As the country eagerly awaits the dawn of a New Year, there is much hope that the continuing challenges faced by the country and people will take a turn for the better in the months to come. Despite hope of strong economic recovery last year, the ongoing global developments have dampened Sri Lanka’s hopes of sustaining the anticipated recovery and growth, with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) projecting the country’s economic growth to decline from 5% last year to 4% this year.

Amidst the growing economic hardships, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) tried to play the role of ‘Avurudu Kumara’ with his relief package for the masses burdened with economic hardships. Despite President AKD’s announcement of a relief package in Parliament last week, prices of essential commodities, especially food, continued to increase through the week. 

The price increases, initially witnessed in cups of tea and plain tea and bakery goods, were extended to rice meals and kottu as well. By Wednesday (8), the All-Island Banquet Hall Owners’ and Caterers’ Association announced that charges for banquet meals had been increased with immediate effect and that new orders would see charges rise by 15–20% from May onwards. 

PublicFinance.lk meanwhile announced last week that the cost of ingredients required to assort a traditional ‘kevili’ table for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year had gone up by 7% in 2026 compared to 2025, and by 2.5 times compared to 2019 – prior to the pandemic and the economic crisis.  

To top all these increasing burdens on the masses, National System Operator Ltd. has requested a further 15% hike in electricity tariffs for the second quarter (April–June) of 2026, in addition to the 10% increase implemented in the same quarter. If the latest request of a 15% tariff increase receives the green light, people as well as the overall economy would face a nearly 30% overall increase in electricity tariffs during the first half of the year alone.

However, President AKD announced last Monday (6) that the Government had decided to provide subsidies of up to Rs. 100 on diesel after considering market price fluctuations.

Then on Tuesday (7), the President addressed Parliament and said that the fuel cost would be calculated on 1 May or a closer date, and based on that actual cost, Rs. 100 per litre of diesel and Rs. 20 per litre of petrol would be provided as a subsidy and the Government would bear an expense of Rs. 20 billion per month for this purpose, with Rs. 60 billion allocated for the three-month plan. Super diesel and super petrol would be provided based on the current market price, he said.

President AKD went on to note that Rs. 100 billion had been allocated for the economic relief package.

Apart from fuel subsidies, AKD announced the relief to electricity consumers who used less than 90 units, the fertiliser subsidy, and the increase in allowances for ‘Aswesuma’ beneficiaries as part of the Government’s relief package.

IMF conditions

Be that as it may, the country stands once again at a familiar crossroads – between urgent economic necessity and the political cost of reform. The latest Staff-Level Agreement (SLA) with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) offers cautious optimism, but beneath the diplomatic phrasing lies a clear message: the money will come, but only if the Government delivers.

President AKD has told Parliament to expect roughly $ 700 million by the end of May under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF). For a country still navigating fragile recovery, that figure represents breathing space. Yet the IMF’s statement is anything but a blank cheque. It is a conditional promise and the conditions are politically loaded.

At the heart of the matter is pricing – specifically, the restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel. In technocratic language, this is about fiscal discipline and eliminating losses in State-owned utilities. In political reality, it translates into higher bills for households and businesses already stretched thin. 

The IMF has attempted to soften the blow by emphasising protection for the most vulnerable, but the mechanics of that protection – and whether it will be sufficient – remain an open question.

The Government now faces a delicate balancing act. On one side lies the imperative to unlock IMF funds and maintain international credibility. On the other lies domestic pressure, where reform fatigue is real and public tolerance for austerity is limited. If the administration hesitates or dilutes these pricing reforms, it risks delaying Executive Board approval and, with it, the much-needed inflow of foreign exchange. If it proceeds too aggressively, it risks political backlash that could erode its own mandate.

Compounding this challenge is the requirement to complete the financing assurances review and demonstrate credible progress on debt restructuring. These are not mere procedural hurdles, but signals to the broader international community.

There is also a subtler but equally significant message embedded in the IMF’s remarks on post-disaster spending. Following the impact of Cyclone Ditwah, the call for transparent, well-targeted, and time-bound fiscal support is a reminder of past criticisms – namely, that public funds in Sri Lanka have too often been misallocated or poorly monitored. Compliance with the Public Financial Management Act as noted by the IMF is not just a bureaucratic requirement; it is a test of governance credibility.

What emerges from this moment is not simply financial negotiation, but a political test. Can the AKD administration convert external pressure into internal discipline? Can it frame necessary but painful reforms as part of a coherent national recovery strategy rather than externally imposed hardship?

Reading between the lines of the IMF statement, the conclusion is unavoidable: the path to that $ 700 million runs through politically difficult terrain.

Power cut conundrum

Meanwhile, amidst the increasing cost of electricity, Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) Mujibur Rahman, Ajith P. Perera, and D.V. Chanaka claimed in the House last week that the Government had resorted to haphazard and uninformed power cuts to manage the financial and energy losses caused by the use of substandard coal at the Lakvijaya Coal Power Plant in Norochcholai.

It was Rahman who claimed in Parliament on Tuesday morning that despite claims by the Government that there would not be any power cuts, there were ad hoc power cuts taking place in many parts of the country.

Chanaka meanwhile has alleged that power cuts had taken place at 45 locations on Monday (6) due to low-quality coal, contradicting the Government’s claim that no electricity cuts occurred. He has reminded others of his warning in Parliament nearly two weeks ago that Sri Lanka would face power cuts within weeks due to substandard coal affecting electricity generation.

Moreover, he has claimed that 45 feeders have been switched off simultaneously without proper approval, resulting in power interruptions across several areas.

Chanaka has further alleged that the Government later described the situation as “power breakdowns” rather than power cuts but said the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) system control centre report had categorised the incident as “manual load shedding” due to insufficient power generation.

Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody however responded saying that breakdowns could not be considered power cuts and that the Government would inform the public if there were scheduled power cuts.

However, Perera has criticised the Government over power interruptions, questioning the Energy Minister’s claim that no power cuts have taken place.

Perera said the Energy Minister had told Parliament that there had been no power cuts, despite power interruptions reported on Monday. “Yesterday (6) there was no power cut, the Minister told Parliament. But while the Minister doesn’t know, we know there was a power cut yesterday. This Minister is not suitable to hold the position. This is the official record,” he has said.

Perera has also shared what he described as an official system report, which noted that system demand was managed by implementing manual load shedding of 33 kV feeders from 6.31 p.m. to 10.59 p.m. due to inadequate generation.

Coal saga continues

President AKD acknowledged that low-quality coal imports had affected electricity generation but assured that any additional costs would not be passed on to consumers.

Speaking in Parliament, the President said that some coal-powered units had failed to generate the expected output, noting that although each unit was expected to produce around 270 MW, output had fluctuated, with one unit producing 270 MW while another generated about 266 MW.

He further noted that although the coal power complex had a total capacity of 900 MW, only around 810 MW was being generated at times, partly due to coal quality issues rather than problems with the plants or procurement process.

The President explained that coal quality was assessed through laboratory testing, with 80% of payments made after initial verification and the remaining 20% released following further testing by an independent laboratory in India, which has been in use since 2023.

According to the President, three coal shipments had failed tests, while in other cases, despite laboratory clearance, system performance indicated that expected generation levels had not been achieved.

He said penalties had been imposed on suppliers based on these findings, with some payments withheld, including portions of the remaining 20%, and in certain instances even part of the initial 80% payment.

Sri Lanka’s energy sector has long been a site of public distrust, shaped by years of allegations ranging from procurement deals to outright corruption. In that context, even a marginal drop in output – from 900 MW capacity to around 810 MW generation – can trigger disproportionate concern. The President’s insistence that neither the plants nor the procurement framework is fundamentally flawed appears designed to pre-empt precisely that kind of backlash.

However, the real test of credibility lies in the grey area the President himself acknowledged: instances where coal passed laboratory tests but still underperformed in practice. This gap between compliance on paper and performance raises uncomfortable questions. Are current testing standards sufficient? Is accountability reactive rather than preventive? And perhaps most importantly, who ultimately bears the hidden costs of inefficiency – even if tariffs remain unchanged?

The Government’s decision to absorb these costs, at least for now, is politically astute. At a time when the IMF is pressing for cost-reflective pricing in the energy sector, any increase in electricity tariffs would carry significant social and political risks. By shielding consumers, the administration is attempting to balance external pressure for reform with internal pressure for relief.

However, this balancing act may not be sustainable indefinitely. Losses absorbed by the system do not disappear; they are merely redistributed – often into public finances already under strain. If inefficiencies persist, the question will shift from whether consumers pay now to whether they pay later, indirectly, through taxes, inflation, or reduced public spending elsewhere.

The audit revelation

It is in such a backdrop that the recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on coal procurement for the Lakvijaya Power Plant has sparked wider debate, not only over financial losses but also over systemic weaknesses in Sri Lanka’s governance and public sector management.

The audit outlines a series of irregularities, including the selection of suppliers who failed to meet required qualifications and the acceptance of coal tested by a laboratory that had lost its accreditation. While these findings point to procedural lapses, analysts argue they reflect a deeper issue: the fragility of institutional safeguards meant to ensure transparency and accountability.

The involvement of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), which initiated scrutiny into the matter, highlights a recurring trend in Sri Lanka’s political system – oversight mechanisms often act only after problems have escalated. This reactive approach raises concerns about the effectiveness of existing checks and balances within State institutions.

The financial impact is also significant. Losses estimated at over Rs. 2.2 billion, largely due to the use of substandard coal, underscores the economic consequences of weak procurement practices. Deeply troubling is the NAO finding that the procurement agreement signed by the Lanka Coal Company with the supplier had not received the Attorney General’s approval. Inefficiencies in fuel quality increase operational costs, placing additional pressure on public finances and, ultimately, on consumers.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, the issue carries broader risks for the country’s energy security. The Lakvijaya Power Plant is a key contributor to the national grid, and disruptions in coal supply or quality could affect electricity generation. The audit’s findings on poor planning and reliance on emergency procurement point to a lack of long-term strategic management in a critical sector.

Politically, the report raises pressing questions about accountability. Past audit findings in Sri Lanka have often led to public debate but limited corrective action. Observers note that without clear consequences for those responsible, such reports risk reinforcing a cycle where governance failures are exposed but not effectively addressed.

Whether the findings will lead to meaningful reform or follow the pattern of previous audit reports remains a key question in the country’s evolving political and governance landscape.

The two ‘Kumaras’

The ongoing controversies surrounding the country’s energy sector however have focused the spotlight on two ‘Kumaras’ in the Government – one Punya Kumara Jayakody, who has become a well-known political figure for the wrong reasons, and one Anura Kumara.

The friendship between President AKD and Kumara Jayakody has been a long-standing one that had started from their days in university. That friendship had lasted decades with Jayakody maintaining close contact with AKD through the years. It is learnt that it was AKD who had appointed Jayakody to the State-owned fertiliser company when the former was the Agriculture Minister. The ongoing probe and court case on Jayakody are related to an alleged incident that had taken place when he was employed at this fertiliser company.

The increasing public discourse and displeasure over Jayakody occupying a Cabinet portfolio and that too of the key portfolio of Energy that is now rife with controversy has even resulted in divisions between members of the ruling party. A group of senior Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) members have noted that Jayakody should be removed from the Cabinet portfolio until the case is concluded.

However, President AKD and several of his loyalists have maintained that Jayakody’s resignation would be a win for the Opposition and that it would also legitimise the allegations levelled against the Government by Opposition politicians.

Nevertheless, the split in the Pelawatte ‘Cabinet’ has also resulted in some moderate thinkers proposing that Jayakody be offered the opportunity to resign from the portfolio on his own volition, taking a moral high ground, without removing him from the post.

The discussion then was that such a resignation would be a win for the Opposition, especially when a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) has been moved against Jayakody by the Opposition. It is learnt that there is now a discussion on asking Jayakody to resign from the portfolio after the Government defeats the NCM against him in the House.

Lalkantha’s newsmaking

Meanwhile, outspoken senior JVP/NPP Minister K.D. Lalkantha, who is known as a newsmaker, was once again in the news recently. This time it was over his three-storey house in Kaduwela. Lalkantha’s new house would have been unremarkable in almost any other political context, but in this scenario, the continuing social discourse is mostly focused on the fact that the Minister belongs to a movement that built its legitimacy on moral grounds. 

The JVP/NPP did not simply campaign against corruption; they campaigned against excess, privilege, and the quiet normalisation of political wealth. Their appeal rested on a promise that they were different and that is precisely why a house has become a problem.

The images that circulated online – spacious interiors, polished finishes, the suggestion of comfort if not luxury – collided with a carefully cultivated political identity: the austere, disciplined, ideologically consistent Leftist. For critics, the question is not architectural but ethical. How does a lifelong political figure, without a well-documented private sector fortune and public claims of the financial difficulties faced by his family, build such a residence? And if the answer is entirely legitimate, why does it remain so unclear?

Lalkantha has offered explanations: the sale of family property, his wife’s income, and what he terms “social capital” – a network of trust capable of mobilising funds. But politics is not a court of law; it is a court of perception and perception operates on a harsher standard than proof.

What complicates matters further is not the scale of the house itself, but the scale of expectation surrounding the individuals who govern in the name of equality. The JVP/NPP project has always implied a kind of moral exceptionalism – that its leaders would not merely avoid corruption but embody restraint. In that framework, even legally acquired wealth can appear politically costly if it disrupts the narrative.

This is where the controversy cuts deeper than Opposition talking points. It raises an uncomfortable question for the ruling bloc: is its identity rooted in enforceable principles, or in symbolic performance? If it is the former, then transparency should be immediate, detailed, and unambiguous. Asset declarations, funding breakdowns, and timelines should not need to be pried loose by public pressure. If it is the latter, then the movement risks becoming what it once opposed – another political force negotiating the optics of wealth rather than eliminating its ambiguities.

However, among some questions posed on social media is whether a Leftist politician in a developing economy can accumulate personal comfort without inviting suspicion. Must ideological commitment be expressed through visible austerity? Lalkantha himself has pushed back against this idea, arguing that improved living standards are not a betrayal of socialist principles. It is a fair argument in theory. But in practice, movements that derive legitimacy from moral contrast cannot easily relax their own symbolism without consequence.

A social media activist meanwhile has lodged a complaint with the Police by calling the 1818 hotline.

The photo op gone wrong

It is evident that the attempt to portray the simplicity of the country’s President and Prime Minister backfired big time at the almsgiving at Lalkantha’s residence. Similar photo opportunities have been witnessed in the past as well and such orchestrated attempts at winning public hearts have been short-lived, going by past experiences. 

The photographs of AKD and Premier Harini Amarasuriya consuming food while holding their plates in one hand while seated on plastic chairs, which were evidently intended as a moment of humility, instead came across as contrived, exposing the widening gap between political image-making and public perception. The failures in framing the photographs resulted in the public focusing on the background rather than the individuals.  

This is hardly a novel miscalculation. Sri Lankan politics has long relied on choreographed displays of modesty – photo opportunities designed to signal closeness to ordinary life. However, such performances are no longer able to create a long-lasting impact given that the public has now become more sceptical of political theatre masquerading as authenticity. 

The failure of such antics is evident by the fate that eventually befell former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), Maithripala Sirisena, and Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR), who worked very hard on portraying themselves as simple leaders in touch with the common man.

Social capital vs. extortion

An interview given by Lalkantha to a social media outlet following the controversy over assets accumulated by him further compounded the controversy after the senior JVPer claimed that his living standards had changed in the last five years and that he could collect Rs. 500,000 from 100 individuals at any given time through a phone call.

It is the JVP/NPP that has waxed eloquent about bribes, corruption, and extortion, especially in relation to politicians of previous governments.

Lalkantha’s comments resulted in Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser, MP Namal Rajapaksa claiming that a double standard existed in how wealth was perceived in politics.

Namal said that he was currently studying the concept of ‘social capital,’ and criticised what he described as selective narratives targeting Opposition politicians and civil servants. “If someone in the Government has assets, it is called social capital. If someone in the Opposition has assets, it is called theft,” he said.

Namal also referred to past allegations made against Opposition figures, including claims involving luxury assets and large sums of money, noting that many such accusations remained unproven.

He further alleged irregularities linked to current Government dealings, including the coal procurement process, and claimed that the financial burden of such decisions ultimately fell on the public through rising electricity and fuel costs.

It is therefore evident that for an administration that came to power promising a break from the past, ambiguity is not a neutral space, it is a liability. Ultimately, Lalkantha’s Kaduwela house is more of a test of the JVP/NPP – not of legality, but of consistency, not of a minister’s finances, but of an entire political project’s ability to withstand the scrutiny it once demanded of others.

Deadline to MR

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) meanwhile has informed former President MR to submit an affidavit detailing his assets, expenses, and sources of income on or before Friday (10). It was unclear whether MR had submitted this affidavit by Friday evening.

The CIABOC, it is learnt, has issued the directive as part of its ongoing investigation under BC/2992/2015 that had commenced on 14 December 2015. Although the commission at the time of the investigation had requested an affidavit from MR, the former President had not submitted the affidavit for over 10 years.

According to the notice issued by the commission under Clause 49 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2023, MR has been requested to provide a comprehensive declaration covering his assets, liabilities, expenditure, and income sources within the specified timeframe and failure to comply with the request may result in further legal action under the provisions of the relevant laws, according to CIABOC officials.

Diplomatic focus on MR

As the CIABOC is looking at initiating a probe into MR’s assets, there has been an increased interest in MR among key foreign diplomats in the country.

Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha and Chinese Ambassador Qi Zhenhong were among those who called on MR recently. These visits, while outwardly routine, carry unmistakable political undertones and in Sri Lanka’s well-worn geopolitical script, such timing is rarely coincidental.

Tightening reins

Amidst these developments, a group of ruling party seniors had held a discussion to review the Government’s work and among the issues discussed had been the recent public comments made by several Government members and the criticism they have gathered online and offline.

One senior ruling party member had noted that some key Government members needed to be more aware of statements made in public as well as to ensure that their comments were not in contravention of party and Government policies.

After discussing this matter for a while, the senior ruling party members had decided to issue what seems like a gag order on a leader from the Matara District and two Government members from the Colombo District.

Slamming the Opposition

Meanwhile, JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva decided to slam the Opposition parties while claiming that the Government continued to enjoy public support.

Silva, addressing the JVP’s April Heroes’ Day commemoration, claimed: “The Opposition believes that people will always take to the streets to topple governments. Such events don’t happen often; they are very rare. They claim people are on the streets, but all I see are people out shopping.” 

He further noted that the public was willing to take to the streets to protect the Government, if necessary, not to overthrow it. “The people are on the streets for marketing and shopping, not to topple the Government,” he added.

Indian VIP visit

Sri Lanka meanwhile is to welcome Indian Vice President C.P. Radhakrishnan next week.

President’s Chief of Staff Prabath Chandrakeerthi and Deputy High Commissioner of India to Sri Lanka Dr. Satyanjal Pandey held a discussion at the Presidential Secretariat recently to finalise the agenda for the Vice President’s visit.

The Indian Vice President is expected to undertake a two-day official visit to Sri Lanka, during which he is scheduled to hold discussions with President AKD and Prime Minister Dr. Amarasuriya.

The meeting had also focused on Indian-funded projects that have already been completed, as well as those scheduled to commence in the future.

SJB, UNP seniors meet

Meanwhile, a group of senior Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and United National Party (UNP) members had met recently for a casual meet-up with drinks and dinner at the Galle Face Hotel in Colombo. The event had been organised as a farewell party for former MP Mayantha Dissanayake, who is scheduled to travel to Canada to join his family.

It is learnt that the dinner had been attended by members from the SJB and UNP currently engaged in talks to form an alliance between the two parties. The seniors of the two parties had discussed the latest political developments and the need to push ahead with the alliance between the two parties.

One senior SJBer had said during the meet up that the alliance should be finalised and formed at a decisive moment, saying: “The slow and steady win the race.”

Marikkar’s assurance

The SJB-UNP alliance talks received yet another push with SJB MP S.M. Marikkar saying that the SJB would only join hands with the UNP.

“Imagine me getting together with a girl. The father opposes. We run away and get married. The father falls sick, and we have arrived at the ancestral home to see the father. So we can stay at the father’s home, right?” Marikkar had said, describing the UNP as the home of origin. 

Marikkar had made this comment during a public event where he had also said that the SJB, which had a Right-wing political culture and no allegations, would never join hands with those who were accused of bankrupting the nation. 

“A court ruling has been given, stating that Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Ajith Nivard Cabraal are responsible for bankrupting Sri Lanka. Can we form an alliance with them?” he had further stated, backing the SJB’s decision.

Meeting at GL’s

While Marikkar made a public statement about the SJB-UNP alliance, a meeting of the joint Opposition platform was held at former Minister G.L. Peiris’ residence last Monday (6).

The meeting had been attended by seniors from the UNP and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Dayasiri Jayasekara, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Mano Ganesan, Sugeeshwara Bandara, Nimal Lanza, Senal Welgama, Channa Jayasumana, and Asanka Navarathne, among others. SLPP dissident Rohitha Abeygunawardhana had excused himself from the meeting.

The main discussion had been the NCM against Energy Minister Jayakody.

While many of those present at the meeting are not representing Parliament anymore, Peiris had noted that an Opposition decision to move an NCM against a member of a majority government was not with any intention of winning, but to create the necessary public perception of a wrongdoing of a government.

Ranawaka had agreed with Peiris and noted that the likes of Jayasekara could fight the battle in Parliament while the rest of the Opposition members could take it to the public court.

The next topic discussed had been the series of anti-Government seminars launched by the joint Opposition, with an event in Avissawella on the continuing coal controversy. It had been decided to hold the second seminar, to be organised by the UNP’s Sagala Ratnayaka, in Matara on 9 May.

While some of the attendees had questioned whether the coal controversy would remain a topic for the Matara seminar by 9 May, Ranawaka had noted that the coal saga would continue in the months to come with the adverse impact continuing to be felt after April.

Ganesan meanwhile had been asked about his meeting with President AKD the previous week along with members of his Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA). Ganesan had explained that the meeting had been held to discuss issues faced by the upcountry people and that it was only limited to it.

Joint Opposition vs. Maha Jana Handa

However, as revealed in ‘The Black Box’ last week, the division between the Opposition coalition makers has further widened, with Peiris’ joint Opposition platform and former Minister Tiran Alles’ Maha Jana Handa platform following separate agendas.

The cold war that was brewing between the two camps during the past few months has now come to the surface, with Peiris’ joint Opposition platform showing more strength than the Maha Jana Handa that meets at Alles’ Rosemead Place office in Colombo 7.

Some Opposition members are displeased with the current division, noting that such issues will deter the formation of a strong Opposition platform. It is learnt that some members of the Maha Jana Handa are displeased with Peiris for the prominence given to the likes of Ranawaka while some members in the joint Opposition are displeased with the involvement of ultra-nationalist groups in the movement.

Dayasiri’s no-show

Meanwhile, Opposition political parties are continuing with efforts at unity by first looking at intra-party unity before inter-party unity. A similar effort was undertaken by the SLFP last week, with another attempt for the party to unite with one-time General Secretary of the SLFP Dayasiri Jayasekara, who has filed legal action against the current office-bearers of the party, challenging their legitimacy.

However, several SLFP seniors have been engaged in discussions with Jayasekara, attempting to get him back to the SLFP fold. A previous attempt at unity failed when Jayasekara was offered the post of national organiser of the SLFP instead of the party’s general secretary post, which he had requested in order to rejoin the party.

This time around, Jayasekara was invited to the SLFP Executive Committee meeting on Monday (6). However, he had informed SLFP seniors that he was unable to attend the meeting. It is learnt that with the possibility of SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA) Leader Anura Priyadarshana Yapa returning to the SLPP, the PA leadership that would then fall vacant could be offered to Jayasekara by senior SLFPers.

The SLFP Executive Committee, however, had discussed the party’s plan for the upcoming May Day and decided that a rally would be held at Campbell Park in Borella.

Telephone call to Sajith

Meanwhile, Opposition and SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa continues to face criticism over attending former Minister Udaya Gammanpila’s recent launch of a book on the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday attacks. Several minority party leaders in the SJB-led coalition have also expressed their displeasure at Premadasa’s decision to attend the event.

Photographs of Premadasa seated next to MR and other ultra-nationalist politicians at the launch event did not bode well for Premadasa, who had firmly stood against Rajapaksa political policies. He had even rejected moves to form an alliance with the Rajapaksa-led SLPP.

It is learnt that the Opposition Leader had not known of the seating arrangement at the event and had only been aware of where he was to sit after arriving at the venue.

However, Premadasa had received a telephone call prior to leaving the venue without staying for the whole programme. It is learnt that he had received phone calls from senior party members who had criticised his presence at the event and questioned how he had attended it when the party had stood firmly against the organisers of the event.

Premadasa had immediately walked out. However, his predicament was mostly due to the lack of coordination of his staff who should have obtained details about the event and seating arrangements prior to the event.

RW’s concern

Gammanpila’s book launch event had also upset former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka from Singapore on Thursday (9) following heart surgery. Although he is not using his mobile phone much these days, the former President is well informed of political developments in the country, as he was even when he was overseas.

Hearing about Gammanpila’s book and details of the launch event, Wickremesinghe had been displeased over the contents of one of the speeches delivered at the event. 

The relevant speech had been delivered by a former senior naval officer. In his speech, the former officer had reportedly criticised some events that had taken place during the 2002 peace talks initiated by then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He had referred to the difficulties faced by Military Intelligence during the period of peace talks due to the perception that actions of Intelligence operations had hindered the progress of peace talks. He had further noted that the Millennium City safe house controversy surrounding Intelligence personnel had also taken place during this period.

It is learnt that once the book launch event concluded, several media personnel had made their way to UNP seniors Wajira Abeywardena and Sagala Ratnayaka and asked whether the weakening of Military Intelligence operations had taken place under the UNP-led Government during the period of peace talks. 

Abeywardena had decided that the UNP media team should be educated on Wickremesinghe’s strategy to split the LTTE through the peace talks that eventually resulted in the defection of the likes of Karuna Amman and Pillayan from the LTTE while also securing billions in funds to the country through the Tokyo donor conference.

Udaya hits out at CID

Gammanpila meanwhile has claimed that a fake version of his book is being circulated on social media and that it has been created using a draft that had come into the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) custody.

Gammanpila has told the media that while the event was underway, many attendees had received a PDF via WhatsApp claiming to be his book and has noted that the document being circulated is not the official publication but a fabricated version prepared using an incomplete draft.

According to Gammanpila, the fake document has allegedly been created using a draft that was only about 70% complete. He has said he had shared draft copies at three different stages – first with former Intelligence Chief Suresh Sallay on 22 February to obtain feedback on Intelligence-related content, then with Professor Rohan Gunaratna on 10 March for a foreword, and finally with his printer, Sarasavi Publishers.

Gammanpila claimed that after Sallay’s arrest, authorities had searched his residence but had not taken any documents. However, he has alleged that the draft had later been found in Sallay’s travel bag inside his vehicle, which he said was now in CID custody.

He has further alleged that the fake book circulating on social media had been created using that draft and has accused the CID of mishandling intellectual property.

Udaya’s clash with Mujibur

Meanwhile, Gammanpila also locked horns with SJB MP Mujibur Rahman, with Gammanpila alleging that the latter had links to an Islamic State (IS) suspect and had been shielded from investigation by a senior Police officer.

Speaking at a media briefing, Gammanpila had claimed that during investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) had uncovered a connection between Rahman and an IS-linked individual based in India.

He had further claimed that attempts to question Rahman had been halted due to the intervention of a senior Police official.

Responding to the allegations, Rahman, while rejecting the claims, had questioned why no action had been taken earlier. “If I was involved, why didn’t they act when they were in Government? Now that investigations are underway to find the mastermind, they are creating diversions,” Rahman had responded.