from serving the sentence to the extent specified in the pardon.

Gnanasara Thero, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, had been convicted over his conduct during proceedings concerning the disappearance of Eknaligoda, who went missing in January 2010 and has not been located.

Sandhya Eknaligoda, Prageeth Eknaligoda’s wife, was among those who challenged the presidential pardon before the Supreme Court, alongside the Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.

The detailed account of the judgment indicates that the Court’s ruling primarily nullified the pardon and restored the legal effect of the original sentence, with the implementation of the sentence falling to the relevant authorities.

Police sources said that the Supreme Court, however, did not permanently close the door on executive clemency. It held that a future President could grant Gnanasara Thero another pardon, provided the power is exercised lawfully and after proper consideration of all relevant material.

The Supreme Court has so far overturned three presidential pardons granted to two former Presidents. In January 2024, the Court declared former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s pardon of former MP Duminda Silva unlawful and invalid. In June 2024, it invalidated two pardons granted by former President Maithripala Sirisena to Royal Park murder convict Jude Shramantha Anthony Jayamaha — the first in May 2016, which commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, and the second in October 2019, which released him from prison. Jayamaha, who was convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Yvonne Johnson, remains at large. Most recently, on September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court declared Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero null and void, ruling that it was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Constitution.

Continue Reading

News

House to debate 22A, Judicature Bill next week

Published

on

Parliament is scheduled to debate the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on September 24 and 25, subject to the Speaker’s announcement following the delivery of the Supreme Court determination on petitions filed against the Bills.

The programme for the Parliamentary Week from September 22 to 25 was decided at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business held on Thursday (10) under the chairmanship of Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne.

On each sitting day, Parliamentary Business under Standing Orders 22(1) to 22(6) will be taken up from 9.30 am to 10 am, followed by Questions for Oral Answers from 10 am to 11 am Questions under Standing Order 27(2) will be taken up from 11 am to 11.30 am.

On Tuesday (22), the Orders published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2497/37 under the Petroleum Resources Act and the Promotion of Export Agriculture (Amendment) Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm.

The Tredso Development Foundation (Incorporation) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, will then be taken up for Second Reading before being referred to the Legislative Standing Committee.

An Opposition motion at the Adjournment Time will follow.

On Wednesday (23), the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm, followed by Questions at the Adjournment Time.

The Second Reading debate on the 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill is scheduled for 11.30 am to 7 pm on Thursday (24) and Friday (25).

Continue Reading

News

Wrong house targeted in underworld grenade attack: Two children killed

Published

on

Two children aged 11 and 17 were mistakenly killed and their 55-year-old father injured in an early morning hand grenade attack on Sirisangabo Mawatha on Friday. Police investigations later revealed that the attackers targeted the wrong house during an ongoing underworld clash.

Three police teams have been deployed to investigate the attack, which occurred at around 3 am.

According to police, a man who arrived near the house in a three-wheeler knocked on the front door before throwing a grenade into the premises and fleeing.

The victims were identified as 17-year-old Kasun Rashmika and 11-year-old Duminda Gihan. Their 56-year-old father, Nalin Thusantha Perera, was seriously injured and admitted to the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital.

Police said the injured man’s brother was allegedly a close associate of a drug trafficker known as ‘Sando’ and had also been accused of involvement in drug trafficking.

The brother lives in a house adjoining the one targeted in the attack, and police suspect the grenade may have been thrown at the wrong house.

Police are also investigating information that the attack was allegedly carried out at the direction of several overseas-based drug traffickers, identified as Pandithage Shantha Kumara alias ‘Kos Malli’, Samantha Perera alias ‘Chuwa Samantha’, ‘Kudu Avishka’ and ‘I.D.’

Police said the attack was believed to be linked to an ongoing conflict between two underworld factions, which have targeted each other’s associates in shootings and grenade attacks. More than 20 people have reportedly been killed in such attacks.

Security agencies are also investigating alleged links between one faction and overseas-based criminals including Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya.

Security agencies have also received information that overseas-based criminals identified as Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya are allegedly behind the supply of firearms and drugs to the faction associated with Kos Malli and Chuwa Samantha.

Continue Reading

Trending