SJB MP Dayasiri Jayasekera has sought the intervention of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to pressure the JVP-NPP government to respect the rights of the Opposition.

MP Jayasekera told The Island that they wouldn’t allow the NPP to suppress the truth regarding the theft of Treasury funds amounting to USD 2.5 million. He accused Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne of depriving the Opposition of its legitimate rights, at the behest of the government.

Jayasekera said that the Speaker’s conduct regarding the action taken against Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne, too, had been brought to the notice of IPU and other international associations.

The text of MP Jayasekera’s letter to the Secretary general of IPU: “I respectfully submit this petition seeking the attention and intervention of the Inter-Parliamentary Union concerning a matter affecting parliamentary accountability, the rights of elected representatives, and the proper functioning of constitutional oversight within the Parliament of Sri Lanka.

On 06 May 2026, I Dayasiri Jayasekara MP submitted a formal request to the Hon. Speaker of Parliament seeking permission, under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act No. 21 of 1953 and Standing Order 29(1), to raise a question of privilege regarding alleged constitutional and parliamentary violations by Mr. Harshana Suriyapperuma, Secretary to the Treasury of Sri Lanka.

The proposed privilege motion raised matters including:

1. Alleged violations of Articles 148, 149, and 150 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka concerning parliamentary control over public finance;

2. Alleged failure to report to Parliament concerning a controversial and unlawful transfer of approximately USD 2.5 million from the Treasury;

3. Alleged non-compliance with parliamentary committee procedures under the Standing Orders of Parliament;

4. Questions relating to constitutional eligibility under Article 91(1)(d)(xiii) of the Constitution concerning dual citizenship and qualification to sit and vote in Parliament;

5. A request that the matter be referred to the Parliamentary Ethics and Privileges Committee established under Standing Order 118.

 Despite the seriousness of the constitutional and parliamentary issues raised, the Hon. Speaker declined permission for the privilege issue to be raised in Parliament.

It is respectfully submitted that this refusal has the effect of:

•  Preventing an elected Member of Parliament from exercising his parliamentary oversight function;

• Restricting parliamentary scrutiny over matters involving public finance and constitutional accountability;

•  Undermining the privileges of Members of Parliament to raise matters of urgent public importance;

•  Limiting institutional transparency concerning allegations involving senior state officials.

The right of parliamentarians to raise questions of privilege and matters relating to constitutional governance is an essential component of parliamentary democracy and legislative independence. The refusal to permit even the presentation or preliminary consideration of such a matter raises serious concerns regarding parliamentary accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Inter-Parliamentary Union:

1.Take cognizance of this matter as one affecting the rights and functions of Members of Parliament;

2.Seek clarification from the relevant parliamentary authorities in Sri Lanka regarding the grounds upon which the privilege motion was disallowed;

3.Consider whether the refusal is compatible with internationally recognised principles of parliamentary democracy, accountability, and freedom of parliamentary speech;

4. Encourage the Parliament of Sri Lanka to ensure fair and transparent procedures governing parliamentary privilege motions and constitutional oversight.

I further request that this communication be placed before the appropriate committee or mechanism within the IPU dealing with the rights and duties of parliamentarians.”

UNP Vice President and Kandy District Leader, Navin Dissanayake, on Saturday, stressed that any proposed merger between the UNP and the SJB must be carried out formally rather than in an ad hoc manner.

Addressing a media briefing in Kandy, Dissanayake said a structured framework was essential to ensure the successful reunification of the two parties ahead of future elections.

“A formal mechanism must be established for the unification of the UNP and the SJB. This process cannot be confined to personal verbal assurances given to suit individual interests. We must build a strong framework to contest future elections as a united force,” he said.

He added that the UNP could only regain political strength by reuniting with factions that had broken away from the party.

Dissanayake also claimed that the Government would be compelled to hold Provincial Council elections amid mounting international and domestic pressure.

“India is exerting pressure to conduct these elections, while the people in the North are also demanding governance under the Provincial Council system. They are awaiting the polls,” he said.

Announcing his own political intentions, Dissanayake said he hoped to contest as the Chief Ministerial candidate for the Central Province at the next Provincial Council election.

“I intend to contest as the Chief Ministerial candidate for the Central Province. Having served as a Governor, I understand the extent of service that can be delivered to the people through a Provincial Council,” he said.

Recalling the history of constitutional devolution, Dissanayake said his late father, Gamini Dissanayake, had played a significant role in the introduction of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

by SK Samaranayake

The Free Lawyers Organisation has accused the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) of attempting to shield those responsible for the diversion of USD 2.5 million from the Treasury to a rogue account.

In a statement, the organisation alleged that an eight-page committee report had shifted responsibility onto lower-level officials and computer systems while protecting senior decision-makers.

It further claimed that the committee had failed to discharge its duties under Standing Order 121 of Parliament, describing the document as a factual compilation rather than a substantive inquiry into the matter.

The Free Lawyers Organisation also alleged that the committee granted approximately one month’s additional time to individuals linked to the alleged irregularities, enabling them to conceal wrongdoing and prepare supporting documentation.

It further claimed that, even after a lapse of 30 days, the Central Bank administration had not issued a response, alleging that the oversight process had been used to protect the institution’s reputation.

According to the statement, the issue stemmed from the operation of three uncoordinated computer systems within the Treasury, External Resources Department and Public Debt Management divisions.

The organisation also raised concerns over the role of the Treasury Secretary, questioning whether adequate oversight had been exercised under Financial Regulation 135 in the delegation of financial authority.

It warned that the assignment of responsibility for major financial transactions to a single director-level officer reflected weak administrative practice.The Free Lawyers Organisation concluded that Parliament’s public finance oversight mechanism had effectively endorsed an attempt to obscure those truly responsible for the alleged irregularities.