The claimants involved in the dispute arising from the X-Press Pearl disaster have urged the Sri Lankan Government to provide security assurances for members of their delegation ahead of an in-person meeting scheduled for 22 and 23 September.

The demand has been made by international law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, representing the claimants, in a letter dated 10 September 2026 to the Director General (Acting) of the Ocean Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ref: MFA/OAECC/OA/04/07/02 Vol I)

The letter was copied directly to the Attorney General (Parinda Ranasinghe PC), the Secretary to the President, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, Ports, Trade, and Environment, as well as diplomatic missions in London and Singapore.

The Singaporean Government has also initiated litigation against the GoSL under a free trade agreement between the two countries. The letter stated that the dispute arises under the Free Trade Agreement between Sri Lanka and Singapore, signed in January 2018 and entered into force in May that year.

The lawyers confirmed that the claimants are prepared to exchange position papers on September 15 at 3 p.m. Sri Lanka time. They also confirmed that September 22 and 23 remain acceptable dates for an in-person meeting.

However, the claimants rejected the Sri Lankan Government's proposal that the meeting be conducted virtually.

The lawyers said some members of the claimants' delegation would attend the meeting physically, while those unable to travel could participate through video link. They nevertheless stressed that they considered this arrangement less than optimal and called on the Government to provide assurances for the "safe passage" of the delegation.

The demand for assurances centres on concerns that members of the delegation could potentially face enforcement measures while in Sri Lanka because of their association with the claimants.

The lawyers acknowledged that the Government had confirmed in its 7 September correspondence that it was not aware of any complaint, enforcement measure or court order against any member of the proposed delegation.

However, they rejected the Government's description of their concerns as "pure conjecture" and unsupported by credible or specific information.

The lawyers referred particularly to the Supreme Court's judgment of 24 July 2025, concerning proceedings arising from the X-Press Pearl disaster.

According to the letter, the Supreme Court judgment recorded allegations of bribery and corruption raised in Parliament and by Transparency International in relation to the claim for compensation arising from the X-Press Pearl incident. The allegations included claims concerning a payment in the region of US$250 million and the decision to pursue the compensation claim before the Singapore International Commercial Court, as well as alleged delays in commencing proceedings.

The Supreme Court, according to the lawyers, described the allegations as "very serious" and directed that they be investigated by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).

The Court also directed the Director General of CIABOC to initially call for and consider investigations already conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) into the allegations.

Quinn Emanuel argued that the Supreme Court's reference to the CID investigations demonstrated that an investigation into the allegations already existed.

The lawyers said the Supreme Court judgment recorded that statements made to the CID and the progress of the related CIABOC complaint had been placed before the Court by the State parties, represented by the Attorney General, and by CIABOC. They therefore argued that the Government could not credibly claim to be unaware of the allegations.

The claimants' lawyers also requested that the Government provide them with a copy of the CID's investigation report, saying that relevant investigative material had not previously been provided to them. It said, "GoSL cannot credibly maintain that it is unaware of the specific allegations in question, having itself filed with the Court the material that addresses them. Indeed, the relevant material, including the CID's investigative reports, have never been provided to the Claimants. There can be no proper basis for withholding that material from the Claimants, and we request that a copy of the CID's investigation report now be provided."

The lawyers further pointed to what they described as continuing developments surrounding the X-Press Pearl compensation claim.

Among the matters cited were a statement made in Parliament by former Justice Minister Dr Wijedasa Rajapakshe; reports of a fresh CIABOC complaint concerning the Marine Environment Protection Authority, the Attorney General's Department and other State institutions; and reports of a separate bribery complaint against three Supreme Court judges in connection with the termination of the Supreme Court proceedings.

The letter also referred to media reports concerning enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment and alleged correspondence between the vessel's insurer and the Sri Lankan Head of State.

The lawyers further argued that, notwithstanding what they described as the questionable basis of the allegations, the allegations and related claims had continued to escalate. In support of their position, they referred, among other matters, to a statement made in Parliament by then Justice Minister Dr Wijedasa Rajapakshe, as well as reports appearing in the media.

They specifically cited a report published by The Morning on September 3, 2026, concerning what it described as a fresh complaint lodged with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) over the conduct of the Marine Environment Protection Authority, the Attorney General’s Department and other State institutions in connection with the X-Press Pearl claim.

The lawyers also referred to another local media report of September 1 concerning an alleged bribery complaint against three Supreme Court judges in connection with the order that terminated the Supreme Court proceedings, and another website report of August 23 concerning enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment and alleged correspondence between the vessel’s insurer and the Sri Lankan Head of State.

The letter said these developments demonstrated, in the claimants’ view, that the allegations surrounding the X-Press Pearl claim were continuing and should not be characterised as hypothetical.

The claimants maintained that these developments demonstrated that the allegations surrounding the X-Press Pearl claim were continuing and should not be dismissed as hypothetical.

The lawyers stressed that their concern was not that members of the delegation had already been named in a complaint, enforcement action or court order.

Rather, they said they were concerned that enforcement measures could potentially be taken against members of the delegation while they were in Sri Lanka because they were representatives of the claimants and of entities against which allegations had been made.

They therefore called on the Sri Lankan Government to provide the requested assurances without further delay.

The Government has been asked to respond by September 14, one day before the agreed exchange of position papers, so that the claimants can finalise arrangements for attending the September 22–23 meeting.

The letter states that all rights of the claimants are reserved.

The correspondence has been copied to the Attorney General, the Presidential Secretariat, several ministries including Foreign Affairs, Justice, Ports and Civil Aviation, Trade and Environment, as well as the Singapore authorities and Sri Lankan diplomatic missions in Singapore and London.

The latest exchange comes amid continuing legal, political and investigative controversy surrounding the X-Press Pearl disaster and Sri Lanka's efforts to pursue compensation for the environmental and economic damage caused by the 2021 maritime disaster.