Midweek Review

Is Speaker’s announcement consistent with SC determination?

Published

3 years ago

2023/04/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’:

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena made the following announcement immediately after the opening of Parliament on April 04, 2023. The Speaker declared: “I wish to make an announcement in respect of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ The court has determined that none of the provisions in the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, the court has determined that the Bill can be passed by a simple majority in parliament subject to the amendments which have been mentioned in the determination. I order that the full determination of the Supreme Court be published in the official proceedings of the parliament today.”

Education Minister Susil Premjayantha was the first to address the House after Speaker Abeywardena made several announcements. The video released by parliament showed all seats around Premjyantha empty.

Samagi Jana Balawegaya

(SJB) and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa MP who was present in parliament raised the continuing crisis at the Ruhuna University. Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella was seated next to lawmaker Premadasa while SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara sat behind the Opposition Leader.

In spite of the fact that April 04 being the only day the parliament met this month, the House was largely empty. Quite surprisingly, no one present sought a clarification as regards Speaker Abeywardena’s statement on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill.

If not for Gevindu Cumaratunga, MP, and leader of civil society organisation Yuthukama, Speaker Abeywardena’s announcement would have gone unchallenged before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. In fact, those responsible for very serious offenses probably thought the Speaker’s announcement on the SC determination would go unchallenged.

Lawmaker Cumaratunga dropped a bombshell at a hastily arranged media briefing at the Communist Party Office at Punchi Borella. Cumaratunga brought the latest development to the notice of the writer before he called the media briefing where he questioned the possibility of Speaker Abeywardena and Parliament being part of a conspiracy to deceive the Parliament, thereby mislead the public.

Speaking on behalf of the Uthara Lanka Sabhagaya (ULS), MP Cumaratunga explained how the Parliament deprived its members’ copies of the SC determination before the announcement was made. Had there been copies of SC determination, those present could have immediately realised the Speaker’s announcement was contrary to the SC ruling, lawmaker Cumaratunga declared. Did anyone instruct those responsible for releasing such communications received by the Speaker from the Chief Justice not to do so?

There hadn’t been a previous instance of such an important SC ruling brazenly misinterpreted, deliberately. Who prepared the short notice in English read out by the Speaker?

The CJ’s communication in English conveniently allowed the Speaker to make the announcement, too, in that language only.

Unfortunately, Cumaratunga’s media briefing didn’t receive the attention it deserved. Actually, the media due to ignorance on their part or otherwise largely ignored the issue at hand. Many an eyebrow was raised at lawmaker Cumaratunga’s shocking exposure, that hadn’t jolted the Opposition into action at least by last Friday.

The joint Opposition should have written immediately to the Speaker in that regard. Regrettably, the joint Opposition missed that opportunity.

It would be pertinent to ask whether the Speaker would respond to MP Cumaratunga’s accusations before the next parliamentary sittings. Parliament cannot allow further deterioration of public confidence in the country’s supreme institution.

Perhaps the Opposition should raise the issue at hand with the Committee on Ethics and Privileges as a matter of utmost importance. One-time Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa heads this committee. Interestingly, a new controversy over a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament has erupted in the wake of a contentious move to summon SC judges before the Ethics and Privileges Committee.

The Bar Association’s declaration against the bid to summon SC judges over the March 03 ruling in respect of the Local Government polls should be appreciated. The statement dated April 05, warned the government of dire consequences unless the ongoing course of action was reversed.

However, deliberate misinterpretation of SC determination on the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka underscored the Wickremesinghe –Rajapaksa dispensation’s readiness to do whatever if felt required. The latest action stressed their readiness to go the whole hog.

As Prof. Charitha Herath, former outspoken Chairman of the parliamentary watchdog committee pointed out, President Ranil Wickremesinghe brazenly took advantage of the developing political-economic-social crisis to advance his agenda. Herath, like colleague Cumaratunga accommodated on the SLPP’s National List quit the government parliamentary group last year. Both voted against UNP leader Wickremesinghe at the July 20, 2022 vote in which the incumbent leader received 134 votes of parliamentarians for him to be elected President to complete the remaining period of the previous President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was ousted by violent mobs despite him having been elected with a landslide majority.

A significant SC determination

The SC determination was contrary to what the Speaker announced in parliament that the court determined that none of the provisions in the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.

In fact, out of the 134 clauses in the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’, the Supreme Court had determined that 46 clauses required either to be passed by a 2/3 majority and 2/3 majority plus a referendum. The Speaker’s declaration cannot be justified under any circumstances though he ordered the publication of the SC determination in full in the day’s proceedings.

Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, wasn’t present at the time the Speaker made the announcement.

The landmark determination was made by the SC bench consisting of Justices Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, Kumudini Wickremasinghe and Arjuna Obeysekere.

Petitioners were retired Lt. Col. Anil S. Amarasekara (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC, with Haripriya Kumarage), Jehan Hameed (Canishka Witharana with Sawani Rajakaruna), Anura Darshana Perera Abeysekera (Counsel Canishka Witharana with Sawani Rajakaruna), Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Prabath Gammanpila, MP, (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC, with Haripriya Kumarage), Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera (Counsel Manohara de Silva, PC with Haripriya Kumarage), Ven. Athureliye Rathana thero of Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya (Counsel didn’t make representations in court), former JVP MP Wasantha Samarasinghe (Counsel Chamara Nanayakkarawasam with Dimuthu Fernando and Patali Abeyarathna).

The SC bench, too, appeared to have deviated from the usual presentation of such determinations of the court. However, having perused the 54-page document titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’, there cannot be any doubt the Speaker’s announcement contradicted the determination of the highest court in the country. But one can also assert that the section of the judgment titled ‘Determination’ didn’t clearly reflect the severity of the SC response to the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’

Let me reproduce the section titled ‘Determination’ (page 53): “We have examined the other provisions of the Bill and are of the opinion that, subject to the above (emphasis mine) none of the provisions in the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, we make our determination that the Bill can be passed by a simple majority in Parliament, subject to the amendments stated above (emphasis mine)

‘We wish to place on record our sincere appreciation for the assistance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the petitioners and the intervenient- petitioners in the consideration of the Bi1l.

We also wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, Governor of the Central Bank for assisting the court in making this determination.”

But consideration of what the SC bench referred to as amendments meant that the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is flawed.

Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to name intervenient petitioners, Ajit Damon Gunewardene, Murtaza Jafferjee, Dumindra Rajith Ratnayaka (Counsel Shivaan Coorey with Amanda Coorey, Dinithi Panambara, Damithu Surasena and Chamath Surasena), L.Y. Dharmasena ( Counsel Nilshantha Sirimanne with Deshara Goonetilleke), Chandra Jayaratne (Counsel Chandaka Jayasundere, PC with Viran Corea, S.A. Beling, Sayuri Liyanasuriya and Imaz Imtiyaz).

The counsel for the intervenient-petitioners assured the SC that no constitutional provisions have been violated by the proposed Bill. They assured the court that the proposed Central Bank Act explicitly provided for the financial stability, economic development, and accountability of the Central Bank.

Respondent was Attorney General (Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC), while the AG was represented by Viraj Dayaratne PC, ASG with Mahen Gopallawa SDSG, Nirmalan Wigneswaran DSG, Sureka Ahmed SSC, Amasara Gajadeera SC and Indumini Randeny SC.

Addressing the media at the Communist Party Office, Punchi Borella, lawmaker Cumaratunga asked who took the responsibility for preparing the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ Acknowledging that the AG has assured to make the necessary amendments at the Committee Stage, the civil society activist emphasized the powers that be owed an explanation how 46 clauses out of 134 (nearly one third of the Bill) were found to be contrary to the Constitution.

Unprecedented onslaught on new Bill

A careful examination of the high profile but thoroughly disputed Bill underscores the irresponsibility on the part of those responsible for the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’

The crux of the matter is that the SC explicitly held that the Central Bank cannot be made independent of the Executive, in the formulation of monetary policy as well as the parliamentary oversight. And the acceptance of the proposed Bill would infringe Articles 3, 4, 43 and 48 of the Constitution. Obviously, the SC has largely accepted submissions made by Counsel for the petitioners.

Did the Cabinet of Ministers headed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who also holds the finance portfolio discuss this Bill? Did the President’s Counsels among the ministers, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, and Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Sabry express opinion on this contentious matter?

Counsel for petitioners has drawn the attention of SC to Article 148 of the Constitution which read: “Parliament shall have full control over public finance. No tax, rate or any other levy shall be imposed by any local authority or any other public authority, except by or under the authority of a law passed by Parliament or of any existing law. “

But, those who decried the new Bill must keep in mind that Parliament cannot absolve itself of the responsibility for the developing crisis.

Had Parliament exercised full control of public finance, how could those who moved SC against the controversial Bill explain the circumstances under which Treasury Bond scams were perpetrated in 2015 February and 2016 March during the tenure of yahapalana government. In fact, Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera and Wasantha Samarasinghe’s JVP backed the yahapalana government to the hilt.The country wouldn’t have had to default on external debt last May if the Parliament fulfilled its responsibilities with regard to public finance. For those who considered SC determination a setback for the incumbent government, particularly President Ranil Wickremesinghe should also examine exactly how successive governments ruined the economy.

The government sought to introduce a new Bill against the backdrop of severe criticism that political interference caused the economic devastation. There is no point in denying the fact that the Central Bank and the five-member Monetary Board contributed to the collapse of the national economy caused by ill-conceived decisions such as abolition of long established foreign exchange controls under the yahapalana rule for inexplicable reasons and doing away of a range of taxes by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government at the worst possible time and its refusal to seek timely IMF intervention for the 17th time until it was too late for the country and its own good.

Incumbent Central Bank Governor Dr. Weerasinghe’s harsh talk to MPs on Aug 31, last year and his statements before parliamentary watchdogs within weeks after assuming the hot seat set the record straight. The circumstances under which the national economy collapsed during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency are clear. Of course, Dr. Weerasinghe’s statements should be the basis for an examination of the political-economic-social crisis. The responsibility of the executive, legislature and judiciary should be examined taking into consideration Dr. Weerasinghe’s views.

The SC dealt with major differences between the proposed Central Bank Act and the current Monetary Law Act. The primary objective of the flawed Bill is to maintain domestic price stability, whereas the current law ensured both price stability and financial system stability. The proposed law prohibited monetary financing through purchase of government securities in the primary market though the current Monetary Law Act allowed purchasing of Treasury Bills.

The proposed law excluded public debt management from the Central Bank. This is meant to separate monetary policy and public debt management. The new law provided for a transitional provision for continuing public debt management pending the establishment of a public debt management apparatus.

The AG’s Department asserted that restriction of the government’s role in respect of monetary policy would not amount to alienation of the executive power, as the necessary link between the Executive and the governing bodies of the Central Bank is preserved.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues is the Clause 3 wherein proposal was made: “The Central Bank shall have its principal place of business in Colombo, and may have such branches, agencies, and correspondents in other places in Sri Lanka or abroad, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business.”

Declaring that the words “and may have such branches, agencies, and correspondents in other places in Sri Lanka or abroad, as may be necessary for the proper conduct of its business,” are unwarranted and unjustified, the SC determined Clause 3 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

SC also ruled that that Clause should be passed in Parliament by a special majority in terms of Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

It found fault with the following Clauses (5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 31, 40, 43, 47, 59, 73, 80, 84, 85, 86, 100 (3), 102, 103(5), 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113(2)(b), 190,120, 123 and 133.

Perhaps, the controversy surrounding the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ should be examined taking into consideration how the yahapalana government abolished time-tested exchange control laws in 2017 and how it contributed to the current crisis.

Then what about private foreign exchange dealers who continue to enable the international drug mafia to freely convert their ill-gotten lucrative drug proceeds from rupees to hard currencies without any questions being asked.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Squeaky clean image of JVP in tatters

Published

3 days ago

2026/04/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

During the recent debate on the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) Batticaloa District lawmaker, Shanakiyan Rajaputhiran Rasamanickam, warned that the next NCM would be moved against Fisheries Minister Ramalingham Chandrasekaran. Rasamanickam accused the National List member of corruption, a charge vehemently denied by the NPPer. The NPP/JVP needs to initiate an internal inquiry before corruption allegations overwhelm the party that received the full advantage of Aragalaya to transform the outfit from just a three-member parliamentary group, in 2024, to a staggering 159, a year later. The UNP and SLFP led alliances were dealt harshly by the electorates for want of action to curb corruption. Today, the UNP and SLFP are not represented in Parliament, while the SLPP, that secured 145 seats at the 2020 general election, was reduced to just three with its parliamentary group leader Namal Rajapaksa entering Parliament through the National List. Rajapaksa junior obviously feared to face the Hambantota electorate at the last general election. That is the undeniable truth.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The ongoing controversy over Agriculture, Lands, Irrigation and Livestock Minister K.D. Lal Kantha’s three-storeyed luxury house has intensified pressure on the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) government struggling to cope-up with the devastating coal scam, blamed on Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody forcing him to resign.

Jayakody, one of those who financed the NPP/JVP campaign in the run-up to the 2024 national polls ,resigned on 17 April, along with Prof. Udayanga Hemapala, Secretary to the Energy Ministry. Their resignations happened eight months after the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), a breakaway faction of the JVP, revealed the alleged coal scam. The Lal Kantha affair received significant public attention though the primary issue at hand is the massive coal scam that ripped through the government.

Jayakody will continue as a National List member of the ruling party. The NPP/JVP won an unprecedented 159 seats, including 18 National List slots at the November 2024 parliamentary elections.

The Opposition dismissed government claims that the resignations were meant to facilitate the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the procurement of coal, since the commissioning of the country’s only coal-fired power plant during the onset of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term. In the wake of the much delayed resignations, NPP/JVP heavyweight Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, addressing the media at the Information Department, pathetically vouched for Jayakody’s integrity.

Let us discuss the accusations directed at Lal Kantha who had served the SLFP-led Cabinet for a short period, years ago, in terms of an agreement between the SLFP and the JVP. Lal Kantha had never been accused of corruption and was, in fact, one of those lawmakers who raised the issue both in and outside Parliament. Political parties may have forgotten that the UNP got rid of Lacille de Silva, Director General of Administration, Parliament, during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s premiership, in the 2001-2003 period, alleging he passed on information to Lal Kantha to attack the government.

The NPP Executive Committee member, as well as JVP politburo and Central Committee heavyweight, has publicly defended his right to own a luxury house amidst a section of the social media pushing for police investigation into the lawmaker’s wealth.

Unlike the owner/owners of the mysterious Malwana mansion, built on a 16-acre land overlooking the Kelani river, Lal Kantha didn’t try to disclaim the house ownership at Jusse Road, Welivita, in the Kaduwela area. The Malwana house was built towards the end of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term as the President. The hullabaloo over the ownership of the Malwana mansion, and construction costs, dominated the 2015 presidential election campaign. On the basis of the Malwana mansion, the UNP and the JVP built a strong case against the Rajapaksas, accusing the family of corruption.

It would be of pivotal importance that the JVP backed Maithripala Sirisena’s 2015 presidential polls candidature. The campaign was built on an anti-corruption platform that earned the appreciation of the public who disregarded the unprecedented development work successfully carried out by the Rajapaksas, while also fighting a war to defeat the most ruthless terrorist organisation that was out to break up the country.

During a US-India backed violent protest campaign, in March-July 2022, an organised gang set the stately Malwana mansion ablaze. The general consensus was that the Malwana mansion belonged to Basil Rajapakasa, though he vehemently denied having anything to do with it.

Yahapalana Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, is on record as having declared that the Malwana mansion would be renovated and used to accommodate a state institution. Lal Kantha’s newly acquired wealth has to be examined and discussed, taking into consideration his long standing claim that as a fulltime member of the JVP he entirely depended on his wife’s monthly salary and help provided by friends and associates. If that was the case, Lal Kantha couldn’t have ended up among the richest group of politicians, within less than two years after the last presidential election, held in September 2024.

Lal Kantha couldn’t have been unaware of the possibility of the Opposition, particularly the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), attacking him and the NPP/JVP over his Kaduwela house. Responding to critics, the Anuradhapura District lawmaker has claimed, on YouTube, that he sold a property he owned in Anuradhapura and used that money to acquire the Jusse Road land.

The outspoken Minister is also on record as having said that the existence of his new house, to which he moved in late 2024, was disclosed by him. However, incisive Youtuber Dharma Sri Kariyawasam has claimed that he made the revelation on 01 October, 2025, while another You-Tuber, Abeetha Edirisinghe, rammed up pressure on the NPP by lodging a complaint with the police, via the special number 1818. Edirisinghe’s SL Leaders YouTube posted a video of him lodging the complaint.

What made the complaint really interesting was Edirisinghe’s declaration based on ‘Dark Room’ YouTube allegations that wealthy businessman Nissanka Senadhipathi, who had been one of the closest associates of the Rajapaksas, provided the wherewithal required to acquire land, build and then furnish the Jusse Road mansion. Defending his position, Lal Kantha claimed that he acquired a piano for his daughter, about 15 years ago, while declaring he enjoyed the capacity to raise large sums of funds if necessary. A smiling Lal Kantha explained how he could effortlessly collect Rs 500,000 each from 100 associates/friends. Programmes posted by Dharma Sri Kariyawasam and Abeetha Edirisinghe are must-watch for those genuinely interested in knowing the explosive story, from different angles.

Close on the heels of debates on Lal Kantha’s mansion, the media reported the Minister’s last available asset declaration, sent to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), dealt with over Rs 80 mn worth of property, vehicles and gold, etc. The JVP heavyweight’s annual income has stunned even the staunchest supporters of the ruling party. Lal Kantha, through his lawyer, demanded Rs 10 bn in damages from ‘Hiru’ for wrongly estimating his properties, etc., at Rs 460 mn.

Both Dharma Sri Kariyawasam and Abeetha Edirisinghe propagated that police wanted the public to complain to special the number 1818, created to accept such complaints in case they felt suspicious about newly acquired property, regardless of who owned them.

Unexpected disclosure of Lal Kantha’s unprecedented wealth obviously stunned the public who genuinely believed in the unshakable NPP/JVP stand on corruption. Lal Kantha, who had joined the JVP in 1982, before becoming a full time member, in 1987, had no qualms in defending his new lifestyle, having repeatedly and bitterly complained about the difficulties experienced by him and his family.

In his defence, Lal Kantha emphasised that he hadn’t been accused of robbing the taxpayer or public sector corruption. However, the NPP/JVP all-out attack on all previous governments, over waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement, and branding all their MPs corrupt, cannot adopt such a stance. The Kaduwela mansion has sent shockwaves through the electorate. Dharma Sri Kariyawasam, in his response to Lal Kantha, repeatedly stressed that his wealth was being questioned by those who exercised their franchise in support of the NPP/JVP at the national elections and Local Government polls, in 2025.

Growing public resentment over what various interested parties, including the NPP/JVP called ill-gotten wealth of members and henchmen of previous governments fuelled Aragalaya (31 March-14 July 2022). Those who set houses and other property, belonging to various then government politicians and their associates ablaze, operated on the presumption that they were beneficiaries of ill-gotten wealth. The NPP/JVP powered the campaign, alongside the breakaway JVP faction, styled as Peratugami Pakshaya (Frontline Socialist Party) as well as the UNP.

Ranwala and others

Against the backdrop of Auditor General Samudrika Jayarathne’s devastating report on coal procurement for the 2025/2026 period and Lal Kantha’s declaration that he owned a three-storeyed house, the resignation of Asoka Ranwala, as the Speaker of Parliament, over his failure to prove his declared academic qualifications seemed uncalled for. Jayarathne signed that report on behalf of the National Audit Office (NAO).

The Gampaha District MP resigned on 13 December, 2024, just 22 days after being appointed the Speaker. The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) relentlessly attacked Ranwala over his fabricated or unverified educational qualifications, specifically a Ph.D. from a Japanese university and a degree from the University of Moratuwa.

The NPP/JVP tried to defend Ranwala but quickly succumbed to SJB pressure. We never managed to establish whether Ranwala resigned on his own accord or the NPP/JVP asked him to resign to save the party. Similarly, the resignations of Energy Minister Jayakody and Prof. Hemapala, who cut a sorry figure before the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) recently, must have been demanded by the ruling party. Had the NPP bosses acted prudently, much earlier, after he was indicted before the Colombo High Court on a previous corruption case, they could have easily asked Jayakody to resign his ministerial portfolio before the Parliament debated the no-confidence motion against him.

Another case that really embarrassed the ruling party was accusations directed at Dr. Jagath Wickremeratne, who succeeded Ranwala as House Speaker. The Polonnaruwa District MP was the next to face fire, following a dispute with the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne who is also the Chief of Staff of the House. Kularatne hit back hard after Parliament sacked him over alleged irregularities. In a petition, dated 2 February, 2026, sent to CIABOC, Kularatne disclosed the circumstances the Speaker reacted angrily after he brought to the NPPer’s notice illegal actions and corruption, as well as his (Kularatne) recommendation in his capacity as the Right to Information (RTI) officer, to release certain information sought by civil society activists. Kularatne further claimed that the situation deteriorated further over an incident that happened on 18 June, 2025, or a date closer to that date, in the room where Speaker Wickremeratne had his lunch. Kularatne refrained from revealing the incident.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of a senior parliamentary official moving the CIABOC against the Speaker. The allegations directed at the Speaker, in respect of abuse of vehicles, taking two fuel allowances, misuse of equipment belonging to the Media Unit of Parliament, inadequate payment for lunch obtained for Chameera Gallage, Speaker’s private secretary, who had lunch with him, illegal payments made to retired Ministry Additional Secretary S.K. Liyanage, who was appointed to inquire into Kularatne’s conduct, suppression of release of information in terms of RTI, and uncalled for interventions in administration.

Kularatne’s complaint to the CIABOC failed to result in an expeditious inquiry, though a complaint lodged against a sacked parliamentary official appeared to have received much more attention. The NPP has responded cautiously to Kularatne vs Wickremeratne battle as pressure mounted on the ruling party over the coal scam that threatened to cause further increase in already unbearable electricity tariffs. The Auditor General’s report, in no uncertain terms, has implicated the Energy Ministry and Lanka Coal Company in the sordid operation that resulted in low-grade coal ending up at the Lakvijaya coal-fired power plant that earlier met about 30 to 40% percent of the country’s power requirements at essentially low cost, barring hydroelectricity.

The report declared that the term tender for the supply of coal was awarded to Trident Champhar, an Indian company that hadn’t been registered at the time it bid for Sri Lanka’s largest tender and procedures in respect of loading and unloading the cargo. To make matters worse, Minister Jayakody, who had been implicated in the coal scam, was recently indicted on corruption charges in the High Court of Colombo. There hadn’t been a previous instance of a sitting member of the Cabinet being indicted for corruption. Therefore, the NPP government cannot be happy over its steamroller majority in Parliament having defeated the no-confidence motion moved against Jayakody who remained confident in the parliamentary group’s support at the behest of the top party leadership.

The NPP/JVP finds itself in an extremely embarrassing and pitiful situation over the coal scam. The damning report issued by the Auditor General pertaining to the coal scam has to be examined taking into consideration the failure on the part of the government and the Constitutional Council to reach a consensus on filling the vacant Auditor General’s post in 2025. The post of Auditor General remained vacant from early April 2025 to early February 2026.

Role of NAO

The NAO functions as an independent body answerable to Parliament. The recent NAO report that dealt with coal procurement exposed the utterly corrupt system in place, regardless of assurances given by the government. The report proved that irregularities can be perpetrated and corrupt practices continued, regardless of assurances given by the current dispensation.

Over the past several years, tangible measures were taken to strengthen the NAO. Parliament certified the National Audit (Amendment) Act, No. 19 of 2025 on 22 September, 2025. That act introduced reforms meant to enhance public sector accountability, enforce audit findings, and streamline the surcharge process. The no nonsense report proved that in spite of interference and undue influence exerted on the NAO, those responsible did their job without fear or favour.

SJB lawmaker Mujibur Rahman, during the debate on the no-confidence motion against Minister Jayakody, alleged in Parliament that COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) Chairman Dr. Nishantha Samaraweera directly intervened when the NAO was in the process of finalising the report. The former UNPer called for an investigation to establish whether the Galle District NPP MP visited the NAO on several days to meet those handling the investigation.

We are not aware whether the COPE Chief, who called for the NAO to inquire into allegations in respect of coal procurement, visited the NAO.

However, the NAO report on the coal scam, now available online for all to study, underscores the pivotal importance of the anti-corruption fight.

In September 2025, the SJB asked the CIABOC to probe how some NPP/JVP Ministers amassed so much property. The SJB raised the issue with the focus on Trade, Commerce, Food Security and Cooperative Development Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe (like Lal Kantha, he, too, represents the Anuradhapura District) amassed Rs 275 mn. The SJB’s complaint to CIABOC sought investigations on Ministers Sunil Handunetti, Bimal Rathnayake, Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa and Kumara Jayakody, and Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala.

Lal Kantha, who has now acknowledged having as much as Rs 80 mn worth property, was not among the lawmakers targeted by the SJB. Having falsely propagated an anti-corruption campaign to deceive the public, the NPP/JVP stand literally exposed before the public. The coal scam and Lal Kantha fiasco have caused irreparable damage to such an extent, their anti-corruption campaigns may not carry any weight with the public at future elections.

Midweek Review

Some languages confine you; some languages free you

Published

3 days ago

2026/04/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘… where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; ….

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;

Where the mind is led forward….into ever-widening thought and action…’

With wide apologies, I am going to put snatches of that poem into more dreary uses, though not quite desert sand.

What are those narrow domestic walls which break up the world into fragments? Languages.

Amiya reads the Gitanjali but does not read the Tirukkural. Hong Li reads Kong Fut Ze’s Analects but not Plato’s Republic. Paul reads Miton’s Paradise Lost but not Njal Saga. Sarath Kumara reads Wickremasinghe’s satva santatitya but not Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Ngidi does not read Thomas Picketty’s Capital in the 20th Century or Anthony Atkinson’s Inequality at all. Hirono uses Large Language Models to do homework but Rasolomanana has not seen a computer. And so on and so forth. The world is broken into fragments by languages, but not by languages alone. The daughter of a rich black man living in Howard County in Maryland goes to Stanford but a brown dweller in Dharavi cannot enter Jawaharlal Nehru University. The lesson is that it is not only languages or orthodoxies that break up the world into ‘fragments’ but also many other barriers, about one of which Tagore sang.

Language is a marvellous ‘invention’ of nature well cultivated by humans. No other species has the faculty to use language to know. Ludwig Wittgenstein expressed it epigrammatically, ‘whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ It is language that carries forth knowledge. It is not only language that carries forth knowledge: mathematics, in its own right, is a powerful carrier of knowledge. One can write something simple like if x-y=0, then x=y, as well as whole pages of complex and complicated arguments using mathematical notations. Mathematics may and often does write nature and about nature; it also writes about things that exist only in the mind. That is not different from languages: heaven and Vishnu exist in some minds but not in others or elsewhere. Galileo Galilei learnt ‘Nature is an open book but it is written in mathematics’. Much of nature is a closed book to those to whom mathematics is alien territory. But today, I am interested in how some languages ‘break the world into fragments by domestic walls’, while a few others fly about regardless. When a team from India played cricket with a team from Pakistan a few weeks back, the commentary was broadcast in India in 14 languages and in Nigeria national news is read in several languages. That same game of cricket also was broadcast to the rest of the world in one language: English.

When and how do some languages come to ‘lead the mind forward into ever widening thought and action’? The transformation occurs when users of one language become conquerors and rulers of peoples using other languages and when the users of a language become generators of new knowledge which are eagerly sought after by users of other languages. Greek, Latin and Arabic contributed mightily to the vocabulary of modern Western European languages. When new ideas in law, government, philosophy, medicine and science had to be expressed, they went to Greek, Latin or Arabic. Consequently, you will bump into Greek terms the moment you begin thinking about those disciplines. The serious study of Greek was introduced to England by Erasmus (of Rotterdam) about 1500 AC. The use of Latin began with the Roman Empire but took on new functions when Latin became the vehicle carrying Christianity east and north (of Europe) and elsewhere later. Until about the 18th century AC Latin was the language of learning in most of Europe. At its inception, Manchester Grammar School was a Latin school and the Boston Latin School which started in 1635 still thrives in that name. The two medieval universities in England were mostly seminaries teaching in Latin well into the 19th century. A wide swathe of languages is written with the Latin alphabet: European languages from the Black Sea to the Atlantic and from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, America from Canada to Chile, sub-Saharan Africa including Togo, and Indonesian, Malaysian and several others. The exodus of Jewish, Arabic and other scholars, after the fall of Constantinople (1453) to the Ottomans, brought Greek and Arabic to Western Europe including England. From about the 14 to the 18th century, European indigenous vernaculars grew to be carriers of new knowledge, especially in sciences. Luther’s reformation and the development of German had much in common. Gutenberg’s new printing press (1450 AC) helped the growth of European vernaculars and the spread of reformed Christianity.

Four western European languages stood out as both conquerors and carriers of new knowledge: Portuguese, Spanish, French and English. Arabic performed the same function from about 800 AC to the 13 AC when that language carried a new religion and new knowledge in mathematics, astronomy and medicine. Arabic replaced the indigenous languages in the entire Maghreb. The language of governance and learning from Mexico south to Chile is Spanish with Brazil using Portuguese and are collectively called Latin America, because Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian are Romance or Latin Languages. French is the language of governance and learning in several parts of West Africa. English was a phenomenon in itself. It destroyed the use of hundreds of languages in North America. It conquered almost half the world and English is the language of governance and higher education in a good part of the land it once ruled. As a language carrying new knowledge, English excels all others. As the collapse of four European empires, including the Ottoman, went on from about 1915 to about 1960, English, which produced new knowledge faster than any other, began to break ‘domestic walls’, the world over. China, which had little love for the English-speaking world, had millions of its citizens schooled in the US, the UK, Canada and Australia during the last 30 years and continues to do so, to date. In contrast, during that time how many rushed to Niger to learn Fulfulde or to Lanka to study Sinhala? The prominence of English was promoted by two other processes: one was translation into English of major works in other languages and the other the growth of a class of indigenous writers and readers in the conqueror’s language. One reads Oblomov, Gilgamesh and, indeed, Gitanjali translated into English. India now probably has more readers in English than any other single country. Persons in Western African countries have crafted in French and English, masterpieces in fiction, poetry and drama. Modern European languages have been both conquerors’ languages and carriers of new knowledge.

Several people recently have written in The Island and in Lankadeepa about the importance of using the ‘mother tongue’. They have stressed the importance of the ‘mother tongue’ in creative writing. As with observations regarding empirical phenomena, it is necessary to test those generalisations against reality. Samskrt is a language not entirely unfamiliar to many in this land. Samskrt was nobody’s mother tongue. (After all, it is deva bhaashitam.) There is not a shred of evidence that Kalidasa’s mother talked to him in Samskrt. But Kalidasa wrote rtusmahara and shakuntalam.. The vedas and upanishads were first spoken and later written in samskrt. Pali is nobody’s mother tongue but Theravada writings are almost entirely in that language. Isaac Newton wrote Principia Mathematica in Latin; we have no evidence that baby Isaac babbled in Latin. Paul Dirac wrote about particle physics in mathematics rather than in his father’s beloved French. Leopold Senghor’s mother tongue was not French nor Chinua Achebe’s English. More casually, check your own libraries. I had a collection of about 2,300 books until last year. There weren’t even 200 written in Sinhala and that 200 included editions of works from the 13th century. Check how many books written in Sinhala and English you bought in the last two years. There were far too many writers and scientists who brought forth highly acclaimed work in languages other than their mother tongue, contradicting the argument that the mother tongue was essential or even desirable for original work, in science or in literature.

Most languages ‘break the world into narrow fragments’. A few coagulate them into large masses: 900 million people speak Mandarin and 325 million, Bengali. A half dozen bind themselves together speaking a conqueror’s language. Four languages stand out as having ‘led the ‘mind forward into ever-widening thought and action’: Greek, Latin, Arabic and English. English, so far, is unrivalled.

by Usvatte-aratchi