News
Opposition seeks info from AG on dismissed high-profile cases
Same request to be made from CIABOC
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) has sought information in terms of the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Attorney General’s Department pertaining to the withdrawal of indictments in a number of cases following the last presidential election in Nov. 2019.
Colombo District SJB lawmaker Mujibur Rahman made the appeal on behalf of the main Opposition party. A four-member parliamentary delegation consisting of Rahman, J.C. Alawathuwala, Harshana Rajakaruna and Kavinda Jayawardana visited the AG’s Department yesterday (02).
Having made a request from the AG, lawmaker Rahman told The Island that though the media had reported withdrawal of indictments filed in respect of high profile cases, the SJB felt the need to seek clarification from the AG.
The former UNPer pointed out that the indictments that had been filed during the tenure of Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, in his capacity as AG were withdrawn when he served as the Chief Justice. Dappula de Livera, PC, succeeded Jayasuriya in late April 2019. Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC, succeeded de Livera in May, 2021.
The Bill entitled ‘Right to Information’ was passed with amendments in Parliament during the previous administration.
Responding to another query, MP Rahman said that the SJB sought (i) the number of indictments withdrawn after the last presidential election (ii) specific cases (iii) case numbers of the indictments and (iv) on what dates have the indictments and/or court proceedings filed by the AG after the last presidential election been withdrawn?
MP Rahman said that the SJB requested an opportunity to examine relevant work, documents, records and take down notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records and take certified samples of material.
The SJB would shortly seek information from the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) as regards the cases withdrawn since the change of government in Nov 2019. Although the public knew of the cases withdrawn over the past two years, the SJB would use RTI to compel the AG and the CIABOC to explain the circumstances, he said.
“We would like to know how the AG and CIABOC decided on high profile cases,” MP Rahuman said adding that those institutions couldn’t ignore their concerns.
The SJB spokesman said that the CIABOC owed an explanation as to how the decision to drop all charges against former lawmaker and Foreign Ministry Monitoring MP Sajin Vass Gunawardena pertaining to the Mihin Lanka case was arrived at. That particular case dealt with misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs 883 mn, the lawmaker said, while referring to the subsequent dismissal of cases involving one-time Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pilleyan, Johnston Fernando, Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Basil Rajapaksa, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Janaka Bandara Tennakoon and former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris. The former CJ now serves as Sri Lanka’s top representative in New York.
MP Rahman said that they intended to take up the issue both in and out of Parliament. Those who propagated the ‘One Country, One Law’ concept as part of SLPP’s overall political strategy should first of all ensure the implementation of existing laws. The government shouldn’t under any circumstances circumvent the law for the benefit of its members, the MP said, pointing out that so many indictments filed against influential persons hadn’t been withdrawn in such a short period.
The SJB MP said that they were in the process of gathering information pertaining to judicial matters. “Once we obtain the official position as regards sensationally dismissed cases, the public can be briefed,” then the genuine Opposition in Parliament, the civil society and the media could pursue the matter, MP Rahman said.
Asked whether the SJB expected the international community, too, to pay attention to the matters concerning the judiciary, lawmaker Rahman said that the government couldn’t adopt double standards. The government repeatedly assured the international community that Sri Lanka law was able to cope up with accountability issues, the MP said. However, dismissal of cases against those connected with the government under controversial circumstances was causing concern among those interested, the MP claimed.
News
Ambassador of the UAE to Sri Lanka meets with the Prime Minister
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
Latest News
Prime Minister joins Gandhi Jayanti Commemoration
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
News
Unions resist tripartite EPF management plan
… warn of dire consequences
A group of trade unions and civil society groups has requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon his government’s controversial plan for the proposed tripartite management of the EPF.
The group has told the President: “We strongly object to the government’s plan to transfer the EPF to a tripartite board—jointly promoted by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)—and to increase the investments of those funds within private equity and debt markets.
“While the EFC and the government jointly project this plan as a ‘modern governance framework’, it poses a serious threat to the EPF’s financial stability, fiduciary conduct, and returns to workers’ life savings, with severe consequences for broader macroeconomic stability. Rather than replacing the corruption existing in the public sector, this tripartite framework paves the way for a corporate takeover of the EPF. Through this, the fund is exposed to unlawful business practices such as insider trading using internal information of EPF investments, conflicts of interest and corporate bailouts of unstable private companies.
“Sri Lanka’s corporate sector has a tremendously negative track record, which you alluded to during your victorious election campaign in 2024. This was recently unravelled by the multi-billion-dollar illicit capital flight through trade misinvoicing, which your administration is now actively working to curb in the imports sector.
“The recent banking sector fraud exceeds Rs. 13 billion; widespread corporate tax evasion destabilised the fiscal position (Sri Lanka Auditor General’s Department Annual Reports) and consequently inflated the tax burden on the general public. The EFC has found it convenient to remain silent about these crimes, possibly assuming that their silence would preserve their social standing. Considering this inherent corruption within Sri Lanka’s corporate sector and its disregard to the living standards of the general public, there is no realistic basis to integrate corporate interests to actively manage the EPF. The corporate sector of Sri Lanka has not developed sufficiently on technical and ethical grounds to safely entrust the largest retirement savings pool in the country. The EPF is a captive fund that has no mechanism for the owners to divest if the management is corrupt. This further increases the possibility of corporate fraud when the management of the fund is jointly held with the corporate sector.
“Furthermore, during the recent public discussion with trade unions, Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. Anila Jayantha pointed out that the domestic debt restructuring (DDR) would inflict a loss of Rs. 600 billion to the EPF. Our independent calculations—formally submitted as an affidavit to the Supreme Court approved by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations in 2024—reveal that nominal loss alone is Rs. 634.4 billion. When factoring in foreclosed reinvestment returns, the true loss skyrockets to Rs. 1,711 billion, wiping out 48% of the fund’s projected gross income for the 2023 – 2028 period. Under the pretext of safeguarding the banking system, this colossal robbery preserved high yields on government bonds held by commercial banks and high-net-worth individuals, subsequently reaping them astronomical profits. Now, the exact same plunder is rearing its head again disguised as a tripartite committee.”
“The main arguments supporting our resistance and viable alternatives for optimising EPF management directly under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), are outlined below.
“Objections to the government’s tripartite proposal:
1. The “International best practice and conflict of interest fallacies”
The government holds that tripartite management of pension funds is the “international best practice” and that there is a “conflict of interest” in CBSL managing the EPF. They are key pillars justifying government’s tripartite proposal.
These two positions are shockingly misleading given that four of the five largest pension funds in the world, in Norway, Japan, the U.S., and Singapore, are managed directly by state bodies or central banks. Therefore, ‘international best practice’ in pension fund management is the exact opposite of what the government and the IMF are proposing. We hence reject these baseless positions.
2. Corporate captivity and bailouts
It is clear that the EFC is desperately pushing for this proposal at a time of global uncertainty, to cushion the effects of the crisis and maximise gains. Under corporate influence within the proposed tripartite board, the private conglomerates can use the multi-trillion-rupee EPF to continue their unstable commercial operations without having to risk their own capital or savings to do so. This will severely erode the financial stability of the EPF and its returns.
3. Risk of front running
“Because the EPF is a colossal fund, its investment decisions can alter asset prices. This creates immense monetary value for the information generated by its investment decisions. Corporate representatives on the proposed tripartite board will be perfectly positioned to use this information to trade ahead of the EPF (front-running), buying assets cheaply and dumping them onto the EPF at inflated prices for guaranteed corporate gain, resulting in a reduction of returns to the EPF.
4. Unavoidable loopholes
“Presence of a separate group of investment analysts, trade union representatives and government officials within the proposed tripartite structure cannot prevent pre-market corporate access to EPF’s investment decisions. Investment proposals made by the analysts has to be first approved by the proposed tripartite committee, making it impossible to prevent corporate access to insider information on EPF investments.”
-
Editorial7 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News5 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News7 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features5 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features5 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
Latest News3 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
News5 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Features4 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
