As the country eases back into routine after the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, there is a familiar sense of reset in the air – renewed hope, quiet expectation, and the enduring question of whether life will, at last, become a little more affordable.
The recently concluded Sinhala and Tamil New Year was undoubtedly one of the most politically potent New Year celebrations, with all key political leaders working on outdoing the others through their respective celebrations.
While President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), along with several senior Government ministers, decided to celebrate the New Year in the newly-built home of a family who had lost their home due to Cyclone Ditwah in the Anuradhapura District, the rest of the political leaders, predominantly representing Opposition parties, engaged in following the New Year rituals with their families at home. The slow-moving news cycles during the New Year period resulted in large-scale photographs and video dumps on social media of politicians celebrating the event.
For President AKD and his Government, however, the New Year begins not with celebration but with pressure. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) administration that ascended to office on promises of relief and systemic change now finds itself navigating the stubborn realities of a country still vulnerable to global shocks – none more immediate than the ongoing energy crisis.
The temporary suspension of the fuel QR code system over the holiday period may have offered short-term convenience, even a symbolic gesture of normalcy. But it also underscored a deeper uncertainty which meant that energy security in Sri Lanka remains precarious, subject to external forces and internal constraints alike.
Against this backdrop, the stance taken by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) offers a measure of reassurance – at least on the surface. Its firm declaration that additional costs arising from the coal situation will not be passed on to consumers is, politically, a necessary signal. At a time when households are already stretched, any hint of rising electricity tariffs would be both economically painful and politically damaging.
This move could also have a negative impact on Sri Lanka’s ongoing programme with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has placed much importance on cost-reflective tariff mechanisms as a key component of the country’s economic recovery path.
However, the PUCSL’s position also raises a more complicated question: if these costs are not borne by the consumer, then where do they go?
In a functioning system, ‘unreasonable costs’ can be filtered out through efficiency and accountability. But in Sri Lanka’s energy sector, which has been plagued for a long time by structural inefficiencies, procurement controversies, and financial imbalances, such costs rarely disappear. As pointed out by many economists, they are deferred, absorbed, or quietly transferred within the system, often resurfacing later in less transparent ways.
For the Government, this creates a delicate balancing act. Shielding consumers from immediate price hikes is politically prudent, even necessary. But delaying or redistributing costs without addressing root inefficiencies risks compounding the problem even further. What is gained in short-term relief may be lost in long-term sustainability.
The broader challenge for President AKD and his Government is that expectations remain high while fiscal and structural limitations remain the same. The masses did not merely vote for stability; they voted for change. And change, particularly in sectors like energy, demands more than price controls or regulatory assurances – it requires reform that is often slow, complex, and politically costly.
As the country steps into the new year, the Government’s task is not just to manage crises, but to convince the public that it has a credible path beyond the multiple crises. Although the PUCSL’s promise may buy time, what the Government does with that time will define whether this moment of cautious optimism endures or fades.
Coal saga continues
Meanwhile, the smoke surrounding the ongoing coal procurement saga has thickened once again and this time seems to be choking the system that is already under strain. What began as a technical dispute over a spot tender has now evolved into a full-blown political controversy with a leaked telephone conversation that has captured public attention.
At the centre of the latest twist is the Chairman of the Lanka Coal Company (LCC), whose own public statement issued as a news release through the Government Information Department effectively acknowledged the authenticity of the recorded call. The conversation that reportedly involved a representative of the selected supplier and a senior procurement official of the LCC has raised uncomfortable questions about the integrity of the tender process. While the precise legal implications will be left to investigators, the political implications are already impossible to ignore.
That this episode unfolded during the Avurudu holidays has further amplified its reach. Social media, often dismissed as a chaotic arena of half-truths, has become a key platform for public scrutiny over the coal saga. Citizens, weary from economic hardship and years of governance failures, have seized these revelations as yet another example of failing systems and lack of accountability.
It is important to note that in a country where energy security is both an economic necessity and a political flashpoint, even the perception of impropriety carries weight. The Government now faces a familiar but increasingly urgent dilemma – whether to treat this as an isolated lapse or as a symptom of deeper institutional weaknesses.
It would suffice to note that the LCC episode is not just about coal but about credibility, and credibility, once eroded, is far more difficult to replenish than any stockpile of coal.
SJB to CID
The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) meanwhile lodged a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) calling for a probe into the leaked telephone conversation and the contents in the discussion. SJB Member of Parliament (MP) Mujibur Rahman along with a group of SJBers lodged the complaint last Monday (13).
While Opposition politics in the country has long been focused on allegations, counter-allegations, and the occasional ‘explosive’ leak, what distinguishes the latest episode is not merely the content of the recording but the broader question it raises – whether accountability mechanisms function as intended when political sensitivities surface?
By formally engaging the CID, the SJB has signalled that it is willing to shift the debate from rhetoric to process and has placed the burden squarely on investigators to establish facts, rather than allowing the issue to vanish into partisan noise.
It is evident that the SJB is focused on winning the ongoing race between Opposition political parties in building an anti-Government public perception over the ongoing coal controversy and the overall issues faced by the country’s energy sector.
CID’s quick action
Meanwhile, the CID immediately launched a probe into coal procurements since 2009 following a complaint lodged by the Secretary to the President on 11 April. While the Secretary had lodged the complaint on Saturday morning, the CID had managed to obtain an order from the Nugegoda Magistrate to seal the Lanka Coal Company office in Kohuwala by around 2.30 p.m. the same afternoon.
The order had been issued under case number B64376/26 at the Nugegoda Magistrate’s Court and special Police protection was provided to the LCC office from Saturday afternoon to enable the CID investigators to obtain the required documents and files related to the probe.
However, the LCC office had reopened on Wednesday (15) under the supervision of CID officials with key staff of the company carrying out their work under the CID’s watchful eyes. It is learnt that the CID is expected to include the SJB complaint also into the ongoing probe at the LCC and not conduct a separate inquiry into it.
Impacts of Jayakody’s NCM
Meanwhile, the discourse over the reason for the Government’s victory at the vote on the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody being due to the number of seats enjoyed by the ruling party in the House and not due to any fault of the facts that were presented in the motion continues among Opposition political parties.
Supporters of the NCM continue to argue that the motion and the process had forced a necessary public examination of policy direction, pricing mechanisms, and long-term energy planning. In a context where energy costs have a direct impact on inflation and household budgets, the recent parliamentary debate managed to bring technical governance issues into sharper public focus.
For Opposition parties, the move provided a rare point of consolidation. Especially given the often fragmented political environment in the Opposition, the motion offered a shared platform to challenge the Government on a critical national issue.
It also allowed the Opposition to frame the debate around governance competence rather than personality politics alone and helped build momentum, particularly when public dissatisfaction with energy pricing is already high.
For the Government, the motion resulted in some internal strain with the ruling party continuing to debate on the temporary removal of the Energy Minister from the portfolio. While defending Jayakody required visible unity, it also exposed certain underlying divisions within the ruling party, especially given that only 153 out of 159 JVP/NPP MPs had voted against the motion during the vote. This created additional pressure on the leadership to manage internal cohesion while defending the Energy Minister’s record.
However, the motion also carried certain risks along with it, especially since the energy sector is heavily influenced by global market volatility, currency fluctuations, and long-term infrastructure constraints.
Critics meanwhile have argued that excessive politicisation of such a technical portfolio could distort policy priorities since a tying up of governance decisions to parliamentary survival could create a risk where necessary but unpopular reforms are delayed or softened to avoid political backlash.
Trying to save face
However, in a bid to save face amidst growing public dissension over the continuing crises in the country’s energy sectors, President AKD decided to take several decisive steps on Friday (17).
The first was to announce the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry headed by Supreme Court Justice Gihan Kulatunga to investigate the alleged malpractice or illegal activities in coal imports by the LCC and its subsidiaries as well as power generation from the inception of coal-generated power in the country up until 16 April.
The next was to request the resignation of Energy Minister Jayakody from his portfolio. It is however learnt that Jayakody had expressed concerns to the President that his sole resignation would not bode well for him or the Government since it would seem he was responsible for the allegations levelled by the Opposition. It is also learnt that he had then asked the President that the Ministry Secretary also submit his resignation. President AKD had then requested Energy Ministry Secretary Udayanga Hemapala to also resign from his position at the ministry.
It is further learnt that the LCC Chairman has also been asked to tender his resignation.
The announcement of the resignations was made at a special media conference held at 4 p.m. at the Government Information Department attended by senior Government Ministers Vijitha Herath, Bimal Rathnayake, Nalinda Jayatissa, and Upali Pannilage, as well as Deputy Minister of Energy Arkam Ilyas.
‘The Black Box’ learns that Ports and Civil Aviation Minister Anura Karunathilaka is likely to be appointed as acting energy minister while Presidential Secretariat Additional Secretary Russel Aponsu has been appointed as the new Energy Secretary.
Duminda’s revelation
Meanwhile, the splinter group of the JVP, the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), has raised alarms over a Government decision to release water from the Victoria Reservoir for electricity generation in an “unusual and arbitrary” manner. The party has alleged that this move, intended to offset a power crisis, is now threatening the drinking water supply for thousands of residents and crippling industrial operations in the Central Province.
Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday (15), FSP Propaganda Secretary Duminda Nagamuwa revealed that the decision had been finalised during a high-level meeting on 24 March, chaired by Agriculture Minister K.D. Lalkantha and former Energy Minister Jayakody.
Nagamuwa explained during his revelation the domino effect of the decision, noting that the root of the issue lay in the import of substandard coal, which had significantly hampered power generation at the Norochcholai Lakvijaya Coal Power Plant. To avoid the massive costs associated with diesel-powered thermal plants and the subsequent public backlash of passing those costs to consumers, the Government has reportedly turned to excessive hydropower generation.
“The Government is trying to fix one leak by creating a hundred more,” Nagamuwa claimed.
The environmental and social impact of lowering the reservoir levels is already being felt.
The Balagolla pumping station, a vital source of water for Kandy, Kundasale, and Digana, is reportedly on the verge of failure. While the reservoir should ideally be maintained at 422 metres above sea level to sustain water pumps, levels are dropping fast.
Approximately 17,000 households are facing water shortages while the daily demand stands at 12,000 cubic metres. The Government is currently only able to distribute 500 cubic metres via water bowsers.
The Pallekele Investment Zone has also been hit and due to the lack of water, several factories had been forced to suspend operations as early as 10 April, making production targets impossible to meet.
The FSP warned that the mismanagement of the Victoria Reservoir would inevitably spill over into the Randenigala and Rantambe systems, creating a massive water deficit for the upcoming agricultural seasons.
The party concluded the briefing by demanding that the Government immediately rescind the decision and find a sustainable solution to the energy crisis that does not compromise the public’s basic right to water.
The assets conundrum
While the Government is being hit from all sides over its energy management issues, the issue of asset accumulation and declaration by ruling party members resurfaced last week, causing much controversy.
In a political culture where public trust often hinges on transparency, the annual declaration of assets and liabilities remains one of the few formal mechanisms through which citizens can scrutinise those in power as well as cause controversy. The latest controversy surrounds senior JVP/NPP Minister K.D. Lalkantha, which offers both clarity and raises familiar questions about wealth, governance, and perception.
Submitted to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) last December under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act No.9 of 2023, the declaration has provided a detailed snapshot of the Minister’s financial standing – one that reportedly exceeds Rs. 460 million in total value.
A recent news report in the mainstream media has highlighted that a significant portion of Lalkantha’s declared wealth lies in immovable assets that include multiple residential and mixed-use properties, some acquired through inheritance or gift deeds. The valuations range widely – from modest holdings worth a few million rupees to a high-value property estimated at Rs. 56 million.
Such a spread reflects a layered accumulation of assets over time, combining personal acquisition with familial transfers – a common pattern among long-standing political figures. However, it is the scale of his financial investments that stands out most prominently.
With over Rs. 383 million reportedly tied up in shares across 10 private companies, Lalkantha’s portfolio signals a deep engagement with the private sector. This raises a broader policy question: how should political leaders balance private financial interests with public responsibilities, especially in a regulatory environment still strengthening its conflict-of-interest safeguards?
The declaration has also outlined multiple income streams, including a ministerial salary, pension, rental income, and returns from fixed deposits. Notably, interest earnings alone amount to over Rs. 2.7 million annually – an indicator of substantial liquid capital.
This diversified income base suggests financial stability, but it also underscores a recurring debate in local politics: the widening gap between the financial realities of political elites and the economic struggles of ordinary citizens.
While on paper the system seems to be working with the declaration being filed, figures disclosed, and legal requirements met, transparency is only one side of the equation.
Public perception often hinges less on compliance and more on relatability and trust. In a country still navigating economic recovery and public sector reform, large asset declarations, however legitimate, can fuel scepticism unless accompanied by clear narratives of how such wealth was accumulated.
In the case of the JVP, public statements made by many senior figures like Lalkantha a few years back about the financial difficulties faced by full-time JVPers and their families while claiming that their survival was linked to contributions by party cadre and well-wishers have now come to haunt them, with their assets accumulated through the years showing a different picture altogether, with minimal or no proper transparency.
CID complaint over MR’s assets
Meanwhile, the viral posts on social media about Lalkantha’s assets have eventually resulted in some posts about former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s (MR) assets as well. The ongoing social media battle over assets of key political figures has paved the way for a new political strategy where allegations are currency and counter-allegations are strategy.
The latest move by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) to lodge a complaint with the CID over allegedly false claims about former President MR’s assets is therefore less a legal footnote and more a revealing political signal.
For the SLPP, defending MR is not merely about one individual’s legacy. It is about safeguarding a political brand that still commands loyalty, particularly among segments of the electorate that associate him with stability and post-war leadership.
MR meanwhile submitted an affidavit on his assets to the CIABOC the previous week over an ongoing probe regarding his assets that has been dragging on since 2015.
Promoting RW
Amidst the economic woes faced by the country and the mounting pressure on President AKD and his Government, United National Party (UNP) Chairman Wajira Abeywardena has noted that Sri Lanka will inevitably be reduced to a colony if the country fails to utilise UNP Leader, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political, economic, and international expertise at this juncture.
Abeywardena has noted that what is required now is not an Opposition that merely protests, but one that actively contributes to rebuilding a nation that has collapsed.
“The public has managed to celebrate the Sinhala and Tamil New Year despite difficult circumstances. We see this as something significant. Preserving our customs, traditions, and culture is vital. Regardless of the pressures they face, the public has sent a clear message to the Government,” he has said, adding: “This means that even if the Government does not intervene in cultural and religious affairs, it cannot control public values. People will celebrate the New Year even if it means pawning their jewellery.”
Abeywardena has further noted: “As Sri Lankans, this is a moment we should be deeply proud of.”
Focus on Easter Sunday probe
Meanwhile, with the seventh anniversary of the Easter Sunday attacks approaching this Tuesday (21), Sri Lanka is still circling the truth without quite arriving at it.
Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith last week announced that the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka had declared Sunday (19) as a day of prayer for the victims of the Easter Sunday bomb attacks.
Meanwhile, the latest statement by Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala during the last parliamentary session that the attacks were part of a conspiracy dating back to 2017 should have marked a decisive turning point. Instead, it lands in a landscape already crowded with commissions, court cases, and parliamentary debates, each adding layers but rarely delivering closure. If anything, it reinforces a growing unease: that the country knows more than it is willing, or able, to say.
To suggest that the attacks were not isolated but were part of a broader design is not merely an investigative update; it is a profound indictment of the systems meant to safeguard the State. It raises difficult questions about intelligence failures, institutional accountability, and the possibility of foreknowledge. Yet, as before, the public is told that key details cannot be disclosed. The result is a familiar paradox: the narrative advances, but the truth remains just out of reach.
During the same parliamentary debate, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa struck a different tone, which was less about new revelations and more about old failures. His call for independent, transparent investigations reflects a frustration that has long outgrown party lines. Seven years on, the absence of clearly identified masterminds is no longer just a legal gap; it is a moral and political one.
Premadasa’s critique goes further, pointing to a deeper institutional malaise. Reports have been compiled, commissions have sat, and findings have been recorded, yet, much of this material remains effectively sealed off from public scrutiny. In that vacuum, speculation thrives and trust erodes. Justice, as he suggests, risks being reduced to a slogan, invoked often but delivered sparingly.
The tragedy of the Easter Sunday attacks lies not only in the lives lost, but in the years since – years in which accountability has been promised repeatedly but realised only partially, if at all. Each new statement from those in power carries the burden of this history. Without transparency, even genuine progress can appear performative.
The Government’s defence that ongoing judicial proceedings limit what can be revealed is not without merit. Legal processes demand caution. But governance demands credibility. And credibility cannot be sustained indefinitely on assurances alone.
What Sri Lanka faces today is not simply an unresolved probe but a test of its institutional integrity. Can the State confront uncomfortable truths, wherever they may lead? Can it separate justice from politics in a case that has been deeply entangled in both?
Until those questions are answered, the country will remain in a state of suspended resolution – caught between what is known, what is suspected, and what is still being withheld.
Cardinal’s declaration
However, the move by Cardinal Ranjith to declare a national day of prayer has once again steered the national discourse towards the unresolved ghosts of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. The move to turn a day of tragedy into a day of organised spiritual petitioning also ensures that the quest for accountability remains a moral obligation, transcending the fickle nature of party politics.
The Cardinal’s declaration that the community will seek “divine intervention” to uncover the true perpetrators reflects a growing disillusionment when earthly institutions like commissions, courts, and cabinets seem to have failed to provide the closure a nation demands.
“We seek God’s help to find those responsible,” the Cardinal has stated, a phrase that resonates less as a simple religious ritual and more as a vote of no confidence in the authorities who have handled the case over the last several years.
For President AKD and his JVP/NPP Government that made justice for Easter Sunday victims one of its key election campaign pledges, the Cardinal’s announcement is a reminder that the Easter Sunday issue is not a closed chapter in a history book, but a living, breathing political force.
The call for prayer puts the spotlight back on the ‘masterminds’ – a term that has haunted two successive presidencies. Also, by framing the pursuit of justice within a religious context, the movement continues to garner attention from global Vatican diplomatic circles and international human rights bodies.
The Cardinal therefore has once again proven that silence is not an option where truth, accountability, and justice are concerned for the Easter Sunday victims.
Absence at IOC
Meanwhile, President AKD and his Government’s foreign policy – or the lack of it – continues to attract attention locally and internationally.
At the recent Indian Ocean Conference (IOC) – a gathering that routinely draws senior leadership from across South Asia and the wider Indian Ocean region – Sri Lanka’s presence was, at best, unclear and, at worst, entirely absent. In diplomacy, optics are substance. And the optics, this time, were not flattering.
For a country whose economic recovery is deeply tied to regional cooperation, trade access, and strategic balancing, absence from such a forum is not a trivial oversight. These forums are not ceremonial talk shops; they are where alignments are signalled, partnerships are explored, and influence is quietly negotiated. When others show up with ministers and high-level envoys, an empty chair speaks louder than any prepared statement.
Sri Lanka at present sits at a delicate geopolitical crossroads. Its relationships with regional powers, its role in maritime security, and its ability to attract investment are all shaped in spaces exactly like the IOC. To be missing from that table – whether literally or perceptually – is to cede ground to others who are more than willing to fill the vacuum.
Opposition MP Harsha de Silva’s critique of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs goes beyond partisan point-scoring. It also raises a more uncomfortable question: has Sri Lanka’s foreign policy become reactive, even indifferent, at a time when it can least afford to be?
Dismissing participation due to cost constraints or domestic political preoccupations may sound pragmatic, but it risks betraying a short-term mindset in a long-term game. He has warned that Sri Lanka risks losing the chance to leverage its strategic position in the Indian Ocean if it does not actively engage in regional platforms.