Features
The VFS Visa Deal – The Anatomy of a Scam
by Rohan Pethiyagoda
In 2012, the Department of Immigration & Emigration (DIE) contracted Mobitel, which is in effect a state-owned enterprise, to establish and operate an online gateway for foreigners wishing to apply for visas to Sri Lanka. For the next twelve years, from 2012 to 2024, the system operated flawlessly. Better still, Mobitel offered the service free of charge to the DIE while recovering part of its costs from advertising and promoting its services to tourists. In all those 12 years, Mobitel didn’t receive a single letter from DIE complaining that the service was in any way less than perfect.
By 2018, however, it became clear to Mobitel that in order to keep up with technology and also the growing number of tourists, both the hardware and software of the system needed upgrading. Finally, after protracted negotiations with DIE, on December 14, 2020, Mobitel submitted a proposal offering to invest in upgrading the system as required by DIE. All it asked in return was US$ 1 per applicant. Thereafter, Mobitel and DIE engaged in technical discussions to precisely define the new system and finally, on August 23, 2023, submitted a final, comprehensive proposal. Meanwhile, the system continued to work perfectly, entirely for free.
Divorce Proceedings
At 3.07 p.m. on April 5, 2024, Mobitel’s management was astonished to receive an email from the Assistant Director (Information Technology) of DIE, a junior fourth-rung officer, directing Mobitel to cease processing applications from 11:59 pm on 5 April 2024. No reason was given. However, at 3.30 pm the same day, Mobitel received another email from DIE cancelling the former email. Again, no explanation. To this day, despite repeated requests from Mobitel, DIE has never explained what was going on.
Finally, at 2:32 pm on 16 April 2024, DIE’s Assistant Controller (IT) sent a further email directing Mobitel to switch of the system at midnight. Mobitel responded by asking for a written direction from the Commissioner General of DIE, which was received shortly thereafter. At midnight on April 16, the 12-year collaboration between Mobitel and DIE came to an end. The reasons for the termination remained a mystery until finally, on July 12, Harsha de Silva, the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Finance issued a damning 640-page report: “Outsourcing Online Visa and Passport Application Services between the Consortium and the Department of Immigration and Emigration of Sri Lanka”. By ‘consortium’, it meant GBS Technology Services & IVS Global-FZCO (IVS-GBS) and VF Worldwide Holdings LTD (VFS Global). While the beneficial owners of these companies remain shrouded in mystery, the companies themselves are located in Dubai, notoriously a tax haven. Here, for short, I will refer to these entities collectively as VFS, which is the largest and best known among them.
Opaque Process
Unknown to Mobitel, in June 2023 a Dubai-based entity known as IVS-GBS Global Services had submitted to the Ministry of Public Security an unsolicited proposal titled “Comprehensive Proposal on E-Visa, Consular Services, Visa Services, Biometric Services and Tourism Promotion”.
VFS’s unsolicited proposal gave the fee structure as $30 for the ETA plus a $25 fee for IVS-GBS-VFS, basically for providing the same service that Mobitel provided free of charge from 2012 to 2024. What is surprising is that the service fee demanded by IVS was staggering 83% of the revenue that the government would get from visa fees.
Cabinet Approval
Nevertheless, Tiran Alles, the Minister of Public Security, submitted the IVS-GBS proposal to cabinet on September 8, 2023, noting “I observe that this Institution is an internationally renowned company” even though, for practical purposes, it essentially services only India. By way of justification for abandoning the $1 Mobitel system and transferring to the very expensive IVS system, the Minister provided several ‘justifications’. First is that because the IVS user interface is “designed in the languages of each country, foreigners may provide more opportunities to apply for visa to visit this country”. This, however, is not true: the site operates entirely in English. You can check for yourself: https://online.srilankaevisa.lk/
The Minister goes on to state, without any justification, that IVS will charge a service fee of USD 18.50 from each visa applicant. Finally, he adds, “the Government does not have to bear any cost in implementing this Programme”. However, given that the USD 18.50 paid to IVS is a mandatory condition of applying for a Sri Lankan visa, it is in effect a levy made by the government and paid to IVS, though bypassing the Consolidated Fund and without any transparent procurement procedure. This is arguably a violation of Article 148 of the Constitution.
$200 million ‘evaporates’
The cabinet memorandum continues, “IVS -GBS global Services has proposed to invest a sum of 200 million USD to provide the relevant technical equipment, software and knowledge for the system integration to be made with the Department of Immigration and Emigration in rendering the relevant services by this Company.” Nowhere in the final Outsourcing Agreement signed between Controller General of DIE and IVS-GBS-VHS is this $200 million mentioned. It has simply evaporated.
Amazingly, on 11 September 2023, the Cabinet passed the proposal through on the nod, appointing an Evaluation Committee comprising of five individuals drawn from the administrative service who evidently have no background in IT. They were T.V.D. Damayanthi S. Karunaratne (Additional Secretary, Development & Planning of the Ministry of Public Security); I.S.H.J. Ilukpitiya, Commissioner General of Immigration & Emigration; Mr Champika Ramawickrema, Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government; M.P.D.P. Pathirana, Chief Financial Officer, Ministry of Public Security; and Mr M.R.G.A. Muthukuda, Additional Director General, Department of Fiscal Policy (representing the Secretary to the Treasury). Given that none of these people is a software expert (this is, after all, a software services procurement), it is astonishing that no Technical Committee was appointed. Neither was there a Cabinet Appointed Negotiating Committee, to assess whether the $18.50 fee was reasonable. It was simply passed through on the nod.
It seems astonishing that President Ranil Wickremesinghe did not suggest that before farming this massive project out to a foreign entity who had submitted an unsolicited bid, a local tender should be floated. After all, Mobitel had already demonstrated its ability to design and operate the necessary system not just flawlessly but at just $1 per applicant. Besides, Sri Lankan software companies are outstanding by even world standards. It is their software that drives the stock exchanges of London, Italy and South Africa, among others. More importantly, perhaps, the president himself has been endlessly touting the need to “enrich, empower and enable” Sri Lankans to develop local IT capacity, going on and on about “the importance of digitalization”, the “digital public economy”, “creating a Digital Transformation Agency” with a budget of Rs 1 billion, etc etc (see this release by the President’s Media Division: https://pmd.gov.lk/news/president-wickremesinghe-pledges-digital-transformation-for-poverty-reduction-and-educational-reform/). Clearly, Wickremesinghe is better at talking the talk than walking the walk.
The ‘Evaluation’
Amazingly for an ‘evaluation committee’, the committee made no evaluation of the most crucial factor in the VFS proposal, namely, the $18.50 service fee. How was this calculated? Was it justified? Was it competitive? No comment. With 1.4 million tourists coming into Sri Lanka, this adds up to a staggering $26 million, or Rs 8 billion per year. And the contract is for 16 years, with provision for 10% hike every two years. Someone is laughing all the way to the bank.
As it happened, the Evaluation Committee made no comment on, or comparison of Mobitel’s $1 offer against VFS’s $18.50 price. It acted purely as a rubber stamp. Indeed, it is open to question as to whether its members had the technical or negotiating skills needed to effectively evaluate VFS’s unsolicited offer.
Attorney General
Agreements signed by government agencies are usually vetted by the Attorney General, and this one was no exception. On 15.11.2023, the AG’s observations, signed by Senior Deputy Solicitor General Mahen Gopallawa, were issued. These were confined to purely semantic issues, with no recommendations on process. A disclaimer at the end makes this explicit: “It is assumed that the financial and technical implications of the agreement have been carefully considered and that all necessary approvals have been or will be obtained prior to its execution.” That, however, was an assumption too far. Neither the cabinet nor the Evaluation Committee had paid the slightest attention to the biggest financial implication, namely, the exorbitant fee of $18.50 being charged by IVS-GBS-VFS. In fact, there is no mention in any document that the USD 18.50 service charge was ever justified or even queried.
Cabinet Approval
Then, with the reports of the Evaluation Committee and the Attorney General in hand, on 4 December 2023 the Minister of Public Security sought cabinet approval to sign the contract with the consortium. In his capacity as Minister of Finance, President Wickremesinghe endorsed the Evaluation Committee’s report, noting only that “Prior to entering into an Agreement, the Ministry of Public Security must ensure strict compliance with all the recommendations made by the Attorney General’s Department on the Agreement.” Astonishingly, he made no mention of the USD 18.50 service charge, which both the Evaluation Committee and the Attorney General had deftly sidestepped. Thus it was that the elephant sneaked into the room with the Evaluation Committee, the Attorney General, the minister and the president all studiously looking the other way even as $18.50 per tourist came to be siphoned into an offshore account. This is money that should properly come into the Consolidated Fund.
Tourism on the Rocks
What is more, the activity of promoting inbound tourism to Sri Lanka has now been awarded to this consortium on an exclusive basis, in effect making the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau and its staff redundant. DIE Controller General Harsha Ilukpitiya, with no authority from cabinet, with no consultation with the tourism industry, and possibly without the consent of Tourism Minister Harin Fernando, signed away the rights to tourism promotion in Sri Lanka for the next 16 years to GBS-IVS-VFS, which has no known capacity in this highly specialized field. In this context, it is noteworthy that a co-owner of VFS is the giant tourism operator Kuoni, with immediate conflict-of-interest issues. So much for the zeal of the Evaluation Committee.
The Outsourcing Agreement also notes that VFS’s service fee of USD 18.50 per visa application “will be exclusive of any payment gateway, local taxes as applicable and other transaction fees”. All these are unspecified, and the consortium is therefore open to fleece tourists coming to Sri Lanka for as much as they want for the next 16 years.
AG vs COPF
On 9 May 2024, the Parliamentary Committee on Public Finance (COPF) requested the Attorney General to clarify whether the fees of USD 18.50 was a levy that would have to be authorised by Parliament under Article 148 of the Constitution. That is, whether like visa fees, this fee requires approval by parliament. The AG responded that no such parliamentary approval was needed. In doing so, the AG, no doubt unwittingly, misled COPF, writing, “The fee charged by the Service Providers (i.e. IVSGBS and VFS) is a “service fee” charged from applicants for on line visas for the service provided to them by the Service Provider and does not form part of the Visa Fees that are approved by Parliament. In the circumstances, Parliamentary approval for them does not arise”. The question then arises, if parliament does not approve the $18.50 fee, who does? It is entirely arbitrary.
The AG further justified this stance on the basis that it is not compulsory for foreigners to obtain their visas from IVS-GBS-VFS (if it were compulsory, the USD 18.50 would be a compulsory fee and hence subject to parliamentary approval), writing: “According to the Controller General, after the Outsourcing Agreement, an applicant has the following options: (a) Apply to the respective Sri Lankan Embassies; (b) Obtain visas through IVSGBS and VFS; (c) Obtain “on arrival” visas for 30 day tourist and business visas”.
Sadly, it appears that the Controller General of DIE had misled the AG. Any foreigner wishing to get a tourist visa to Sri Lanka and viewing the web portal of the Department of Immigration & Emigration (https://www.immigration.gov.lk/pages_e.php?id=14) gets the following message, in bold red letters: “IMPORTANT NOTICE: With effect from 17th April 2024, all Tourist or Business travelers to Sri Lanka must have e-Visa for entering in to Sri Lanka. Please visit https://www.srilankaevisa.lk for more information.” Nowhere on this site does it say that “on arrival” visas are available, or that Sri Lanka missions or embassies issue visas. In fact, nowhere on the page does the word ‘embassy’ even appear. Therefore, as far as tourists are concerned, it is compulsory that they get their visas from the IVS-GBS-VFS site https://www.srilankaevisa.lk/. What’s more, that site itself boldly announces, “ALL visitors MUST complete an eVisa application prior to their arrival in the country”. No doubt, after reading this article, DIE may seek to hastily amend their web page. If so, too late: I see that the entire DIE website has already been archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240713021620/https://www.immigration.gov.lk/pages_e.php?id=14
It is now incontrovertible that, presumably because he himself was misled by the Controller General of DIE, the AG misled parliament.
Public Interest
Why should anyone care that VHS pockets a hefty $18.50 from every tourist who visits Sri Lanka? After all, it isn’t ‘our’ money. First off, it SHOULD be our money. This is money that the government of Sri Lanka forces every person wishing to visit Sri Lanka to pay to VFS. In fact, as the DIE and VFS websites make clear, if you don’t pay it, you can’t get a visa. Therefore, it is a levy charged by the government and siphoned off to VFS in Dubai without going through the Consolidated Fund and being subject to parliamentary oversight as required by Article 148 of the Constitution.
Second, the so-called service fee of $18.50 is arbitrary. It was not negotiated or evaluated by the Evaluation Committee, the Cabinet, the DIE or the Ministry of Public Security. What, if instead of $18.50 it was $1000? Whose job was it to say, ‘Hang on a minute, that’s too much’? No one, not the Evaluation Committee, the Cabinet or the DIE have said anywhere that that figure is reasonable.
COPF Chairman Harsha de Silva is already on record as saying that the Auditor General’s report on this matter should be handed over to the CID and the Bribery Commission. This is particularly apt because VFS is partly owned by Blackstone, a New York based financial giant. And thus, VFS falls under the purview of the US FCPA or Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA requires companies whose securities are listed in the USA to meet stringent accounting and anti-bribery provisions. It remains to be seen whether COPF will forward the Auditor General’s report to the US Department of Justice, requesting an FCPA investigation. Who knows, Sri Lanka might just get enough compensation to pay off its national debt.
Features
The Easter investigation must not become ethno-religious politics
Representatives of almost all the main opposition parties were in attendance at the recent book launch by Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila. The book written by the PHU leader was his analysis of the Easter bombing of April 2019 that led to the mass killing of 279 persons, caused injuries to more than 500 others and caused panic and shock in the entire country. The Easter bombing was inexplicable for a number of reasons. First, it was perpetrated by suicide bombers who were Sri Lankan Muslims, a community not known for this practice. They targeted Christian churches in particular, which led to the largest number of casualties. The bombing of Sri Lankan Christian churches by Sri Lankan Muslims was also inexplicable in a country that had no history of any serious violence between the two religions.
There were two further inexplicable features of the bombing. The six suicide bombings took place almost simultaneously in different parts of the country. The logistical complexity of this operation exceeded any previously seen in Sri Lanka. Even during the three decade long civil war that pitted the Sri Lankan military against the LTTE, which had earned international notoriety for suicide attacks, Sri Lanka had rarely witnessed such a synchronised operation. The country’s former Attorney General, Dappula de Livera, who investigated the bombing at the time it took place, later stated, upon retirement, that there was a “grand conspiracy” behind the bombings. That phrase has remained central to public debate because it suggested that the visible perpetrators may not have been the only planners behind the attack.
The other inexplicable factor was that intelligence services based in India repeatedly warned their Sri Lankan counterparts that the bombings would take place and even gave specific targets. Later investigations confirmed that warnings were transmitted days before the attacks and repeated again shortly before the explosions, yet they were not acted upon. It was these several inexplicable factors that gave rise to the surmise of a mastermind behind the students and religious fanatics led by the extremist preacher Zahran Hashim from the east of the country, who also blew himself up in the attacks. Even at the time of the bombing there was doubt that such a complex and synchronised operation could have been planned and executed by the motley band who comprised the suicide bombers.
Determined Attempt
The book by PHU leader Gammanpila is a determined attempt to make explicable the inexplicable by marshalling logic and evidence that this complex and synchronised operation was planned and executed by Zahran himself. This is a possible line of argumentation in a democratic society. Competing interpretations of public tragedies are part of political discourse. However, the timing of the intervention makes it politically more significant. The launch of the PHU leader’s book comes at a critical time when the protracted investigation into the Easter bombing appears to be moving forward under the present government.
The performance of the three previous governments at investigating the bombing was desultory at best. The Supreme Court held former President Maithripala Sirisena and several senior officials responsible for failing to act on prior intelligence and ordered compensation to victims. This judicial finding gave legal recognition to what victims had long maintained, that there was a grave dereliction of duty at the highest levels of the state. In recent weeks the investigation has taken a dramatic turn with the arrest and court production of former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Sallay on allegations linked directly to the attacks. Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or disproven, they indicate that the present phase of the investigation is moving beyond negligence into possible complicity.
This is why the present moment requires political sobriety. There is a danger that the line of political division regarding the investigation into the Easter bombing can take on an ethnic complexion. The insistence that the suicide bombers alone were the planners and executors of the dastardly crime makes the focus invariably one of Muslim extremism, as the suicide bombers were all Muslims. This may unintentionally narrow public attention away from the unanswered questions regarding intelligence failures, possible political manipulation, and the allegations of a broader conspiracy that remain under active investigation. The minority political parties representing ethnic and religious minorities appear to have realised this danger. Their absence from the book launch was politically significant. It suggests an unwillingness to be drawn into a narrative that could once again stigmatise an entire community for the crimes of a handful of extremists and their possible handlers.
Another Tragedy
It would be another tragedy comparable in political consequence to the havoc wreaked by the Easter bombing if moderate mainstream political parties, such as the SJB to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, were to subscribe to positions merely to score political points against the present government. They need to guard against the promotion of anti-minority sentiment and the fuelling of majority prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities. Indeed, opposition leader Sajith Premadasa in his Easter message said that justice for the victims of the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter Sunday attacks remains a fundamental responsibility of the state and noted that seven years on, both past and present governments have failed to deliver accountability. He added that building a society grounded in trust and peace, uniting all ethnicities, religions and communities, is vital to ensure such tragedies do not occur again.
Sri Lanka’s post war history offers too many examples of how unresolved security crises become vehicles for majoritarian mobilisation. The Easter tragedy itself was followed by waves of anti-Muslim suspicion and violence in some parts of the country. Responsible political leadership should seek to prevent any return to that atmosphere. There are many other legitimate issues on which the moderate and mainstream opposition parties can take the government to task. These include the lack of decisive action against government members accused of corruption, the passing of the entire burden of rising fuel prices on consumers instead of the government sharing the burden, and the failure to hold provincial council elections within the promised timeframe. These are issues that touch the daily lives of citizens and the health of democratic governance. They offer the opposition ample ground on which to build credibility as a government in waiting.
The search for truth and justice over the Easter bombing needs to continue until all those responsible are identified, whether they were direct perpetrators, negligent officials, or political actors who may have exploited the tragedy. This is what the victim families want and the country needs. But this search must not be turned into a partisan and religiously divisive matter such as by claiming that there are more potential suicide bombers lurking in the country who had been followers of Zaharan. If it is, Sri Lanka risks replacing one national tragedy with another. coming together to discredit the ongoing investigations into the Easter bombing of 2019 is an unacceptable use of ethno-religious nationalism to politically challenge the government. The opposition needs to find legitimate issues on which to challenge the government if they are to gain the respect and support of the general public and not their opprobrium.
by Jehan Perera
Features
China’s new duty-free regime for Africa: Implications for Global Trade and Sri Lanka
* The new duty-free regime for Africa, announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in February, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession offered by any country to developing countries since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.
* Yet, it is a clear violation of the cornerstone of the multilateral trade law, the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle.
* Hence, its implications on developing countries, without duty-free access to China, will be extremely negative. Sri Lanka is one of the few developing countries without duty-free access to China.
On 14 February, 2026, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China will grant zero-tariff treatment to 53 African nations, effective 01 May, 2026. Under this new unilateral policy initiative, China would eliminate all import tariffs on all goods imported from all the countries in Africa, except Eswatini. China already enforces a zero-tariff policy for 33 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in Africa. Now this policy would be extended to non LDCs as well. This policy initiative clearly aims at reducing the continuously expanding trade deficit between China and Africa. In 2024, China’s trade surplus against Africa was recorded at US $ 61 billion.
This trade initiative, a precious gift amidst ongoing global trade tensions, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession given by any country to developing countries, since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.
Though this landmark announcement has far-reaching implications on global trade, as much as President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, it was almost overlooked by the global media.
Implications for Global Trade
This Chinese policy initiative, though very generous, is a clear violation of the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle and the “Enabling Clause” of the International Trade Law. The MFN principle is the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and is enshrined in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It mandates that any trade advantage, privilege, or immunity granted by a WTO member to any country must be extended immediately and unconditionally to all other WTO members. Though, the GATT “Enabling Clause” allows developed nations to offer non-reciprocal preferential treatment (lower tariffs) to developing countries without extending them to all WTO members, this has to be done in a non-discriminatory manner. By extending tariff concessions only to developing countries in Africa, China has also breached this requirement.
This deliberate violation of the MFN principle by China occurs less than 12 months after the announcement of “Liberation Day” tariffs by President Trump, which breached Article I (MFN) and Article II (bound rates) of the GATT. However, it is important to underline that the objectives of the actions by the two Presidents are poles apart; the US objective was to limit imports from all its trading partners, and China’s objective is to increase imports from African countries.
Though the importance of the MFN principle of the WTO law had eroded over the years due to the proliferation of preferential trade agreements and unilateral preferential arrangements, the WTO members almost always obtained WTO waivers, whenever they breached the MFN principle. Now the leaders of the main trading powers have decided to violate the core principles of the multilateral trading system so brazenly, the impact of their decisions on the international trading system will be irrevocable.
Implications for Sri Lanka
China’s unilateral decision to provide zero-tariff treatment to African countries will have a strong adverse impact on Sri Lanka. Currently, all Asian countries, other than India and Sri Lanka, have duty-free access, for most of their exports, into the Chinese market through bilateral or regional trade agreements, or the LDC preferences. Though Sri Lanka, India and China are members of the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), preferential margins extended by China under APTA to India and Sri Lanka are limited.
The value of China’s imports from Sri Lanka had declined from US$ 650 million in 2021 to US$ 433 million by 2025. However, China’s exports to Sri Lanka increased significantly during the period, from US$ 5,252 million to US$ 5,753 by 2025. This has resulted in a trade deficit of US$ 5,320 million. Sri Lanka’s exports to China may decline further from next month when African nations with duty-free access start to expand their market share.
Let me illustrate the challenges Sri Lanka will face in the Chinese market with one example. Tea (HS0902) is Sri Lanka’s third largest export to China, after garments and gems. Sri Lanka is the largest exporter of tea to China, followed by India, Kenya and Viet Nam. During the last five years the value of China’s imports of tea from Sri Lanka had declined significantly, from US$76 million in 2021 to US$ 57 million by 2025. Meanwhile, imports from our main competitors had increased substantially. Most importantly, imports from Kenya increased from US$ 7.9 million in 2021 to US$ 15 million in 2025. For tea, the existing tariff in China for Sri Lanka is 7.5% and for Kenya is 15%. From next month the tariff for Kenya will be reduced to 0%. What will be its impact on Sri Lanka exports? That was perhaps explained by a former Ambassador to Africa, when he urged Sri Lankan exporters to “leverage duty free access from Kenya” to expand their exports to China!
(The writer is a retired public servant and a former Chairman of WTO Committee on Trade and Development. He can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
by Gomi Senadhira
Features
Daughter in the spotlight …
Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya was a famous actress and her name still rings a bell with many. And now in the spotlight is her daughter Senani Wijesena – not as an actress but as a singer – and she has been singing, since the age of five!
The plus factor is that Senani, now based in Australia, is also a songwriter, plays keyboards and piano, dancer, and has filmed and edited some of her own music videos.
Says Senani: “I write the lyrics, melody and music and work with professional musicians who do the needful on my creations.”
Her latest album, ‘Music of the Mirror’, is made up of 16 songs, and her first Sinhala song, called ‘Nidahase’, is scheduled for release this month (April) in Colombo, along with a music video.
‘Nidahase’,
says Senani, is a song about Freedom … of life, movement, love and spirit. Freedom to be your authentic self, express yourself freely and Freedom from any restrictions.
In fact, ‘Nidahase’ is the Sinhala translated version of her English song ‘Free’ which made Senani a celebrity as the song was nominated for a Hollywood Music in Media Award in the RnB /Soul category and reached the Top 20 on the UK Music weekly dance charts, as well as No. 1 on the Yes Home grown Top 15, on Yes FM, for six weeks straight.
Senani went on to say that ‘Nidahase’ has been remixed to include a Sri Lankan touch, using Kandyan drums and the Thammattama drum, with extra music production by local music producer Dilshan L. Silva, and Australia-based Emmy Award winning Producer and Engineer Sean Carey … with Senani also in the scene.
The song was written (lyrics and melody) and produced by Senani and it features Australian musicians, while the music video was produced by Sri Lanka’s Sandesh Bandara and filmed in Sri Lanka.

First Sinhala song scheduled for release this month … in Colombo
Senani’s music is mostly Soul, Funk and RNB – also Fusion, using ethnic sounds such as the tabla, sitar, and sarod – as well as Jazz influenced.
“I also have Alternative Music songs with a rock edge, such as ‘New Day’, and upcoming releases ‘Fly High’ and ‘Whisper’“, says Senani, adding that she has also recorded in other languages, such as Hindi and Spanish.
“As much of my fan base are Sri Lankans, who have asked me to release a song in the Sinhala language, I decided to create and release ‘Nidahase’ and I plan to release other original Sinhala songs in the future.
Senani has a band in Australia and has appeared at festivals in Australia, on radio and TV in Australia, and Sri Lanka.
She trained as a vocalist, through Sydney-based Singing Schools, as well as private tuition, and she has 5th Grade piano music qualifications.
And this makes interesting reading:
“I graduated from the University of Newcastle in Australia with a Bachelor of Medicine and I work part time as a doctor (GP) and an Integrative Medicine practitioner, with a focus on nutrition, and spend the rest of the time dedicated to my music career.”
Senani hails from an illustrious family. In addition to her mum, Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya, who made over 40 films, including starring in the first colour movie ‘Ranmuthu Duwa’, her dad is Dr Lanka Wijesena (retired GP) and she has two sisters – all musical; one is a doctor, while the other is a dietitian/ psychotherapist.
-
Features3 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News6 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News3 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Business7 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial6 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Opinion5 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Editorial7 days agoIdeological confusion and identity crisis
-
Opinion6 days agoIs there hope for Palestine?
