• AKD decides to proceed with Japanese visit despite concerns by some over Japanese PM resignation
• Prez moves to mend and strengthen relations with Japan following strain due to LRT cancellation, corruption
• AKD reveals some military personnel could be arrested over Easter attacks probe; ensures justice
• Acting Defence Minister appointment sparks debate over Opposition no-faith motion on Aruna again
• Speaker stands firm, says won’t proceed with motion; Opposition threatens no-faith motion on Speaker
• Reports by AG, Secretaries’ Committee tabled by Speaker; Sajith hits back saying Erskine May not studied
• ITAK seeks meeting with AKD to discuss Tamil national question; Prez’s Office firmly refuses RTI appeal
• RTI requests to CIABOC seeking asset details of VIPs; Nalin’s clarification on daughter’s event criticised
• Sunil’s dismissive response on assets gathers backlash; questions on social media about accountability
• Late JVP Leader Somawansa had said JVPers cannot accept any offerings from any individual/group
• CIABOC Chair says corruption cannot be ignored as matter of mutual consent between giver and taker
• 41 high-ranking officials including ministers, governors, ambassadors, judges not filed assets last year
• CIABOC DG in the spotlight over Nandana’s statement that he was a member of the JVP legal division
• Dilith shows price difference in land purchased by JVP minister; ex-JVP MPs to file case seeking salaries
• Ongoing probe on CCF said to target Sajith, but SJBers maintain it is an effort to intimidate Opposition Leader
• RW breaks silence on case against him; SJB sends Ranjith, Kabir, Tissa after lengthy talks with Sajith
• Namal, Dilith, ITAK absent at UNP Convention; foes Udaya as well as Patali and SLPP’s Sagara attend
• Sagara makes confession, says both main parties used third party (JVP) to hit others, helped gain power
• MR slams Govt. in Kalutara; 2 SJB MPs and Indian HC among those who visited MR in Tangalle last week
• Sarath reminds MR stood for JVPers during 1988-’89 insurgency; MR speaks of ‘paada yathra’ memories
• Namal’s unofficial president talk lands Thissa in trouble, receives warning; delays in Krrish case docs
• CIABOC serves summons to Manusha at airport upon return from Dubai; Manusha files anticipatory bail

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), who last week completed his first year in office without any pomp and pageantry, commenced his second year with two official overseas visits to New York and Japan.

While President AKD and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government still has a long list of pledges to honour, the efforts made by the President to be inclusive and build strong relations with the international community are commendable.

The speech delivered by the President at the 80th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last Wednesday (24) showed how the JVP/NPP Leader has matured to address an international forum from being confined to political rhetoric and exclusive politics in the past. One can only hope that the growth and maturity shown by AKD can also be followed by his comrades in Cabinet and Government.

President AKD in his speech at the UNGA stressed on several pertinent points, especially on fighting corruption and organised crime. 

However, Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Dayasiri Jayasekara noted in Parliament on Friday (26) that it was Rwandan President Paul Kagame who had stated in 2019 that “fighting corruption is dangerous, but not fighting it is even more dangerous,” at the National Democracy Day Anti-Corruption Summit organised by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, a statement that President AKD had also made in his speech at UNGA. It is evident that the writer of President AKD’s speech for the UNGA had failed to give credit to the Rwandan President who had first made the statement on fighting corruption.

However, during his visit to the UN, President AKD as well as Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath engaged in meetings with several heads of state and other senior officials. The President met with US President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres during the visit as well. 

Japanese visit

After concluding his visit to New York, President AKD left for his official tour of Japan on Friday (26).

The President is to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba as well as the Emperor of Japan and the Sri Lankan community in the country during his visit. 

It is no secret that Sri Lanka’s relations with Japan have been strained in the past few years due to several decisions of previous governments, especially former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Government’s decision to unilaterally cancel the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project in Colombo. While former President Ranil Wickremesinghe had taken steps to revive the strained ties with Japan during his tenure in office, President AKD’s visit to Japan is expected to further strengthen the ties between the two countries.

It is likely that the Japanese Government will also look at strengthened relations with Sri Lanka under AKD’s watch given the JVP/NPP Government’s hardline stance against corruption, which has been a sour point for the former in relation to Japanese-funded projects in Sri Lanka. Japanese envoys to Sri Lanka have on multiple occasions publicly highlighted their displeasure over the level of corruption in the country, including at ministerial level.

However, there was much discussion within the Government on whether President AKD should engage in an official visit to Japan given that Prime Minister Ishiba has tendered his resignation from office. Nevertheless, AKD had decided to continue with his planned visit following discussions with officials from the Japanese Government. It is learnt that the Japanese side had explained that the Prime Minister in office would hold official status until the next prime minister assumed office and that it was a lengthy process. 

President AKD had then noted that he would proceed with his visit to Japan as planned. 

AKD’s revelation

However, prior to leaving the US, President AKD addressed a gathering of Sri Lankan expatriates in the US. During this gathering, the President had made a revelation about the ongoing probe into the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.

He had claimed that several military personnel were likely to be arrested over the ongoing Easter Sunday attacks probe. Explaining that the JVP/NPP Government had inherited a flawed and incomplete probe, resulting in the need to launch fresh inquiries to uncover the truth, the President had said: “The investigations are focused on identifying those truly responsible for the attacks.”

“Several former military officials are to be arrested soon, and investigations are both continuing and advancing,” he had added.

AKD had further noted that the delay in ensuring justice for many crimes that had been committed in the country was due to politics, especially since some forces believed to have been responsible for the crimes had also come into power and held office, resulting in many setbacks, including the destruction of evidence and concealing, manipulating, and misleading the original investigations.

No-faith motion resurfaces

Meanwhile, President AKD appointing four deputy ministers as acting ministers to several portfolios held by him prior to leaving the country on an official overseas tour to the US and Japan resulted in the Opposition in Parliament questioning Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne once again about the no-faith motion against Deputy Minister of Defence Aruna Jayasekara, which was rejected by the Speaker recently.

On Tuesday (23), Chief Opposition Whip Gayantha Karunatilleka, while noting in Parliament that the Deputy Minister of Defence had been appointed as the Acting Defence Minister by the President in his absence, posed a question to the Speaker on whether the no-faith motion was still invalid given that the Deputy Minister now held the powers of a Cabinet portfolio. 

The Speaker, however, responded saying that his decision to reject the no-faith motion was an informed one and that further discussion on the matter could be held during a meeting scheduled for that afternoon (23).

The Speaker recently informed Parliament that a no-faith motion could not be moved on a deputy minister since the powers were vested only with the Cabinet portfolio and that there was no provision in the existing system to proceed with a no-faith motion against a deputy minister.

Opposition and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Leader Sajith Premadasa meanwhile requested the Speaker once again to table in Parliament the two reports received by him from the Attorney General and the Board of Secretaries of Parliament citing their observations on the no-faith motion.

Speaker stands firm

However, Speaker Wickramaratne continued to stand firm in his stance to not proceed with the no-faith motion against Deputy Minister Jayasekara, stating in the House on Thursday (25) that it could not be debated as per Standing Orders and the Constitution, as well as international parliamentary practices. 

The Speaker had also tabled the reports submitted by the Secretaries’ Committee and the Attorney General who had noted that the no-faith motion did not hold sub judice effect on the pending case pertaining to the Easter Sunday attacks.

Sajith hits back

Nevertheless, Opposition Leader Premadasa has noted on Thursday that the arguments presented by Speaker Wickramaratne on the controversial no-faith motion are flawed.

He has noted that according to a report submitted by the Parliament Secretariat, a deputy minister is a public officeholder and that there is therefore no legal barrier to move a no-faith motion against such an individual. The Opposition Leader has also pointed out that the documents used to reject the no-faith motion themselves contradict the Speaker’s position.

Premadasa has further claimed that the Attorney General’s Department has also clarified that there is no legal barrier to proceed with such motions. 

The Opposition Leader has also noted parliamentary practices, saying that Erskine May had noted that just as collective no-faith motions can be moved against a government, they can also be brought against individual ministers. He has questioned whether Erskine May had been properly studied before dismissing the motion.

It has also been highlighted by Premadasa that in India, not only constitutional officials but also ministers and officeholders can be subjected to no-faith motions if they lose the trust of Parliament. 

According to the Opposition Leader, the present Government is now selectively invoking former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s practices to suit their needs, despite Bandaranaike allowing Opposition leaders to present their views when raising such matters.

Another no-faith motion

Meanwhile, a group of members of the parliamentary Opposition seem to be moving ahead with the plan to present a no-faith motion against the Speaker of Parliament.

Opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekara has said that the discussion held among Opposition members to move a no-faith motion against the Speaker is progressing and that the relevant motion is currently being prepared. He has also noted that collecting signatures for the motion will commence soon.

SJB MP Ajith P. Perera had also said in Parliament last week that a no-faith motion would be moved against the Speaker.

ITAK seeks meeting

Amidst the continuing debate over moving a no-faith motion against Deputy Minister Jayasekara, the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) has sent a letter to President AKD requesting a meeting to address the Tamil national question. 

The ITAK has pointed out in the letter that despite the President having promised in his election manifesto to address the issue of the Tamil national question, no steps seem to have been taken in that regard thus far.

The party has further noted that, as the premier Tamil political party, it is ready to engage in discussions with the Government to resolve the matter and has requested the President to allocate a time for the meeting.

Prez’s Office says no to RTI

Meanwhile, the President’s Office yet again made news over the rejection of an appeal submitted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Designated Officer at the President’s Office had reportedly upheld the Information Officer’s earlier decision to reject an information request made by a YouTuber under the RTI Act regarding expenses incurred for domestic travel and accommodation by President AKD during the past 12 months.

In a letter dated 27 August, the Information Officer of the Presidential Secretariat had informed the YouTuber that the request had been rejected under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the RTI Act on the grounds that the information sought was directly connected to security-sensitive matters concerning the President.

The YouTuber had then submitted an appeal to the Information Officer, urging the authorities to reconsider and release the information regarding the President’s domestic travel and accommodation expenses, noting that his request was strictly limited to financial expenditure data such as total costs, aggregated amounts, and trip/location breakdowns, which did not reveal operational or security-sensitive information. It had also been noted that disclosure of such expenditure aligned with the principle of transparency underpinning the RTI Act and did not compromise security.

In response to the appeal filed by the YouTuber, the Designated Officer had stated that there was no change to the previous reply. The latest communication had taken place on 17 September.

RTI requests on assets

On the topic of RTI requests, it is also learnt that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has begun to receive many requests under RTI for asset declarations of some politicians, especially of members of the Government.

These RTI requests have increased after the assets of several ruling party politicians were publicised on social media during the past few weeks.

Nalin’s daughter’s money

Meanwhile, the recent publicising of asset declarations, especially of members of the Government, resulted in many ministers as well as deputy ministers issuing justifications on how they had accumulated their said assets.

However, Deputy Minister Nalin Hewage, issuing a clarification regarding his assets, noted that some of the monies declared had been received during a function held earlier this year when his daughter had come of age.

“I saw reports stating I have about Rs. 2.2 million in bank accounts and a land valued at Rs. 2.4 million. I wanted to clarify this,” he has stated, explaining that the funds in his accounts include money received during a function for his daughter on 1 January.

“People had given money for this event and I have records of who gave how much. The money I have in the bank is my daughter’s money and anyone can verify this if needed,” he has further noted.

Hewage has further stated that his assets were acquired before entering politics. “We are not beggars. Before I entered politics, I completed a degree and worked as a Government teacher. During that time, I purchased this 10-perch land,” he has added.

However, a few days later, Hewage made another statement noting that since his clarification on his asset declaration, his daughter was being ridiculed in school and was facing difficulties in attending school. He urged the public not to add to his daughter’s trauma through social media posts.

Sunil refuses assets talk

If one thought that Hewage’s controversial statement caused public concern, Minister Sunil Handunnetti, while participating in a political interview on television, added fuel to the fire by saying that it was “not wise” to question him about his assets during a live television programme.

Handunnetti, when questioned about his asset declaration, had indicated that he may or may not respond to such queries. “It is not fair for us to examine this (the asset declaration) here. There is a law in the country. The CIABOC has made these asset records public, not to be questioned when you meet them on the street. If anyone has a question about this, they can write to the Bribery Commission and have it investigated. It is not that I cannot answer this,” Handunnetti has told the presenter.

An exchange of words between the Minister and the presenter was witnessed as the presenter continued to put pressure on the Minister for a response. “The public is watching. I have the right to ask questions. You can refrain from answering if you want,” the presenter has said.

The presenter has further noted: “There is a problem with the credibility of the way you presented the assets and liabilities. It is also seen that the Assets and Liabilities Law was presented to create a mockery. It is wrong for you to ask such questions. There is a system in the country for this. You have a property of 47 perches. The way that land was acquired and its value have not been included in the declaration of assets and liabilities,” he said.

Handunnetti has noted that the presenter should not have an issue if there were people who wanted to make offerings to someone and if they were agreeable to accept them. “What’s your problem? (Oyata paanda?),” Handunnetti has asked the presenter.

Gathering backlash

However, Handunnetti’s statement during the television interview gathered much backlash on social media, with many questioning how a minister of the JVP/NPP Government, which had promised transparency and accountability, could make such a statement.

One of the key statements that drew criticism was Handunnetti asking the host what his problem was if there were people willing to donate to JVPers and the JVPers were prepared to accept them. One post on social media noted that such offerings could amount to inducements and could also be called corruption in the event of reciprocal action by members of the Government towards the donors.

Another post on social media by a political analyst noted that it was a dangerous trend if a politician, especially in Government, was willing to accept offerings by any individual since it could also lead to destructive situations in the future.

Meanwhile, a video clip of an interview conducted with the late JVP Leader Somawansa Amarasinghe around 10 years ago, when he had defected from the party after AKD assumed the party leadership, was also widely shared on social media last week.

In the interview, Amarasinghe notes that a JVPer cannot accept any gift/offering made by any person, as it was being done at the time of his defection from the party. He says that while JVP full-time cadres lived with the support of party comrades, they did not have the freedom to accept offerings by any person.

It is, however, ironic that members of a Government that assumed office on the promise of wiping out bribery and corruption are trying to justify accepting inducements from various individuals and organisations.

Defining corruption

Addressing a public gathering recently, CIABOC Chairman Neil Iddawela explained what fuelled corruption. 

“What fuels a corrupt culture is the failure of law and order, the normalisation of corruption, and the public’s reluctance to take action,” Iddawela said. “We cannot dismiss corruption as a matter of mutual consent between giver and taker; it remains an offence under the law.”

Iddawela further noted that a public survey conducted in 2024 had identified the Police, politics, and Customs as the top three institutions perceived to be most vulnerable to bribery and corruption in the country.

The new rich

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser Namal Rajapaksa noted that the Government had failed to honour its pledges to the people and had instead worked to bring prosperity to itself.

Namal noted that the Government that had assumed office promising to enrich the masses through poverty alleviation was instead making its 159 members rich.

Missing declarations

The CIABOC has meanwhile stated that there are 41 high-ranking officials including a Cabinet minister, four former governors, several state ministers, ambassadors, senior diplomatic staff, and judges who have failed to submit their assets and liabilities declarations for last year.

According to a newspaper report, the CIABOC has stated in an amended list that former Cabinet Minister Douglas Devananda and six former State Ministers – Tharaka Balasuriya, Shantha Bandara, Kader Masthan, Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, Suren Raghavan, and the late Lohan Ratwatte – had not submitted their declarations.

Under Section 80 of the Anti-Corruption Act No.9 of 2023, public officials and those holding office are required to make periodic declarations of their assets and liabilities both in and outside the country.

The CIABOC list had also named four former Governors who had not submitted their declarations: Roshan Goonetileke, Senthil Thondaman, Navin Dissanayake, and William Gamage.

Also, around 28 senior diplomatic staff, including 11 ambassadors, deputy permanent representatives, and high commissioners, as well as two former judges, have not declared their assets and liabilities.

Spotlight on CIABOC DG

However, the ongoing anti-corruption drive and the increased discussion on assets of Government and Opposition politicians have resulted in much attention being focused on the CIABOC and its actions. The spotlight therefore is also turned on CIABOC Director General (DG) Ranga Dissanayake.

The CIABOC Director General even became a topic in Parliament last Friday (26), following a statement made by former Politburo member of the JVP Nandana Gunathilaka during a recent political discussion on television. 

Gunathilaka had claimed in the discussion that the CIABOC Director General was a member of the JVP’s Legal Wing and that he had evidence to prove the claim. The former JVP senior had further alleged that the ruling party had appointed the CIABOC Director General with the intention of covering up issues pertaining to ruling party members.

A video clip of Gunathilaka’s statement went viral on Friday morning on social media, resulting in SJB MP Mujibur Rahman raising the issue in Parliament. Rahman had noted that the revelation made by Gunathilaka about the CIABOC Director General was a serious one.

However, Speaker Wickramaratne had intervened to prevent Rahman from speaking further, saying that the statement was irrelevant to the discussion at hand as it could not be considered a supplementary question during the oral question time in the House.

Leader of the House, Minister Bimal Rathnayake had responded by reciting a line from a poem and asked: “What has happened to the SJB? You were an important political party before, right?”

Rahman had later taken up the issue once again, saying: “Ranga Dissanayake conducts probes into every action of Opposition MPs. Why is he not conducting probes into members of the Government and ministers? Is it because he is a member of the JVP? It’s possible to think that. There has been a complaint about the Energy Minister and the CIABOC was supposed to file a case, but nothing has happened so far.”

SJB MP Nalin Bandara had also raised the issue of the CIABOC Director General, noting: “Mr. Speaker, the CIABOC needs to be independent. Where is the independence when appointments are made in this manner?”

Litigation against JVP

Meanwhile, a group of former JVP parliamentarians have decided to initiate legal action against the JVP, demanding that the party return their MPs’ salaries that have been deposited in the party account from the time they were MPs.

They have pointed out that they had faced an injustice due to their MPs’ salaries being deposited in the party account and that they now required the monies since the incumbent Government is planning on stopping the MPs’ pension, which is their main source of income at present.

Dilith’s revelation

On the matter of party funds belonging to the JVP, Sarvajana Balaya Leader Dilith Jayaweera claimed at a recent public event that the mechanism of accumulating party funds seemed similar to a money laundering mechanism.

He noted that this money laundering scheme was in the Pelawatte area.

Jayaweera has explained that he resides in the Kotte area, that he purchased a plot of land near his residence during the Covid-19 pandemic period, and that he purchased the said land at Rs. 4 million per perch. 

According to Jayaweera, a minister of the incumbent Government who resides nearby has declared that a perch of land where he resides is Rs. 300,000. “This is what the minister has stated in his asset declaration. This could easily put the minister in jail because he has signed an affidavit saying that his statement is true.”

Millions for repairs

The Government, meanwhile, continues to publicise what it claims to be large-scale wastage of public funds during previous governments, in addition to losses due to corruption.

A State-owned newspaper recently reported that Rs. 640 million had been spent on repairing vehicles belonging to the Presidential Secretariat over the past year. The report had cited a National Audit Office (NAO) report where it was stated that a total of Rs. 645,336,744 had been allocated for these repairs.

The audit has further disclosed that 53 vehicles had undergone repeated repairs, ranging from 10-17 times each.

The report has also stated that a total of 189 vehicles, valued between Rs. 1 million and Rs. 40 million, had been repaired, with individual repair costs ranging from Rs. 1 million to Rs. 28 million.

Targeting Sajith

Meanwhile, there is much focus on the ongoing probe into the utilisation of monies of the Central Cultural Fund (CCF) during previous governments, especially under the watch of Opposition Leader Premadasa during the ‘Yahapalana’ Government.

Deputy Minister Gamagedara Dissanayake had recently noted that over Rs. 8 billion had allegedly been misused without the approval of the Board of Governors of the CCF. He has stated that a committee appointed to investigate the matter had uncovered this large-scale financial mismanagement. 

Dissanayake has further noted that legal action will be initiated against those found responsible for the misuse of public funds, irrespective of their position or status, once the committee’s final report is submitted.

Given that the period under investigation is during the ‘Yahapalana’ time, several SJBers stated that it was an effort by the Government to intimidate the Opposition Leader.

RW breaks silence

Meanwhile, former President Wickremesinghe, who made his first public speech since being arrested and granted bail at the recent convention of the United National Party (UNP), spoke about the circumstances surrounding the incident.

He noted that he had been on an official trip overseas at the time. “I went to attend a G77 meeting in Havana, Cuba, where I held discussions with many world leaders. After that, I travelled to the United States to attend the United Nations General Assembly. On my way back to Sri Lanka, I was in London in transit. I spent one night there and accepted an official invitation since I was present,” Wickremesinghe explained.

The former President noted that the complaint leading to his arrest had been made by the incumbent President’s Secretary. “I learnt that a complaint had been filed against me and that it was submitted by the incumbent President’s Secretary. Based on that, I was taken in. At that moment, many gathered to support me and I extend my gratitude to all of them,” he observed.

Wickremesinghe also reflected on his tenure in office: “When I took over the country in 2022, Sri Lanka’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at $ 76.8 billion. By the time I handed it over to Anura Kumara Dissanayake, it had risen to $ 98.9 billion. I left behind $ 22 billion. I have nothing to gain from these matters.”

SJB attendance

The UNP’s recent convention was also seen as an event to gauge the possibilities of a union between the UNP and the main Opposition SJB.

While it was first believed that Opposition and SJB Leader Premadasa would attend the event, it was evident that the decision regarding attending the UNP Convention was not an easy one.

It was first stated that the SJB had decided that the party would be represented by Party General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara at the UNP Convention on 20 September, but several SJB seniors had also attended the event. SJB members Tissa Attanayake and Kabir Hashim also attended the convention.

A senior SJBer said that apart from Madduma Bandara, it had been decided that two more party seniors would attend the UNP Convention and that Attanayake and Hashim had attended the event following this decision, which had been sanctioned by the party.

It is learnt that some SJBers continue to maintain that there is no necessity at present for the SJB to unite with the UNP despite the improved relationship between Premadasa and Wickremesinghe, with Premadasa also opining that the SJB should not be allowed to dissolve by forming an alliance with the UNP. 

Premadasa and several SJB seniors, it is learnt, are also displeased by UNP Chairman Wajira Abeywardena’s move to personally call and extend individual invites to SJB MPs, indicating an effort to split the SJB.

Three absent leaders

However, three leaders of Opposition parties represented in Parliament did not attend the UNP Convention – the SLPP’s Namal Rajapalsa, Sarvajana Balaya’s Dilith Jayaweera, and ITAK’s S. Shritharan.

It is learnt that the SLPP had held a lengthy discussion on whether to attend the UNP Convention and had decided that the party would not attend while expressing its best wishes to the UNP. It was later decided that the party’s General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam would attend the event.

However, there were no representatives present at the UNP Convention from the Sarvajana Balaya or ITAK.

From foe to friend

Nevertheless, the UNP Convention saw a gathering of an interesting group of politicians, including the likes of Udaya Gammanpila and Sagara Kariyawasam.

Gammanpila and Kariyawasam represent political camps that are polar opposites to the UNP, and it was indeed interesting to see the duo not only attending the UNP Convention but also addressing the gathering.

It was also interesting to see former friends and current foes, Gammanpila and Patali Champika Ranawaka, attending the same political event. 

Sagara’s confession

The SLPP’s Kariyawasam made an interesting political confession at the UNP anniversary convention. He noted that both camps, the UNP and the SLPP, had made a huge political mistake in the past.

Explaining that since independence until now, the country has been governed by either the UNP camp or a camp represented by the SLPP, Kariyawasam noted that most often these two camps had used the slogan of “thieves and rogues” to hit out at political opponents. 

“Most often we used one group to hit out at our opponents, claiming they were rogues and we remained silent. This group had done nothing for the country and had done the most amount of destruction. Finally, the people began to believe that the two main political parties were full of rogues and decided that the ones who carried out the attack were the ones who were not rogues. This is a mistake we all made,” Kariyawasam claimed. 

MR slams Govt.

Meanwhile, SLPP Leader, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), who last Sunday (21) attended a public event in Kalutara since settling down at Carlton House in Tangalle, has said that the incumbent Government has lost steam and is unable to do anything.

MR was attending an event in Kalutara held to mark the birthday of MP Rohitha Abeygunawardena when he had made this observation to the media on the sidelines of the event. 

SJBers visit MR

Meanwhile, two SJB MPs, Hesha Withanage and Dilip Wedaarachchi, had called on former President MR in Tangalle recently. 

The meeting had reportedly taken place at Carlton House in Tangalle, and it is reported that Withanage and Wedaarachchi had visited the former President to inquire into his well-being.

Withanage had previously served as the Chairman of the Embilipitiya Pradeshiya Sabha, representing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), while SJB MP Wedaarachchi represented the Hambantota District in Parliament.

Indian HC in Tangalle

Meanwhile, High Commissioner of India to Sri Lanka Santosh Jha visited MR in Tangalle last Wednesday (24).

The Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka posted on X that the Indian envoy had met with the former President and had discussed various facets of bilateral cooperation as well as political developments in Sri Lanka.

Sarath’s reminder

Meanwhile, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, who recently visited MR in Tangalle, made a statement where he recalled MR’s role in standing for the youth who had been killed during the 1988-’89 insurgency period. Many youths affiliated to the JVP were killed during the said insurgency.

Silva stated that it was MR who had gone before the UN Human Rights Commission at the time in Geneva in addition to organising a protest march (paada yathra) from Colombo to Kataragama to object to and raise awareness against the killings of youth. The former Chief Justice had noted that the JVP seemed to have forgotten this past.

MR had told several of his confidants, after hearing about Silva’s statement, that it was the likes of Kusal Perera who had come up with the idea of a protest march and that it had been decided to start the walk from Colombo. MR had noted that they had received support from the media as well.

The former President had recalled that the protest march had started in Colombo with around 50 people, but thousands had joined it in the south. “There were six people who walked with me the whole distance from Colombo to Kataragama. One was Vasudeva Nanayakkara; among the others were Ariyananda Dombagahawatta, G.I.D. Dharmasekera, and Mahinda Abeysekera,” MR had recalled.

Namal’s unofficial president

The SLPP meanwhile faced an interesting shock last week when former MP Janaka Thissa Kuttiarachchi made a public statement that he would be Sri Lanka’s “unofficial president” when Namal Rajapaksa was elected as the head of state.

Kuttiarachchi told a recent public gathering that he considered himself as one of Namal’s closest allies and claimed that a political wave was already building for him to win the presidency in 2029.

He further stated that Opposition Leader Premadasa was no longer part of the political conversation, while uncertainty surrounded the timeline for President AKD’s tenure in office.

“It is not clear whether President Dissanayake will lose power tomorrow, next week, next month, or only in 2029. But when that moment comes, Namal Rajapaksa will be the president of this country. That is certain,” Kuttiarachchi claimed, adding that his role that day would be to remind Namal that the people of Anuradhapura, who he claimed would deliver him the highest percentage of votes, must be recognised and served in return.

Thissa reprimanded

Kuttiarachchi’s statement went viral on social media the following day, angering many SLPP seniors, including Namal. Many SLPP organisers and supporters had also expressed concern over the statement.

The SLPP had immediately issued a stern warning to Kuttiarachchi for making irresponsible statements at public meetings and had asked him not to do so in future.

SLPP General Secretary Kariyawasam, it is learnt, had issued the warning to Kuttiarachchi, further noting that the party would have to act against such statements in future. 

Delayed Krrish case documents

Meanwhile, Namal Rajapaksa’s controversial Krrish case was taken up at the Colombo High Court on Friday (26). The court had directed its registrar to obtain and submit the initial case record from the Fort Magistrate’s Court in connection with the Krrish case filed against Namal.

The case was taken up before High Court Judge Nadee Aparna Suwandurugoda and Namal had personally appeared in court. 

President’s Counsel Sampath Mendis, appearing for Namal, had told the court that some of the requested documents had not been provided by the prosecution yet, stressing that these were vital for a fair trial.

Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera, representing the Attorney General’s Department, had responded saying that most of the documents had already been given and assured that any outstanding material would be expedited through the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

The Judge had ordered that the remaining documents be handed over before the next hearing and directed the registrar to immediately call for the original Magistrate’s Court file. 

The case was fixed for a pre-trial conference on 18 December.

Namal was indicted by the Attorney General in the Krrish case for allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by receiving Rs. 70 million from India’s Krrish Group for promoting rugby in Sri Lanka.

LOD to Namal

Meanwhile, Namal last week also received a Letter of Demand (LOD) from Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala requesting Rs. 2 billion in compensation.

Watagala’s LOD was sent on 22 September by Attorney Manjula Balasooriya.

According to media reports, the LOD has been sent in response to an earlier letter dated 10 September, in which Attorney Sankha Karunaratne, on behalf of Namal, had demanded Rs. 1 billion in compensation from Watagala.

Attorney Karunaratne had sent the initial LOD claiming that a statement made by Watagala during a media discussion had damaged Namal’s reputation.

Watagala’s legal counsel, in response, had stated that his client had not made any defamatory remarks, pointing out that Namal Rajapaksa was not a person of reputable standing, and that the Attorney General had already filed indictments against him for the alleged misuse of Rs. 70 million in the Krrish transaction.

It had therefore been argued that no statement made could have harmed Namal’s reputation and that the LOD dated 10 September was formally rejected.

The response had reportedly stated that if legal action was pursued, a counterclaim would be filed and the case would proceed with cross-demands while all legal costs related to these proceedings would be sought from Namal through the court.

According to Watagala’s response, due to the defamatory nature of the LOD sent to his client, Watagala is now seeking Rs. 2 billion in damages for the harm caused to his reputation, to be paid within seven days of the date of the letter, and if the amount is not paid within that period, legal action will be initiated in the appropriate civil court.

Manusha’s bail application

Meanwhile, former Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, who was summoned by the CIABOC, on Friday filed an anticipatory bail application before the Colombo Chief Magistrate.

President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had noted that the petitioner had already provided written submissions to the CIABOC regarding the investigation and therefore sought an anticipatory bail order to ensure his release on bail in the event of arrest.

Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanka S. Bodaragama had then issued notice to the Director General of the CIABOC to appear before court on 3 October and present submissions regarding the bail application.

Summons served at airport

Nanayakkara was summoned before the CIABOC on Friday (26) morning to record a statement over a probe being carried out into alleged irregularities that had taken place in sending Sri Lankan migrant workers to Israel.

The former Minister was earlier summoned to the CIABOC on 8 September, but he had not been able to appear before the commission since he had been overseas at the time. 

It is learnt that officials from the CIABOC had handed over the letter summoning Nanayakkara to the commission to record a statement at the airport on Wednesday (24) night when he had arrived in the country from Dubai.