President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government continues to face a political landscape in the country that reads less like routine governance and more like a tightly wound thriller where allegations, investigations, and counter-allegations move in parallel, while the line between accountability and accusation grows increasingly blurred.
At the centre is the continuing controversy over the alleged disappearance of $ 2.5 million from Treasury-linked transactions, now entangling multiple State institutions from the Finance Ministry to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), and reigniting long-standing questions about who ultimately bears responsibility when public funds go astray.
What began as a parliamentary flashpoint has quickly evolved into a broader institutional reckoning, drawing in senior officials, political leaders, and even the country’s financial architecture itself.
A tense situation also arose in Parliament last week over the ruling party’s initial refusal to debate the controversial transaction in the House, but it was later compelled to make way for the debate after 20 Opposition legislators stood up and demanded a debate on the Treasury’s cyber scandal.
This caused a major uproar in Parliament, with the Opposition protesting and calling for an urgent debate on the issue of the $ 2.5 million missing from the Treasury. The Government finally agreed to allocate an hour and a half in the afternoon.
However, the financial scandal is only one strand in a complex web, with parallel debates over suspicious deaths, contested forensic findings, and claims of political interference having added a darker undertone, amplifying public mistrust and deepening partisan divides.
Meanwhile, the Government’s renewed push on anti-corruption, framed through high-profile court cases and institutional reforms, has been met with an equal measure of anticipation and scepticism, as the country’s history of stalled accountability looms large over present promises.
Against this backdrop, Opposition realignments, internal party fractures, and the re-emergence of familiar political actors suggest that the battle lines are now being redrawn.
Kapila’s death amid Airbus probe
Be that as it may, the ongoing probe by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) into the SriLankan Airlines Airbus deal took a new twist with the death of former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SriLankan Airlines Kapila Chandrasena at a residence in Kollupitiya on Friday (8). The incident sent shockwaves not only among political circles but also among the public, given the crucial timing of the incident amid a long-drawn corruption probe.
Soon after news of the death was announced in the media, questions emerged as to whether the death was a suicide or not, especially given the reporting by some media on Friday morning that it was a suicide, even before a Police announcement.
It is learnt that Chandrasena had stayed at the residence of his brother-in-law, legendary Sri Lanka cricketer Aravinda de Silva at Pedris Place in Colombo 3 on Thursday (7) night.
Police Spokesperson ASP F.U. Wootler said that Chandrasena was suspected to have died by suicide and that the Kollupitiya Police had launched further investigations into the incident.
His death comes just days after new legal developments in the long-running Airbus bribery case, including efforts by the CIABOC to revoke his bail.
An engineer by profession, Chandrasena held several senior roles in Sri Lanka’s aviation sector before being appointed CEO of SriLankan Airlines. He also served as CEO of Mihin Lanka, the now-defunct budget airline launched during the Rajapaksa administration.
However, it was the Airbus aircraft procurement deal during his tenure at SriLankan Airlines that placed him at the centre of one of the country’s largest corruption investigations.
The scandal stems from aircraft purchases made by SriLankan Airlines during the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) administration and the deal drew international scrutiny after Airbus admitted before a UK court in 2020 that it had paid massive bribes in several countries, including Sri Lanka, to secure aircraft contracts.
Sri Lankan investigators later alleged that Chandrasena had solicited and accepted a $ 2 million bribe linked to the airline’s Airbus procurement process.
Investigators told court that a Singapore bank account belonging to Biz Solutions – a company where Priyanka Neomali Wijenayake was listed as sole Director and shareholder – had allegedly received $ 2 million from the European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) Company, the parent company of Airbus SAS, in December 2013. According to investigators, the funds, estimated at nearly Rs. 363 million, were connected to the controversial aircraft deal involving SriLankan Airlines.
Chandrasena was first arrested in 2020 and later released on bail. Earlier this year, the CIABOC arrested him again over allegations that he had accepted bribes in exchange for facilitating the purchase of Airbus aircraft at inflated prices.
The case attracted further international attention in 2023 when the US Department of State imposed sanctions and visa restrictions on Chandrasena. The US publicly designated him under Section 7031(c) for “significant corruption,” alleging that he had accepted bribes while serving as CEO of SriLankan Airlines. The sanctions also extended to his immediate family members, barring them from entering the US.
The Airbus investigation intensified in March after the CIABOC informed the court that Chandrasena had allegedly claimed that part of the Airbus-related funds had been distributed to senior political figures.
According to court submissions, he had allegedly stated that Rs. 60 million had been paid to former President MR on three separate occasions; Rs. 20 million had been allegedly paid to former Minister of Civil Aviation Piyankara Jayaratne.
Following these claims, both MR and Jayaratne have been summoned to appear before the CIABOC on Tuesday (12) to record statements. However, Chandrasena later retracted the allegations through an affidavit submitted by his lawyers.
In the affidavit, he claimed that his earlier statement had been obtained under intimidation and pressure. He had alleged that investigators had threatened him with arrest and pressured him to mention the names of MR, Member of Parliament (MP) Namal Rajapaksa, and members of their family.
He had also claimed he had been denied access to legal counsel while the statement was being recorded.
Lawyer’s comment
A lawyer appearing on behalf of Chandrasena had told the media on Friday that in accordance with the court order, arrangements had been made to produce him before court that day through a motion filed by his legal team.
“We were planning to file a motion today (8) for him to surrender. After filing that motion, he was supposed to appear before court. It was while we were in the process of doing that that we learnt about this incident.
“We cannot documentarily prove that we were going to file the motion because it would have been submitted before 10 a.m. However, we do know that preparations have been made to file it. Another lawyer from our team has gone to the location where the incident occurred. He may also give a statement saying that arrangements had been made for him (Chandrasena) to surrender before court,” the lawyer has been quoted as telling the media.
Probe expands
The Airbus probe meanwhile has widened further after the Colombo Magistrate’s Court issued open warrants against Shamindra Rajapaksa, son of former Minister Chamal Rajapaksa and a former SriLankan Airlines Board member, as well as Priyanka Neomali Wijenayake, who authorities claim are absconding. The warrants were issued after both had failed to appear before court in relation to proceedings connected to the Airbus probe.
The court had also instructed immigration and airport authorities to arrest them if they entered the country.
Just days before Chandrasena’s death, another controversy emerged after he was granted bail by court. Two individuals were arrested after allegedly appearing as fake bail sureties in exchange for Rs. 15,000 each.
The Police had told court that the suspects did not personally know Chandrasena and had allegedly submitted questionable documentation, including grama niladhari certificates, during the bail process. The suspects were remanded pending further investigations.
Meanwhile, the CIABOC had moved to cancel Chandrasena’s bail, prompting the Colombo Magistrate’s Court to order that he be arrested and produced before court once again.
It was against this backdrop that Chandrasena was found dead on Friday, with Police treating the incident as a suspected suicide.
CIABOC summons
Meanwhile, with MR and former Minister Jayaratne being summoned by the CIABOC to record statements on the Airbus procurement deal on Tuesday, the Rajapaksa-led Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has gone into overdrive with social media campaigns claiming of attempts to arrest MR and alleging that the Government is engaged in a political witch-hunt to cover up its shortcomings.
Critics, however, point to the ongoing Airbus probe as a clear example of the kind of high-level decision-making that has historically escaped proper scrutiny. From this perspective, summoning MR and Jayaratne is not political persecution but a necessary and overdue step towards accountability.
AKD’s address to cadres
However, ‘The Black Box’ last week noted the ruling party’s decision to recalibrate its path, with focus being laid back on expediting probes under its anti-corruption agenda. Following several discussions at the JVP/NPP Headquarters in Pelawatte, it was JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva who claimed recently that probes were being expedited into identifying monies that had allegedly been held overseas by members of previous regimes.
It is against such a backdrop that when President AKD declared that 2026 would be the year Sri Lanka sends its corrupted to prison, it was crafted for impact. Delivered at a May Day rally in Nuwara Eliya, it was bold, clear, and politically loaded, being mainly aimed at the JVP’s increasingly disgruntled party cadre.
AKD said: “Only in this month of May alone, there have been 15 cases against major corrupt politicians being heard in court; 10 major corruption-related cases and five criminal cases are before the Judiciary this May. One case was heard yesterday, on 30 April, and the verdict is scheduled to be delivered on 25 May. Another case was heard yesterday as well, with the verdict also set for 25 May. People are waiting to applaud on 25 May. That is how it is being done.
“So, what happens? They become agitated. They should become agitated. Why? Because the person who has stolen knows the extent of their wrongdoing. They are the ones who know that consequences are coming for them. So they become agitated and say they will bring down the Government. But the Government cannot be brought down like that.”
However, such promises have a long history, with every administration in recent memory pledging to root out corruption. Each has pointed to investigations, institutional reform, and impending accountability. But time and again, momentum has faded, cases have lingered, political will has shifted, and public trust has eroded. Therefore, AKD’s remarks would have to be taken in this context.
However, to his credit, the current Government is framing its approach around institutions, with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) being strengthened, the CIABOC being given renewed emphasis, and new courts being set up to fast-track cases. These moves suggest an attempt to move beyond rhetoric towards structure.
Sri Lanka’s political culture has often allowed accountability to stop short of the most powerful. Investigations may begin, but they rarely end up where the public expects them to.
Opposition hits back
However, while speeding up cases through special courts may address long-standing delays, justice must remain credible. In politically sensitive prosecutions, due process is not optional, since any perception of selective targeting or rushed verdicts could undermine the very legitimacy the Government is trying to build.
Members of the Opposition as well as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) have come out hard against President AKD’s comments about ongoing probes and cases, especially since such statements undermine judicial processes.
Given the increasing public outcry over AKD’s May Day comments, Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa defended the President’s statement, noting that the ongoing court cases were public knowledge.
JVP/NPP ups the ante
However, while President AKD noted the Government’s renewed interest in focusing on the anti-corruption agenda, it is learnt that amid plans to recall around 16 court cases over the next five weeks involving politicians accused of corruption, as well as cases that are already under trial, a significant uproar is being stirred in the media.
Among the cases scheduled to be taken up again are those in which MP Namal Rajapaksa, Yoshitha Rajapaksa, and former MP Shasheendra Rajapaksa are named as respondents. In addition, hearing dates have been fixed for cases involving former President Ranil Wickremesinghe and former MPs Wimal Weerawansa, Piyankara Jayaratne, Rajitha Senaratne, Ravi Karunanayake, Johnston Fernando, Sajin de Vass Gunawardena, Sarana Gunawardena, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, Mervyn Silva, and Patali Champika Ranawaka, as well as Keheliya Rambukwella and MP Chamara Sampath Dasanayake.
Focus on Shiranthi
It is meanwhile learnt that investigations have found that former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa had allegedly purchased a house valued at approximately Rs. 400 million in the Torrington area in Colombo under the name Mary Lourdes Wickramasinghe.
The CIABOC has reportedly revealed that the address of this house on Torrington Avenue in Colombo had also been used as the registered address of MP Namal Rajapaksa’s CSN television channel in the past.
During the period from 2002 to 2004, when former President Wickremesinghe served as Prime Minister and MR was the Leader of the Opposition, this house had been provided to MR on a rental basis with the then Prime Minister’s intervention.
After MR was elected President, the relevant house was purchased outright under the name of Mary Lourdes Wickramasinghe.
It is also learnt that the commission is currently investigating how the Rs. 400 million used for this purchase had been acquired, and the property has been prohibited from being sold or transferred.
Deadline for MR
Former President MR, meanwhile, has been granted a further 14 days by the CIABOC after allegedly submitting an incomplete assets and liabilities declaration that misled authorities.
The CIABOC had previously instructed him to submit his declaration relevant to the year 2015 before 10 April. However, it has been revealed that he had provided an incomplete report, failing to meet the required legal standards.
Under these circumstances, he has now been given a final 14-day period to submit a complete and properly prepared declaration.
Namal’s response
With pressure mounting on the Rajapaksas through ongoing CIABOC probes, Namal Rajapaksa and his loyalists have stated that the vigour with which probes are being carried out under Government direction indicates that the Government is looking at covering up its shortcomings through such actions.
“I saw the President saying action will be taken against ‘the mother, father, son, and even the dog wearing a gold chain of a certain weight…’ But I am telling all 159 of them, go and tell the President that I said this – this is not about the mother, father, son, or the dog wearing a gold chain of a certain weight. No matter what you do to cover up your corruption, you will not be able to hide it. Remind the President of that,” Namal claimed in Parliament last week.
Trial-at-bar hearings
Meanwhile, the country’s legal and political landscape is entering another consequential phase with the establishment of permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar proceedings to hear two deeply symbolic cases – the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda and the Greek bond case involving former Governor of the CBSL Ajith Nivard Cabraal.
Though very different in substance, with one rooted in alleged human rights violations and the other in financial misconduct, both cases converge in what they represent. It is an attempt to bring long-contested allegations involving powerful actors into a more focused judicial process.
The Ekneligoda case has long occupied a central place in discussions about press freedom and enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. His disappearance in 2010 became emblematic of broader allegations regarding the treatment of journalists during a politically charged period. Over the years, the lack of a definitive resolution has contributed to a perception of impunity.
The Greek bond case involving Cabraal, meanwhile, reflects concerns about economic governance and financial accountability. The controversy centres on investment decisions made by the CBSL at the time, which allegedly resulted in significant losses. While technically complex, the case has broader implications for transparency and oversight within key State institutions. The CIABOC is to file fresh indictments against Cabraal.
Chamara’s legal conundrum
Amidst the renewed interest in ongoing probes and court cases, topped off by comments by the President of possible incarcerations of current members of Opposition political parties, MP Chamara Sampath Dasanayake made an interesting statement in Parliament last week.
He claimed that he was going to stop consulting lawyers and paying legal fees since the Government had already decided whom to remand.
“I’m going to stop giving money to lawyers! You can’t both pay money and go to prison! Because these people (the ruling party) have already prepared the lists of those who are going inside (to jail)!” Dasanayake claimed.
Spotlight on CBSL
Meanwhile, the woes of the current administration do not seem to be over, with allegations surrounding the disappearance of $ 2.5 million in Treasury-linked transactions taking a sharper political turn following disclosures made at a recent parliamentary committee meeting.
Former Minister Wimal Weerawansa stated during a press briefing that discussions at the respective parliamentary committee had indicated that seven out of 10 instalments connected to a controversial payment owed to Australian authorities had been processed by the CBSL, while only three instalments had been handled by the Ministry of Finance.
The claim has intensified scrutiny over the chain of financial responsibility, with questions now being raised about how the transactions had been authorised and executed across multiple State institutions.
Weerawansa further questioned why the CBSL Governor had not been formally questioned in connection with the matter, suggesting that accountability should not be limited to the Treasury and Finance Ministry alone.
Warning signs
When Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Anil Jayantha Fernando rose in Parliament on Tuesday (5) to outline the alleged diversion of the controversial $ 2.5 million, the details sounded less like an isolated fraud and more like a case study in systemic vulnerability.
His speech revealed that funds meant for repayment linked to the Exim Bank of India and Export Finance Australia had been processed through the usual State financial channels – the Department of External Resources, Public Debt Management Office, and CBSL. However, the alleged heist of $ 2.5 million was discovered only after a suspicion had arisen when a repayment was made to the Exim Bank of India.
A female Treasury officer, tasked with handling part of the repayment, had noticed irregularities in email communications, subtle inconsistencies that raised red flags.
“The payment to Export Finance Australia was referred to the relevant institution after receiving invoices from the lender. The information was referred to the Department of External Resources, Public Debt Management Office, and Central Bank. The payment was apparently made. This was handled by the late Ranga Rajapaksha, who was found dead.
“Another female officer was handling the settlement of a loan borrowed from the Exim Bank of India. This lady was suspicious as she had received a few email addresses when referring to the repayment. It has been revealed that she had received an email from another officer attached to the Treasury and had felt suspicious about it. Preliminary inquiries have revealed that the payment of $ 2.5 million had gone to a third party,” the Deputy Minister said.
Dismissing dual citizenship
Meanwhile, the Government has dismissed allegations surrounding Treasury Secretary Harshana Suriyapperuma and his citizenship status. The Opposition alleged recently that Suriyapperuma is a dual citizen and raised questions about his eligibility to hold a key public office, as well as his earlier tenure as an MP and Deputy Minister.
Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Jayatissa categorically asserted that Suriyapperuma “was not a dual citizen” at any point during his tenure as MP, Deputy Minister, or Finance Ministry Secretary.
CID probe continues
Meanwhile, the CID has so far recorded statements from 21 individuals in connection with the alleged cyber theft of $ 2.5 million from the Finance Ministry.
Addressing Parliament, Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala said that the CID had launched a comprehensive investigation into the alleged transfer of funds by the Treasury to a third party through a suspected cyber-related financial fraud.
Wijepala stated that investigators were examining all aspects of the incident and gathering statements from relevant individuals as part of the ongoing inquiry.
Lingering doubts
Meanwhile, Opposition politicians continue to raise suspicions over the recent death of External Resources Department Assistant Director Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksha, with claims about his wife having lodged a complaint with the Police.
Former Minister Udaya Gammanpila, addressing a news conference last week, said that this had also been mentioned in a letter sent by the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate to the Director General of Health Services. He emphasised that if public confidence in the Government was to be restored, a second investigation must be conducted immediately by an independent panel.
He also stated that there was reasonable suspicion that some influential party may have interfered with the panel that conducted the initial investigation into the death and that it was problematic that the investigation panel had concluded the death may have been a suicide even before confirming whether there were fingerprints of another individual on the knife found at the scene.
Gammanpila further alleged that the members of the investigation panel had been selected “like choosing tomatoes at a marketplace,” implying that individuals favourable to certain interests had been handpicked.
He also revealed that two members of the panel had been strong activists of the JVP during their university days, and that one doctor was a contemporary associate of the current Speaker.
Letters confirming that Rajapaksha’s wife had lodged a complaint with the Police, stating that her husband’s death was suspicious, have reportedly been issued by both the Director General of Health Services and the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate.
“The post-mortem examination of Ranga Nishantha, the Assistant Director of the Ministry of Finance who died under mysterious circumstances, was conducted by a panel of forensic specialists comprising Ilangarathna Banda, Ajith Jayasena, Sampath Senathunga, and Gamini Dissanayake. This panel concluded that the death was caused by excessive bleeding from multiple cut wounds and that it was most likely a suicide.
“However, there remains a public debate over whether he died by suicide or was killed. We are therefore compelled to question the panel as to why conclusions were reached without conducting a comprehensive post-mortem examination. Especially in a context where suspicion surrounding the death has been directed towards the Government, and where the Police Media Spokesperson had already announced to the country that it was a suicide even before the post-mortem examination, the panel should have carried out a thorough and complete investigation,” Gammanpila added.
Questioning Gammanpila
The Police has however rejected Gammanpila’s claims regarding the Treasury official’s death, stating that his remarks are false and contradict official findings, and has added that Gammanpila’s statement that the victim’s wife had complained to authorities describing the death as suspicious is also not true.
The Police has noted that initial investigations, including a post-mortem examination and forensic analysis, had found no signs of a struggle or external assault.
According to the Police, Gammanpila will be summoned to record a statement, and could be required to present evidence before the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate’s Court regarding his claims.
Meanwhile, Minister Jayatissa stated that it was not Rajapaksa who had lodged the complaint regarding the loss of $ 2.5 million, but rather the Director General of the Department of External Resources.
He noted during the adjournment debate in Parliament on Tuesday (5): “It was said that this officer made the complaint… but in fact, the complaint was lodged by the Director General of the Department of External Resources. Another matter is that the wife claims the death is suspicious. Two individuals who are not present in Parliament today have made statements to the media regarding this. Legal action will be initiated against them.”
Jayatissa further noted: “The relatives of Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksha have raised concerns about those statements. They are deeply distressed by what has been said. Today the funeral rites are being observed, and tomorrow the almsgiving. After that, the relatives will come forward and lodge complaints against those who made these statements.”
Another payment issue
Meanwhile, an incident of making erroneous payments by a key State institution was learnt when the Finance Ministry last week admitted that thousands of ‘Aswesuma’ welfare recipients had received double payments for April due to what officials have described as an “accidental” duplicate upload of payment files.
In a statement issued by the Welfare Benefits Board, authorities said a payment “slip file” had been uploaded twice while processing additional festive allowances approved ahead of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year.
According to the statement, nearly 1.7 million beneficiary families had been included in the payment process, with files grouped into batches of 90,000 before being sent to the Bank of Ceylon for distribution.
Officials said the duplication had resulted in double payments being made to some beneficiaries in the ‘Poor’ category.
The ministry said that immediate action had been taken to suspend further duplicate payments and instruct banks to reverse the funds to the Welfare Benefits Board’s accounts.
However, authorities admitted that 49,759 beneficiaries had already withdrawn the additional payments from their accounts before the transactions had been halted.
The Government said that around Rs. 248.7 million would now be recovered from May’s ‘Aswesuma’ payments.
The issue has sparked criticism and calls for a parliamentary investigation, with the Free Lawyers organisation alleging that nearly Rs. 500 million may have been irregularly paid through the welfare scheme.
The organisation compared the incident to recent controversies involving mistaken State payments, including the transfer of millions of dollars intended for foreign payments to third-party accounts.
This incident also brought back to mind the recent payment issue regarding the Road Development Authority (RDA), where some of its contractors were made extra payments by the Bank of Ceylon.
Residence for Speaker’s Secretary
While the ruling JVP/NPP has been focused on probes related to Opposition members while also criticising the conduct of past governments, the allocation of an official Government residence in Colombo 4 to the Private Secretary of the Speaker has quietly entered political discussion circles, amid continuing public scrutiny over State privileges, administrative appointments, and the use of Government resources.
According to an official communication issued by the Public Administration, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Ministry, Government Official Residence No. 4-3 at Lauries Lane, Colombo 4, has been allocated to one Chamira Priyasanka Gallage, the Private Secretary to the Speaker, for a five-year period beginning 6 June 2025 and ending 5 June 2030, or until he ceases to hold the position.
The allocation has been confirmed through a letter signed by Senior Assistant Secretary (Housing and Development) J.A.A.N. Jayaweera. The residence has reportedly been granted under the provisions of Public Administration Circular 22/2006 and other regulations governing official Government housing.
Under the terms of the allocation, Gallage is required to pay 12.5% of his monthly salary as rent from the date the residence is formally handed over. The agreement also maintains the conditions contained in a housing administration and maintenance agreement signed on 8 June 2025.
He has additionally been instructed to coordinate with the Ceylon Electricity Board and Sri Lanka Telecom to obtain utility and communication services for the residence.
Opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekara raised this issue in Parliament last week while stating that the ruling party, which assumed office promising to change the system in place at the time and making many promises to the public about not misusing official vehicles or State-owned housing, was breaking those promises.
Focus on SriLankan aircraft lease
Meanwhile, fresh controversy has also emerged over a multi-million-dollar aircraft lease involving SriLankan Airlines after Opposition MP Jayasekara once again questioned the agreement following disclosures made through a Right to Information (RTI) request.
The issue centres on a reported $ 26.6 million lease arrangement for aircraft procurement, with concerns being raised over the financial terms, transparency, and decision-making process connected to the deal. The revelations have intensified scrutiny over the National Carrier’s financial management at a time when Sri Lanka continues efforts to restructure and strengthen State-owned enterprises.
The MP called for greater accountability and urged authorities to clarify the circumstances under which the lease agreement had been approved. Questions were also raised regarding procurement procedures, cost evaluations, and whether the deal represented value for money for the State-owned airline.
The matter gained attention after information obtained through the RTI process reportedly revealed details relating to payments and contractual arrangements linked to the aircraft lease.
According to details revealed before the RTI Commission, the Airbus A330-200 aircraft bearing registration 4R-ALT was acquired under an eight-year operating lease agreement rather than through an outright purchase. The disclosed documents show that SriLankan Airlines is required to pay an initial monthly lease instalment of $ 275,000 for the aircraft. The agreement, effective from June 2025 to June 2033, carries an annual lease cost of $ 3.3 million. As a result, the total payment over the eight-year lease period is estimated at approximately $ 26.6 million.
Blocking the alliance
Amidst the ongoing political drama, the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the United National Party (UNP) have been gradually building unity, but it is being disrupted by two ‘spectres’ within the UNP, as ‘The Black Box’ has reported in previous columns.
Although both parties, along with some senior leaders, have made sincere efforts whenever opportunities arose to build unity between them, these two individuals have been working behind the scenes, using various tactics to sabotage the process.
Ahead of this year’s May Day rally, SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa took steps to implement a plan he had been considering for months by inviting the UNP to the SJB May Day rally in an effort to confirm political unity between the two parties. However, realising that if both parties shared the same stage on May Day it would threaten their own interests and plans, these two ‘spectres’ had once again engaged in efforts to sabotage the unity.
When they understood that a formal invitation had been extended by the SJB and that both parties appearing together at the rally would derail their plans, especially plans to push the UNP towards aligning with the SLPP, they had used a political figure as a pawn and launched an internal operation within the UNP to block the move. Accordingly, they had first approached UNP Leader, former President Wickremesinghe and said that since political activities were not held on Poya days, the SJB invitation should be rejected. They had also presented the same proposal to the SJB’s Tissa Attanayake.
Following this, Attanayake had issued a statement saying that the UNP would not participate in the SJB May Day rally. However, senior UNP members had not been ready to accept this decision. In particular, UNP Deputy Leader Ruwan Wijewardene and Deputy General Secretary Harin Fernando had strongly questioned the statement issued by Attanayake.
Two days prior to May Day, Wijewardene and Fernando had met Party Leader Wickremesinghe to discuss the matter. During the meeting, they had strongly told him that the decision to reject participation in the SJB May Day rally, despite receiving an official invitation, had caused anger and confusion among party supporters.
“Sir, this is completely the wrong decision. Our supporters want to see the UNP and SJB moving forward together. When the official invitation came from the SJB, we could feel the enthusiasm among supporters who contacted us. But now a statement has been issued saying we are not going, and we weren’t even aware of such a decision. Our supporters are furious. If this continues, we won’t even be able to step out onto the streets,” both Wijewardene and Fernando had explained.
In response, Wickremesinghe had said that the SJB had not invited the UNP but only UNP supporters, implying there was an issue with the wording of the invitation, and had attempted to avoid the matter.
However, Wijewardene and Fernando had refused to accept this explanation. “There is no such thing. The invitation was clearly for the entire UNP. Moreover, when we held our party convention at Sirikotha last time, we also invited the SJB. Ranjith Madduma Bandara and Kabir Hashim came to Sirikotha and attended our convention. So why are we missing an important opportunity like May Day, which could bring both parties together?” they had argued.
Wickremesinghe had responded saying, “A party convention is one thing, May Day is another.”
Ruwan’s predicament
However, after Wijewardene and Fernando had repeatedly argued that the UNP should participate in the SJB May Day rally, Wickremesinghe had eventually found it difficult to disagree and had granted permission for Wijewardene to participate in the rally.
However, shortly after Wickremesinghe’s approval for Wijewardene to attend the SJB May Day rally, the news had reached the two ‘conspirators’ within the UNP. Following this, these two individuals had reportedly exerted strong pressure on Wickremesinghe, insisting that Wijewardene should not be allowed to attend the SJB May Day rally under any circumstances.
They had also exerted significant pressure on Wijewardene himself through various channels regarding the matter. The pressure became so intense that, in the end, Wijewardene had switched off his mobile phone.
Sajith confirms SJB-UNP unity
Be that as it may, members and supporters of the SJB and UNP received yet another boost, which seems to be happening with long intervals, when Opposition and SJB Leader Premadasa announced that the SJB and UNP had already come together. However, it was less a revelation than a political signal given that the Opposition, which has been long fragmented, is attempting to present a united front.
With the Government asserting confidence and positioning itself as both stable and reform-driven, the Opposition faces a familiar challenge, that of credibility through cohesion. For years, divisions between the SJB and UNP have diluted their ability to mount a sustained challenge, with electoral setbacks and internal disagreements reinforcing a perception of disunity.
Premadasa’s statement on May Day therefore seeks to change that narrative.
By dismissing the need for formal committees or structured negotiations, he is projecting an image of organic unity, an alliance that has moved beyond procedural politics into practical cooperation. It is a confident claim, but it also raises the question of whether this unity is strategic, or simply limited to a declaration.
Basil’s re-emergence
Meanwhile, another unusual incident was reported by the Opposition recently involving former Minister Basil Rajapaksa, who is widely regarded as the chief theoretician of the SLPP and has been living overseas for several years.
Following the SLPP’s defeats in the 2024 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, many believed that Basil had permanently stepped away from active politics. His departure to the US prior to the defeat further reinforced this perception.
However, a special incident that occurred recently has led many to suspect that Basil may be preparing for a political comeback or strategic move.
The development was triggered by a special video released on social media by the SLPP. The lengthy video had focused entirely on Basil, highlighting various stages of his political career. It had covered how he had entered politics, joined the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), and worked alongside former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike. It had also referenced his close association with Anura Bandaranaike, his role in MR’s 2005 Presidential Election victory, and his contributions during the war period.
The video had further portrayed his involvement in development programmes such as ‘Maga Neguma’ and ‘Divi Neguma,’ presenting them as key initiatives that contributed to national development. The production quality suggested it had been professionally prepared by an organisation, likely under Basil’s direction, as many viewers inferred.
Although the video was initially posted on social media, it did not receive significant traction. As a result, Basil had reportedly taken the unusual step of personally sharing it via WhatsApp with contacts in Sri Lanka last week.
CPA responds to ex-MPs
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has taken special note of a letter sent by the Association of Former Members of Parliament regarding several incidents, including the suspension of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament and allegations of harassment of female staff members.
In an official response, CPA Secretary-General Stephen Twigg has informed Association of Former Members of Parliament Secretary Pemasiri Manange that the issues highlighted in the letter are being closely monitored. He has also stated that the relevant matters will be brought to the attention of the Speaker of Parliament.
The letter sent to the CPA Secretary-General primarily raised concerns over the suspension of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament. It claimed that the suspension constituted a serious violation of legal procedures, principles of natural justice, and institutional independence.
It further alleged that the suspension was carried out through the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee (PSAC), which, according to the letter, does not have legal authority to take such action. It also claimed that the Speaker had exercised powers that were not lawfully delegated to him in executing this decision.
In addition, the letter drew attention to other matters, including the abolition of the parliamentary pension scheme for former MPs, and alleged harassment of a female officer in Parliament’s Information Systems and Management Department. It also raised concerns over the non-implementation of recommendations made by a committee appointed to investigate these incidents.