News
Corruption and red tape keep out substantial foreign investment into mining industry

Sri Lanka had failed to attract substantial foreign investment in the mining industry during the last 50 years mainly due to the high sovereign risks associated with Sri Lanka, Chirantha Weerawardena, a mining engineer, said during a seminar, titled ‘Blueprint for Developing a Sustainable Sri Lankan Mining Industry by Attracting Foreign Investment,’ organised by the Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (IESL) recently.
Eng. Weerawardena said that mining was a long term investment and investors in the mining sector werevery concerned about the political and economic stability of a country. “They are worried about abrupt changes to mining related law and regulations, significant and abrupt changes to tax and royalty regimes, the lack of rule of law which can result in losing mining rights without valid reasons and the lack of an independent mechanism for appeal or arbitration against the regulator’s or minister’s decisions.”
Eng. Weerawardena said for a mining company exploration is a high risk investment because significant funds need to be spent before hitting an ‘economic deposit.’ Given that mining is an investment spanning 10 to 40 years, once an investment is made, a mining company is “trapped” as it can’t leave easily.
“A few years ago a London Stock Exchange registered company spent about 16 million US dollars to carry out initial exploration of three sites they acquired in Sri Lanka. Then the Geological Survey & Mines Bureau (GSMB) suspended the licence citing an issue with the local ownership requirement of the mining licence holder. In Sri Lanka there is a rule saying an exploration license can be taken by anyone, but the mining licence can be only taken by a company with majority local ownership. The company went to court. I have no problem with this law, but the GSMB should have brought this up at the start. And then the licences were reinstated by the Secretary to the Ministry of Environment under statutory appeal process. Now the issue has been sorted out and the company signed an MOU with the LB group in China – the second largest company in the world in TIO pigment manufacturing, who will invest 81 million dollars to build a mining separation plant at Oluvil,” he said.
That had been one of the two serious investments in the mining sector in the last 50 years, Weerawardena said, adding that the above case demonstrated that Sri Lankan officials and politicians were not interested in facilitating foreign investments and sometimes went of their way to make life difficult for investors. Such actions mainly stem from corruption, especially when they want kickbacks.
Weerawardena said resource nationalism, which was the tendency of people and governments to assert control over natural resources located in their territory, was also tied with sovereign risk. However, resource nationalism is based on several valid and good points and this is not inherently bad.
“However, we must realise politicians and some ‘experts’ sometimes overestimate in-situ value of mineral deposits for various reasons. There is also a widespread anti-mining sentiment among the people as well.
“We have to also be scientific when we estimate the in-situ value of deposits. There are various costs associated with extracting the minerals in the ground. There are ship loading costs, transport costs, processing costs, mining costs, brownfield drilling cost, overheads and amortisation of capital. We have to take these costs into consideration before we value the mineral deposits we have,” he said.
He added that mining is an economic multiplier. In Australia, each mining job creates at least four others in the form of support services.
However, mining can also have a negative impact if a country does not manage its operations properly, he said.
“You can end up degrading a non-renewable resource without much to show. This has happened in Latin American and African countries. Because mining is so profitable, it can lead to corruption and social disharmony among stakeholders and communities. The worst-case scenario is that there can be foreign interference in the country. If we understand both the positives and negatives of mining, the country can go through the correct process to harness the benefits of mining.”
He added that Sri Lanka is a country with high sovereignty risk. Despite opening up the economy in 1977 and although Sri Lanka has several world-class deposits, the country has only got a few mining investments because of this.
“We need to understand that mining companies prefer stable policies. They can’t be lured by promises of cheap minerals. You also need less corruption and red tape. Then mining companies will come to Sri Lanka,” he said. (RK)
News
Indo-Lanka MoUs unlikely to be tabled in Parliament any time soon

…of seven SOCs only one constituted so far
Sri Lanka’s controversial MoU on Defence Cooperation with India was unlikely to be taken up any time soon in Parliament in spite of the House Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection that has been assigned defence, authoritative sources told The Island.
Of the seven SOCs only one was activated with the recent election of Dr. Najith Indika, MP, as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice, and Civil Protection of the Tenth Parliament.
The inaugural meeting of the current parliament was held on 21 Nov., 2024.
Sources said that the parliament had met for the last time yesterday (10) before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year holiday. It is scheduled to meet again on May 8.
The UNDP that has financially backed the establishment of the SOC system to help strengthen the role of the parliament recently reached a consensus with the government to reduce the number of SCOCs from 17 to seven. The Island, in writing, asked for the UNDP’s reaction to the operation of SOCs but had not received a response at the time this edition went to press.
The SOCs have the power to examine any Bill, except the Bills defined in Article 152 of the Constitution, Treaty, Reports including the Annual and Performance Reports relating to the institutions coming under its purview or any other matter referred to the Committee by Parliament or any Committee or a Minister relating to the subjects and functions within their jurisdiction.
Sources said that out of the seven SOCs only one had been activated during the past five months though the government and the Opposition agreed to share the leadership of them.
Accordingly, it was agreed that the government would appoint chairpersons to four SOCs –– Economic Development and International Relations, Health, Media and Women’s Empowerment, Science, Technology and Digital Transformation and Governance, Justice and Civil Protection .
It was also agreed that the Opposition would appoint chairpersons to the SOCs on Infrastructure and Strategic Development, Education, Manpower and Human Capital, and Environment, Agriculture and Resource Sustainability to the Opposition.
India and Sri Lanka on April 5 signed six MoUs on HVDC interconnection for import/export of power, cooperation in the field of sharing successful digital solutions implemented at population scale for digital transformation, defence cooperation, multi sectoral grant assistance for Eastern province, health and medicine and pharmacopoeia cooperation. In addition to them, India, Sri Lanka and UAE signed a tripartite MoU cooperation in development of Trincomalee as an energy hub.
The Island asked Ali Sabry, PC, who served as foreign minister during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President (July 2022 to Sept 2024) whether the seven MoUs had been discussed during that period. We also asked him whether those MoUs should have been discussed at SOCs before finalisation.
Sabry said: “Most of the MOU to my knowledge were discussed except the one on Defence Cooperation, which I am unaware of. General procedure is the relevant line ministry prepares the initial draft and gets the input from the Foreign Ministry and goes for stakeholder consultation of all ministries and agencies involved. Then the President’s Office grants its sanction and with the approval of the AG, it goes before the cabinet of ministers. With Cabinet approval, the government could sign the MOU.”
Sabry said that he was of the opinion that once the government signed a particular MoU, it should be placed before the parliament. “MOU’s are generally not legally binding and only signify the desire to work together. If the signed MoUs were to be implemented, then they have to be followed by agreements or laws.”
He emphasised the pivotal importance of transparency in the whole process. The ex-minister said: “I think transparency is crucial in these matters. Concealment leads to speculation and assumption of the worst. The MOUs should be tabled in Parliament for public information. Discussion at the relevant SOCs would have been helpful. There are growing fears fueled by lack of information in the public domain. This is a private comment, not to be attributed to me.
Asked whether MoUs, particularly the ones on defence and energy had to be approved by the Attorney General, the former minister said that the AG has to advise the MoUs compatibility with the Constitution. “But Article 157 of the Constitution does not apply; the 2/3 majority stipulated there envisages only investment treaties.” Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath assured Parliament on April 8 that the AG had cleared all seven MoUs and none of them were inimical to the country.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
News
LG polls: Appeal Court orders EC to accept 35 additional nomination papers

The Court of Appeal yesterday ordered the Election Commission (EC) to accept 35 additional nomination papers for the 2025 local government elections, which had been previously rejected by election officials.
The ruling was issued yesterday by a bench comprising Acting President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mohamed Lafar Tahir, and Justice Priyantha Fernando. The court ordered the relevant Returning Officers to accept the nominations following hearings on several petitions filed by political parties and independent groups challenging the rejections.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered the EC to accept 37 previously rejected nomination papers.
by A.J.A. Abeynayake
News
Defence MoU with Quad member will drag Sri Lanka further into new cold war: CP

The Communist Party (CP) of Sri Lanka yesterday (10) expressed grave concern over the NPP government’s unilateral decision to enter into a defence MOU with Quad-member India.
The CPSL urged All democratic and progressive forces to pressure the government to reveal the contents of the defence agreement with India. It also asked the NPP government to revive the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal at the UN and mobilise global opposition to militarisation in the region. All democratic and progressive forces had to build a United Front against a New Cold War, the CP has said.
General Secretary of CP Dr. G. Weerasinghe has issued the following statement: “This decision has been taken without consultation or debate in Parliament and in the context of a New Cold War and heightened militarisation of the Indian Ocean.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka from 4-6 April, a defence MOU was exchanged between Secretary of the Ministry of Defence of Sri Lanka retired Air Vice Marshal H.S. Sampath Thuyacontha and Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
Indian media has framed this MOU as being part of Indian strategy to counter China’s presence in the region.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake assured Modi that Sri Lanka, “will not permit its territory to be used in any manner inimical to the security of India as well as towards regional stability”. While the CPSL has no fundamental objection to this, questions remain over India’s own commitment to regional stability.
The fact is that India is a member of the Quad and has partaken in US efforts to contain China in a New Cold War. In 2024, current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tabled a bill in congress to grant India a status on par with NATO members. During a meeting between Modi and US President Donald Trump in February, India and the US entered into a 10-year defence partnership framework to transfer technology, expand co-production of arms, and strengthen military interoperability.
By entering into defence agreements with India, there is a very real danger of Sri Lanka being dragged into the Quad through the back door as a subordinate of India. Sri Lanka could become a de facto part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and compromise its non-aligned status. This would be antithetical to Sri Lanka’s interests as China is a major investor and trade partner for the country and has supported our sovereignty in international fora.
Sri Lanka is currently not directly embroiled in any conflict with an external actor and therefore has no need to enter into defence agreements. The last defence agreement that Sri Lanka entered into was with the UK-Ceylon Defence Pact (1947-1957), which was a neocolonial arrangement detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and international relations.
The defence MOU with India could also be interpreted as a step towards further militarisation of the Indian Ocean, which is a violation of the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace which both countries supported.”
-
Business4 days ago
Colombo Coffee wins coveted management awards
-
Business6 days ago
Daraz Sri Lanka ushers in the New Year with 4.4 Avurudu Wasi Pro Max – Sri Lanka’s biggest online Avurudu sale
-
Features5 days ago
Starlink in the Global South
-
Business6 days ago
New SL Sovereign Bonds win foreign investor confidence
-
Features2 days ago
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part III
-
Features5 days ago
Modi’s Sri Lanka Sojourn
-
Midweek Review2 days ago
Inequality is killing the Middle Class
-
Features4 days ago
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part I