Convenor of the Samagi Joint Trade Union Alliance affiliated with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, Ananda Palitha, yesterday (16) said that the Ceylon Electricity Board was seeking to raise electricity tariffs by 13.56% percent although it had earned a profit of more than Rs 22,000 mn.

The CEB recently submitted its proposal to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) for an electricity tariff revision for the second quarter of this year – the period effective from April 1 to June 30.

Palitha alleged that the PUCSL, in spite of knowing the massive profit earned by the CEB, at the expense of the hapless public, had chosen to allow the state enterprise to propose an additional burden.

The economic, technical and safety regulator of the electricity industry, and the designated regulator for petroleum and water services industries, should exercise its powers in terms of the PUCSL Act No. 35 of 2002 and the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009 to provide relief, the veteran trade unionist said.

Palitha emphasised that the PUCSL had the right to intervene on behalf of electricity consumers but, unfortunately, chose to facilitate the CEB’s despicable strategy. “The proposal to increase tariffs by 13.56% was meant to divert attention. The real issue at hand is the percentage of electricity tariff reduction,” Palitha said. The former UNPer found fault with the Opposition for failing to expose the CEB.

Taking into consideration the Rs 22,000 millionplus profit, the PUCSL could order the CEB to grant relief to consumers, Palitha said, adding that the CEB and PUCSL, together, deprived electricity consumers tariff reduction in the first quarter of this year, too.

In January this year, the CEB asked for a 11.59% tariff increase though it was enjoying Rs 22,000 mn profit at that time, the trade unionist said.

Palitha said that as the PUCSL received all data available to the CEB it was fully aware of the finances of the state enterprise.

In January, 2025, regardless of the NPP government floating the idea regarding as much as a 37% tariff increase, the PUCSL granted a 20% tariff reduction (25% of Rs 22,000 mn profit), Palitha said.

According to him, as a result of relief granted to the consumers, the profits had been reduced to Rs 16,000 mn but by June 2025 profits had increased to Rs 18,000 mn and there was a need to grant tariff reduction. But, the NPP, having always lashed out at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the run up to the presidential election, held in September 2024, started playing a different tune.

Responding to The Island queries, Palitha said that contrary to claims that the CEB proposed a 13.56% tariff increase to cover up losses caused by the importation of low-quality coal for the Norochcholai Lakvijaya coal-fired power plant, the current strategy seemed to have been adopted at the behest of the IMF.

Instead of granting tariff reduction for the third quarter in 2025, the PUCSL ordered an 18% increase, Palitha said. The trade unionist claimed that the Finance Ministry, at the behest of the IMF, directed both the CEB and the PUCSL to increase electricity tariffs by 20% in violation of the relevant Acts, he said.

Then in Oct, 2025, the CEB proposed a 6.8 % tariff increase at a time its profits were around Rs 22,000 mn. The CEB and PUCSL staged a drama over that proposal and finally, on the false pretext of the CEB’s failure to furnish its proposal on time, the revision was dropped, Palitha said. The SJB activist pointed out that the Opposition failed to highlight that consumers had been deprived of downward revision in spite of massive profits earned by the Board. “In fact, when Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody met trade unions, he very clearly declared that they were considering electricity power reduction, perhaps by 10%, 12% or 15%. But in the end nothing happened.”

Now the same drama is being enacted by the government, the CEB and the PUCSL, Palitha said.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Members of the BASL yesterday (16) staged a protest march over the murder of a lawyer and his wife in Akuregoda, Thalangama, last week. The BASL staged a protest march from the Supreme Court Complex to the BASL Head Office.

The Navy has generated USD 598,250 in foreign exchange revenue within four months by independently facilitating Onboard Security Team (OBST) operations, with the full amount credited to the Government’s Consolidated Fund, the Navy said.

Issuing a statement, the Navy said that between 3 October, 2025, and 8 February, 2026, it conducted 323 maritime security operations under the new independent framework. All earnings from these operations, totalling USD 598,250, were remitted directly to the Consolidated Fund for the benefit of the national economy and public welfare.

Details of the initiative were disclosed at a press briefing held at the Department of Government Information last Wednesday (11), chaired by the Navy’s Director General Operations.

The shift to independent maritime security operations followed a Cabinet decision approved on 7 July, 2025, based on a proposal submitted on 18 June, 2025, aimed at strengthening national security while enhancing domestic economic gains.

A further legal framework was established when the President, in terms of Section 21(1) of the Navy Act, issued a Presidential Order on 10 August, 2025, designating the Navy’s maritime security operations project — providing services to Foreign Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSCs) — as a “non-naval duty” in the national interest. The Order was subsequently published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2449/27 on 13 August, 2025.

Pursuant to this mandate, the Navy commenced independent maritime security operations on 3 October, 2025, by entering into agreements with foreign PMSCs. The operations include the storage of firearms, ammunition and related equipment for OBSTs at Navy armouries under the strict supervision of the Ministry of Defence. Transportation of such items is carried out using vehicles, or craft, provided by local agents of foreign PMSCs, under direct security oversight and planning by the Navy.

The Navy noted that it already possesses much of the required physical and human resources to conduct maritime security activities independently, enabling a potential expansion of such services with minimal additional cost.

The service has its origins in arrangements, initiated around 10 September, 2009, when the Navy began storing arms, ammunition and equipment for Sea Marshals deployed on board merchant vessels. At the time, operations were conducted with private entities under advisory arrangements, with only a small fee paid to the Navy and a limited share of total revenue remitted to the Government.

Under the current independent framework, however, the entirety of the revenue generated is channelled directly to the Consolidated Fund, strengthening state finances and supporting public welfare initiatives.