News
Suspenstion of Deputy Secy. Gen., Parliament flawed, unlawful and violated established parliamentary traditions – SJB
The main Opposition SJB yesterday strongly criticised the government over the suspension of Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne, alleging that the procedure adopted was flawed, unlawful and in violation of established parliamentary traditions.
Addressing a press conference at the SJB headquarters in Ethul Kotte, former Chief Opposition Whip and Kandy District MP Lakshman Kiriella said the Speaker had no authority, under Parliamentary practice, to remove or suspend a senior parliamentary official without first reporting the matter to the House.
Kiriella said Sri Lanka’s Parliament was governed by two primary sources — Standing Orders and long-standing British parliamentary traditions and precedents — both of which must be adhered to in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.
“The Standing Orders derive their authority from the Parliament Powers and Privileges Act, which is silent on the procedure for removing parliamentary officials. In such circumstances, Parliament is bound by British traditions and precedents, as outlined in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, which is regarded as the bible of parliamentary procedure,” he said.
According to Kiriella, Erskine May makes it clear that the Speaker does not possess unilateral powers to remove a parliamentary official, particularly one holding a senior and “exalted” position, such as the Deputy Secretary General.
He said that where allegations warranting removal are made against a parliamentary official, the Speaker is required to submit a detailed report to the House outlining the charges, supporting evidence and reasons for initiating such action. Only, thereafter, could the House decide on the matter, in keeping with British parliamentary precedent.
Kiriella said the recent decision to suspend Kularatne had instead been taken by the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC), which he described as an administrative body lacking the powers and privileges vested in recognised parliamentary oversight committees such as COPE, COPA and COPF.
“The Staff Advisory Committee does not enjoy the powers of the House and, therefore, has no authority to suspend a parliamentary official,” he said.
While stating that he did not place personal blame on the Speaker, whom he said had limited experience in parliamentary procedure, Kiriella faulted senior officials and members of the SAC for failing to properly advise him on the legal and procedural implications of the decision.
“This is the first time in parliamentary history that a Deputy Secretary General has been removed or suspended. While MPs and officials are familiar with impeachments and no-confidence motions, they are not sufficiently versed in the procedural propriety required for the removal of parliamentary officials,” he said.
Kiriella further alleged that Kularatne had not been served with a formal charge sheet, nor had he been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations or be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
“He has not been informed of the charges against him, no inquiry has been conducted and he has been denied a fair hearing. This alone raises serious questions about the validity of the suspension,” he said.
He also said British parliamentary tradition required that an accused parliamentary official be afforded protection and legal assistance by the “Law Officers of the Crown,” noting that in Sri Lanka this responsibility rested with the Attorney General’s Department.
“As such, Kularatne is entitled to legal assistance from the Attorney General in this matter,” Kiriella said.
The former Chief Opposition Whip warned that the controversy could have wider repercussions, including reputational damage to Sri Lanka’s parliamentary democracy.
“The inexperience and ignorance of parliamentary practice on the part of the government has created this mess. It risks creating the impression internationally that our Parliament does not adhere to democratic principles,” he said.
Kiriella added that those who opposed the move within the SAC should have formally recorded the legal grounds for their objections, rather than merely expressing dissent for the record.
“Now that the process has been set in motion, it is likely to bring ill repute to the country,” he said.
By Saman Indrajith
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.”
News
Two arrest warrants issued for Gnanasara thera
The Colombo High Court and Court of Appeal yesterday issued arrest warrants for the Bodu Bala Sena general secretary Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara in a case involving an alleged statement insulting Islam.
The arrest warrants were issued on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Court of Appeal issued an open warrant two weeks after the court rescinded the presidential pardon granted to the thera when he was serving a six-year term for contempt of court.
The Appeals Court also imposed a travel ban on the monk and ordered that the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration be informed of the restriction.
The case was taken up before Colombo High Court Judge Buddhika C. Ragala. Gnanasara Thera was not present when the case was called.
A medical report was submitted stating that Thera was unwell, while his sureties also failed to appear before court. His counsel, Asoka Weerasuriya, told court that his client wished to bring the case to an early conclusion and that representations had been made to the Attorney General in that regard.
However, after considering the submissions, the High Court judge said he was not satisfied with the medical report submitted on behalf of the accused. The court also noted the failure of the sureties to appear.
The judge subsequently ordered that Gnanasara Thera be arrested and produced before court.The Attorney General filed the case under provisions of the Penal Code, alleging that remarks made by Gnanasara Thera concerning the Holy Quran amounted to an insult to Islam.
News
CA dismisses GR’s writ petition against arrest
A two-member bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Sarath Dissanayake yesterday (1) dismissed a writ petition filed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa seeking judicial intervention to prevent his arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in connection with the ongoing investigations into 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.
The writ petition was rejected in limine.
In the petition, the former President cited Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasooriya, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director Shani Abeysekera, the Officer-in-Charge of the CID’s Special Investigations Unit and the Attorney General as respondents. The ex-President sought the court intervention after the arrest of former head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay over the Easter Sunday attacks.
Since then , former Director of Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) has been named as a suspect.
Earlier, the Fort Magistrate’s Court imposed a travel ban on him in relation to investigations stemming from allegations made by Asad Moulana in the Channel 4 documentary on the Easter attacks.
-
Editorial6 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News4 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News6 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features4 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features4 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
News4 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Latest News2 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
Features3 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
