The Presidential Commission of Inquiry probing alleged irregularities in Sri Lanka’s coal imports and coal-fired power generation has been granted an extension until December 16, 2026, to submit its final report. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake extended the deadline under Section 4 of the Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Law, No. 7 of 1978.

The Commission was established on April 17, 2026, by Gazette Extraordinary No. 2484/08. It is chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gihan Kulatunga, with Court of Appeal Justice Aditya Patabendige and High Court Judge Sanjeewa Somaratne serving as members. Former Ministry Secretary P. V. Bandulasena is its secretary.

The inquiry covers the period from the commencement of coal-based power generation in Sri Lanka until April 16, 2026. It is tasked with determining whether irregularities or unlawful acts occurred in importing coal and generating electricity through the state-owned Lanka Coal Company (Pvt) Ltd or its successor entities.

The Commission will examine coal procurement procedures and determine whether the government suffered financial losses. It will also investigate allegations that substandard coal was imported, scrutinising the entire process from procurement and supply to quality testing, power plant operations and coal utilisation.

It must assess whether power plants using imported coal achieved their expected levels of efficiency and investigate any legal, financial or other wrongdoing associated with the use of poor-quality coal.

The inquiry will also establish whether contractual obligations were breached and, if so, whether payments were withheld or other corrective measures taken.

The Commission is required to identify those responsible for any wrongdoing, including political authorities, public officials, Lanka Coal Company officers, suppliers and their representatives, and recommend appropriate action against them.

It will also propose reforms to prevent a recurrence of such irregularities and strengthen governance in coal procurement and power generation. The Commission may investigate any other irregularities it uncovers in these areas during the period under review.

The proposed Prevention of Organised Crime legislation could be used to suppress dissent rather than combat organised crime, Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda says..

Addressing a media briefing at the FSP office in Nugegoda, Jayagoda said the Bill, gazetted on October 6, had been presented to Parliament along with other legislation which, he claimed, would expand the State’s powers of repression.

He said the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill, the proposed State Terrorism Bill (PSTB) and the 22nd Amendment should be taken together when assessing the government’s approach to civil liberties.

According to Jayagoda, the Bill’s definition of an “organised criminal group” was broad enough to permit arbitrary interpretation. It defines such a group as a structured group of three or more persons acting together over a period of time to commit one or more serious offences for financial or other material gain.

He said a “serious offence” was defined as an offence carrying a prison sentence of four years or more, with the Schedule including offences such as obstructing a police officer, theft, copyright infringement, unlicensed gambling and certain offences under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance.

Jayagoda also criticised Section 4(2), which he said could permit a person to be identified as a member of a criminal group based on clothing, gestures, language or tattoos allegedly associated with such groups.

He questioned whether young people with long hair or tattoos could consequently face arbitrary arrest and detention.

Jayagoda said the Bill contained several provisions that raised serious concerns about personal liberty. Under Section 20(1), he said, police could detain a suspect for up to 72 hours without producing the person before a Magistrate.

He said Section 21 would permit the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security or the ministry responsible for police, on a police request, to issue detention orders for periods of two months at a time, up to a maximum of one year.

He further pointed out that Section 23 removed the Magistrate’s power to grant bail to a person arrested under the proposed law, while Section 25 would allow a suspect remanded by court to be kept in isolation at a police station for up to six months.

Jayagoda also alleged that Section 47 effectively reintroduced a provision allowing a confession made by a suspect to police to be used as evidence against that person.

He accused the Government of attempting to create a climate of fear and said the proposed laws should be examined on the basis of their actual provisions rather than their titles.

Referring to a recent Police social media post urging people to “think twice” before speaking, Jayagoda questioned the Government’s commitment to freedom of expression.

He said the FSP would oppose what he described as attempts to suppress public dissent and called on the people to resist such measures.

“Do not judge these Bills by their names or covers. We must examine their real purpose and content,” he said.

SLPP MP Namal Rajapaksa yesterday warned that the proposed Organised Crime Prevention Bill could pave the way for repressive practices, similar to those witnessed during the 1988–89 period.

Rajapaksa, who arrived in Parliament from remand custody to attend the proceedings, raised concerns over provisions relating to the identification of members of organised criminal groups.

“Do you need a new law to arrest someone who has a tattoo displaying the symbol of an organised criminal gang?” he asked.

Referring to explanations given by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara regarding tattoos and other characteristics associated with criminal groups, Rajapaksa questioned whether the proposed legislation could result in people being targeted, based on their physical appearance.

He recalled earlier practices involving persons identified as Island Reconvicted Criminals (IRCs), claiming that people had been targeted over their hairstyles and beards.

Rajapaksa alleged that the Government was attempting to introduce repressive measures, under the guise of combating organised crime, and drew parallels with the methods used during the 1988–89 period.

He also questioned the Government’s priorities, pointing to continuing shootings and killings, linked to organised crime, while accusing the authorities of failing to adequately address the economic difficulties faced by the public.

The SLPP MP urged the Government to focus on unemployment, the rising cost of living and other pressing issues instead of introducing legislation which, he claimed, could be used for repression.