Connect with us

News

Decision to float rupee was not unilateral – Cabraal

Published

on

The decision to allow the Sri Lankan rupee to be flexible from 07 March, 2022, onwards, had been taken by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank, based on a Monetary Board Paper of the same date submitted by all three Deputy Governors, Director – Economic Research Department and Director – International Operations Department, said then Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, issuing a press statement yesterday.The three Deputy Governors are Mahinda Siriwardana, Dammika Nanayakkara and Y. Fernando.

Cabraal said that the decision to allow the rupee to be flexible is sometimes described by certain persons as being a “unilateral” decision he took. Therefore, he issued this statement to provide the factual position so as to set the record straight, Cabraal said.Given below is the statement in full: “The decision to allow flexibility in the exchange rate was taken by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, based on a Monetary Board Paper, dated 7th March, 2022, submitted by all three Deputy Governors (Mr Mahinda Siriwardene, Mr Dammika Nanayakkara & Mrs Yvette Fernando), Director – Economic Research Department and Director – International Operations Department. The Board Paper stressed the need for changing the exchange rate policy, immediately, in order that the exchange rate acts as a “shock absorber” in the face of adverse developments in the global front on Sri Lanka’s already fragile Balance of Payments, including the increase of the crude oil price to nearly USD 140 per barrel and the worsening Russia-Ukraine war.

“Based on that Board Paper and the discussion at the meeting, the Monetary Board decided to “allow the market to have a greater flexibility in the exchange rate with immediate effect and communicate that the Central Bank is of the view that forex transactions would take place at levels which are not more than Rs. 230 per US dollar”. From the above it will be clear that, while the Monetary Board had expressed its “view” as to the level at which forex transactions would take place as a market guidance, a clear decision had been taken to allow for the flexibility of the LKR in the forex market. On the same day, a statement was issued to the media in line with the above decision.

Refer: https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/pr/press_20220307_policy_package_
to_support_greater_macroeconomic_stability_e.pdf

“Further, within about a week of floating the LKR, the President made a formal announcement that the government had initiated discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a programme.

“Subsequently, Governor Cabraal resigned on 4th April 2022, on which day, the LKR was trading at Rs. 289.73/299.99 per USD in accordance with the new “flexible” exchange rate policy as announced by the Monetary Board. After Governor Cabraal’s exit, the Monetary Board, chaired by the new Governor Dr. Weerasinghe, continued with the “flexible” exchange rate policy, whist the Government and CBSL also took a series of far reaching decisions which included the decisions to: sharply increase policy interest rates by 700 bps from 8th April 2022 onwards, and to discontinue repayments of forex loans and interest from 12th April 2022 onwards. In the meantime, the LKR continued to depreciate to a range of Rs. 364.23/377.50 against the USD by 12th May 2022, at which point, the Monetary Board had apparently once again decided to “fix” the exchange rate at a new range between Rs.355.00/Rs.365.00 per USD. Such move to “fix” the exchange rate seems quite similar to the policy adopted by the Monetary Board chaired by Governor Professor W D Lakshman which “fixed” the LKR exchange rate at a range of Rs.199.00/203.00 per USD from 6th September 2021 onwards.

“It must of course be understood that there will always be conflicting opinions among stakeholders as to the value, timing and methodology to be followed in “fixing”, or “floating” or “pegging” a country’s currency. It is also quite possible that after decisions are taken to “float” or “fix” or “peg” the currency, others could, claim that the decision was right or wrong or implemented differently. However, it must be appreciated that the decision-making authority has to take its decision based on the prevailing circumstances, expert advice, practical ground conditions, judgement of future expectations and outcomes, etc. when viewed holistically. That is obviously why the Monetary Law Act provides the authority to the Monetary Board to change financial and monetary sector policies (including the exchange rate policy, interest rates, statutory reserve ratios, etc) when it deems appropriate to do so, from time to time.

It must also be appreciated that the implementation of policy measures is carried out by the professional and technical staff, of the Central Bank and they would naturally ensure that the policy measures being implemented are based on legal and binding decisions of the Monetary Board, which is the decision making authority, and not based on “unilateral” decisions of a single person.”



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

Sri Lankan singer Mariazelle Goonetilleke passes away at the age of 68

Published

on

By

(Pic facebook)

It has been reported quoting family sources that veteran singer Mariazelle Goonetilleke has passed away this morning (10)  at the age of 68

She had been  receiving treatment at the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Sallay’s wife further complains to HRC over continuing violation of husband’s FRs by CID

Published

on

The wife of retired Major General Suresh Sallay has lodged a further complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), alleging that her husband’s fundamental rights continue to be violated as Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers prevent him from having confidential consultations with his lawyer while he is under detention at the National Hospital.

In a letter addressed to the HRCSL Chairman on Thursday, Mrs. S.B.M.S.B. Sallay has said the latest complaint was filed in relation to an earlier complaint concerning the detention and treatment of her husband.

Full text of the letter: I, Mrs. S.B.M.S.B. Sallay, respectfully write to lodge this further complaint in relation to my earlier complaint bearing reference H RC-HO-1 103-26, concerning the detention and treatment of my husband, Retired Major General Suresh Sallay.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Commission a further serious violation of his fundamental rights that occurred on 08 July 2026 during a consultation between my husband and his Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Asith Siriwardena, while my husband remains under detention and is receiving treatment at the National Hospital.

I am informed by his Counsel that he is presently permitted to consult with my husband only once a week for a period of approximately twenty minutes. During the consultation held on 08 July 2026, officers of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) stationed at the Cardiac Coronary Care Unit of the National Hospital informed Counsel that they had received instructions from higher authorities that my husband should not be permitted to meet with his

legal counsel in private. Consequently, the officers remained present throughout the consultation and refused to permit a confidential lawyer-client meeting.

This conduct constitutes a grave infringement of my husband’s fundamental right to communicate privately and confidentially with his legal counsel. Confidential communication between an accused or detainee and his lawyer is an indispensable safeguard of the right to legal representation, the right to prepare his defence, and the right to a fair trial. The denial of confidential legal consultations undermines these fundamental protections guaranteed under the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the applicable provisions governing persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client is also a well-recognized principle under international human rights law and forms an essential safeguard against arbitrary detention, coercion, and unfair legal proceedings.

In view of the foregoing, I respectfully request the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to urgently intervene and take all necessary steps within its statutory mandate to:

1. Ensure that my husband is afforded immediate and unrestricted confidential access to his legal counsel without the presence or supervision of law enforcement officers;

2. Inquire into the instructions allegedly issued by higher authorities requiring CID officers to remain present during lawyer-client consultations;

3. Direct the relevant authorities to cease any practice that interferes with confidential legal consultations; and

4. Take such further action as the Commission considers appropriate to safeguard my husband’s constitutional and human rights.

This complaint is made as a further complaint to Complaint No. H RC-HO-1103-26, and I respectfully request that it be placed on the same file and considered together with my previous complaints.

I respectfully seek the Commission’s urgent intervention in this matter.

Continue Reading

News

SC upholds Commercial HC ruling that Weerawansa violated intellectual property rights of JVP

Published

on

The Supreme Court yesterday (9) upheld a Colombo Commercial High Court order directing former Minister Wimal Weerawansa to pay Rs. 1 million in damages to Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) General Secretary Tilvin Silva for violating intellectual property rights.

A three-member Supreme Court bench dismissed in its entirety an appeal filed by Weerawansa challenging the earlier Commercial High Court ruling.

The case was instituted by Silva, who alleged that Weerawansa had violated provisions of the Intellectual Property Act by publishing his book “Neththa Wenuwata Aththa” (“Truth Instead of Lies”), which contained the JVP’s political ideology and official party documents without authorisation.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the order restraining the publication and distribution of the book in its existing form. However, the court ruled that the book could be republished if the 60-page section identified as infringing intellectual property rights was removed.

Continue Reading

Trending