Connect with us

News

Prime Minister blames Opposition for spreading ‘falsehoods’ about 20A

Published

on

No attempt made to reduce powers of Auditor General or remove PM’s Office or Presidential Secretariat from AG’s purview

 Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, yesterday, denied allegations that the Auditor General’s powers would be reduced by the proposed 20th Amendment.

pm Rajapaksa said that Constitutional provisions regarding the Auditor General had hardly come to public attention and thus the opposition was using that lack of knowledge to propagate various falsehoods.

Rajapaksa said that one of the main false claims was that the 19th Amendment had created an Audit Commission and that the 20th Amendment sought to abolish it.

The PM said in a media statement: “What the 19th Amendment made provision for was not an Audit Commission but only an Audit Service Commission. The Audit Service Commission does not carry out any auditing functions. It handles matters like the appointment, promotion, transfer and disciplinary control of members of the State Audit Service. Usually such matters pertaining to government servants are dealt with by the Public Service Commission. All that the creation of the Audit Service Commission achieved was to set up yet another Commission to do the work that was being done by the Public Service Commission.”

“Another false claim being made by the opposition is that the 20th Amendment seeks to remove the Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the Prime Minister from the purview of the Auditor General. From the very inception of the 1978 Constitution, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office have been under the purview of the Auditor General. The phrase “all departments of government” in Article 154(1) of the pre-19th Amendment Constitution brought the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office under the purview of the Auditor General, he said. These institutions were always listed as government departments in the Government Financial Regulations. Quite apart from these two institutions, even the Office of Former Presidents is listed as a separate government department and all these institutions were always audited by the Auditor General.

“The inclusion of the Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the Prime Minister by name in Article 154(1), by the 19th Amendment did not achieve anything new. Even though they may have not been specifically mentioned by name, from the very inception of the 1978 Constitution, the Presidential Secretariat and Prime Minister’s Office had always been under the purview of the Auditor General. Even after the 20th Amendment reinstates the old article 154(1) which existed from the inception of the 1978 Constitution, in place of the so called ‘changes’ made by the 19th Amendment, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office will continue to remain within the purview of the Auditor General. Over the past decades, it’s the Auditor General who audited the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office and not some private audit firm.

“Another falsehood being propagated is that state owned companies will be removed from the purview of the Auditor General by the 20th Amendment. However the auditing of state corporations and state owned companies (i.e. companies in which the state owns more than 50% of the shares) comes under Article 154(2) of the Constitution. Under the provisions of Article 154(2), the minister in charge of the subject can assign the auditing of a state corporation or a state owned company to a qualified audit firm.

“However before doing so, he is mandatorily required to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Minister and also to consult the Auditor General. After the minister in charge of the subject assigns the auditing of a state corporation or a state owned company to an audit firm in this manner, the Auditor General can issue a written notice to that audit firm informing them that he proposes to utilize their services for the performance and discharge of the Auditor-General’s duties in relation to that state corporation or state owned company, and thereupon that audit firm is mandatorily required to act under the direction and control of the Auditor-General.

“The content of Article 154(2), which existed from the inception of the 1978 Constitution, was not changed by the 19th Amendment. The content of Article 154(2) will not change under the 20th Amendment either. Therefore it can be said that the content of Article 154(2) has remained the same from the inception of the 1978 Constitution and will continue to remain so in the future as well. Hence the claim that state owned companies are to be taken out of the purview of the Auditor General, is a complete falsehood.”

“It is also being claimed by the Opposition propagandists that the 19th Amendment has stipulated that the Auditor General should be a ‘qualified auditor’ and that when the 20th Amendment reinstates the old pre-19th Amendment Article 153(1) this qualification requirement will be dropped and hence, after the 20th Amendment is passed, even an unqualified person can be appointed as Auditor General.”

“Constitutions are written on the assumption that those reading it will have basic common sense. The Constitution does not state anywhere that the person appointed as Attorney General or as a Supreme Court judge has to be a qualified lawyer. But those appointed as Attorney General, Auditor General or a Supreme Court judge will always have the required educational and professional qualifications without which they cannot function in those positions. All that the 20th Amendment seeks to do is to replace the changes made to the provisions relating to the Auditor General by the 19th Amendment with the provisions that existed before the 19th Amendment. The opposition has been unhesitatingly uttering every lie that comes to mind with regard to this matter because of the confidence that most people would not be familiar with these obscure provisions of the Constitution. It’s our duty to understand the facts of the matter and to defeat the unprincipled attempt being made by the opposition to mislead the people.”

 

 



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

Landslide Early Warnings issued to the districts of Colombo, Galle, Gampaha, Hambanthota, Kalutara, Kandy, Kegalle, Kurunegala, Matara, Nuwara Eliya and Ratnapura

Published

on

By

The National Building Research Institute has issued landslide early warnings to the districts of Colombo, Galle, Gampaha, Hambanthota, Kalutara, Kandy, Kegalle, Kurunegala, Matara, Nuwara Eliya and Ratnapura from 16:00 hrs on 25.09.2026 To 16:00 hrs on 26.09.2026

Accordingly,
LEVEL III [RED] landslide early warnings have been issued to the Divisional Secretaries Divisions and surrounding areas of Neluwa, Nagoda, Niyagama and Thawalama inthe Galle district, Ganga Ihala Korale, Udapalatha, Doluwa and Pasbage Korale in the Kandy district, and  Kothmale West, Ambagamuwa, Kotmale East and Norwood in the Nuwara Eliya district.

LEVEL II [AMBER] landslide early warnings have been issued to the Divisional Secretaries Divisions and surrounding areas of Elpitiya, Baddegama and Karandeniya in the Galle district, Walallawita in the Kalutara district, Deltota, Udunuwara, Gangawata Korale, Yatinuwara and Panvila in the Kandy district, Aranayake, Dehiowita, Mawanella, Deraniyagala and Yatiyanthota in the Kegalle district, Thalawakelle in the Nuwara Eliya district and Ratnapura and  Pelmadulla in the Ratnapura district.

LEVEL I [YELLOW] landslide early warnings have been issued to the Divisional Secretaries Divisions and surrounding areas of Seethawaka and Padukka in the Colombo district, Attanagalla and Mirigama in the Gampaha district, Katuwana and Walasmulla in the Hambanthota district, Ingiriya and Bulathsinhala in the Kalutara district, Hatharaliyadda, Poojapitiya, Medadumbara, Kundasale, Ududumbara, Thumpane, Akurana, Pathadumbara, Harispattuwa and Pathahewaheta in the Kandy district, Warakapola, Bulathkohupitiya, Galigamuwa, Kegalle and Ruwanwella in the Kegalle district, Mallawapitiya, Alawwa, Polgahawela and Mawathagama  in the Kegalle district, Pitabeddara,  Kotapola and  Pasgoda  in the Matara district, Nuwara Eliya in the Nuwara Eliya district and Elapatha, Ayagama, Nivithigala, Kuruwita and Kalawana in the Ratnapura district

 

 

Continue Reading

News

22A, Judicature Amendment Bills passed with 2/3 majority

Published

on

Parliament yesterday passed the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill with two-thirds majorities, with 158 MPs voting in favour and 63 against each Bill.

The Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) voted with the SJB against the Bills.

NDF MPs Ravi Karunanayake and Faizer Musthapha and SJB Badulla District MP Nayana Wasalathilaka were not present when the votes were taken.

The final vote on the Judicature (Amendment) Bill was announced at around 8.08 p.m. after Opposition MPs called for divisions on its clauses during the Committee Stage.

The votes followed a two-day debate which commenced on Thursday (24), after Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara presented the Bills for their Second Reading.

The Supreme Court’s determination on the Bills was presented to Parliament on Tuesday (22) by Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne. The Court determined that the 22nd Amendment Bill did not require approval at a referendum and could be passed by a special two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The amendment provides for raising the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. It also provides for the Chief Justice to retire at 67 or after completing six years in office, whichever comes earlier.

The Speaker informed Parliament that the Judicature (Amendment) Bill could be passed by a simple majority.

The SJB opposed the legislation and its MPs attended Parliament dressed in black yesterday. The party also staged a protest at Polduwa Junction, Battaramulla, under the theme “No to 22, which destroys democracy”, with Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and several SJB politicians participating.

Continue Reading

News

TIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1

Published

on

A valid Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Certificate will be required for a range of key transactions in Sri Lanka from November 1, 2026, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has announced.

The requirement, introduced under the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Act, No. 11 of 2026, applies to transactions specified under Section 102(3) of the Inland Revenue Act.

Accordingly, individuals will be required to produce a valid TIN Certificate when opening an account at a bank or financial institution, obtaining approval for a building plan, registering or renewing the licence of a motor vehicle, registering land or title to land, registering a business, transferring shares in a company incorporated in Sri Lanka or obtaining a credit card.

In the case of share transfers, both the transferor and transferee will be required to provide TIN certificates.

The IRD said officials handling such transactions had been instructed to ensure that a valid TIN Certificate was submitted before processing or completing the relevant transaction.

The Department advised those who do not already have a TIN to obtain one in advance through its e-Services platform.

It said a printout of the TIN verification result showing the applicant’s National Identity Card number and TIN could also be accepted instead of the certificate.The IRD also reiterated that obtaining a TIN is mandatory for resident individuals aged 18 and above under the applicable provisions.

Continue Reading

Trending