That President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government are now entering the period of ‘terrible twos’ is evident by the weekly issues and controversies faced by them and their growing intensity.

Sri Lanka’s latest economic indicators, according to the Department of Census and Statistics, note that year-on-year inflation measured by the National Consumer Price Index has edged up to 2.4% in March this year from 1.6% in February. While on paper these figures stand as evidence of hard-won stabilisation, especially after years of volatility, a low single-digit inflation rate suggests a country gradually regaining its footing.

However, for the average citizen, these numbers are increasingly detached from everyday reality. While the cost of living may be described as ‘stabilising,’ a far more immediate and alarming threat is emerging. The Sri Lanka Chamber of the Pharmaceutical Industry (SLCPI) has issued a stark warning that the country is on the brink of a shortage of essential and life-saving medicines, a crisis that could severely affect both public and private healthcare systems.

While on one hand macroeconomic indicators point to discipline and control, on the other hand the potential absence of critical medicines highlights structural weaknesses that cannot be resolved through monetary policy alone.

The political reality is clear; stable prices offer little reassurance if essential goods are unavailable. For a patient in urgent need of treatment, the stabilisation of food prices means little if insulin, antibiotics, or cardiac medicines cannot be found. 

The emerging crisis also raises serious questions about governance and priorities. Is foreign exchange being allocated effectively to ensure the uninterrupted supply of essential imports? Are procurement systems operating efficiently, or are delays and bureaucratic inefficiencies undermining access? Equally important, is there sufficient coordination between economic policymakers and health authorities to anticipate and prevent such shortages?

These are not just concerns, but point to the heart of whether economic recovery is being managed in a way that safeguards the basic needs of the population.

Meanwhile, the country’s political landscape is once again being shaped by a familiar combination of commissions, controversies, and carefully-timed recalibrations. 

Indo-Lanka ties

Against this backdrop, the JVP/NPP Government engaged in further strengthening ties between Sri Lanka and India last week during discussions between AKD and Indian Vice President C.P. Radhakrishnan. The latest endeavour signals a notable recalibration in Indo-Lanka relations – one that is increasingly defined by strategic cooperation in the energy sector.

It is learnt that Trincomalee, a natural harbour long viewed as one of the most valuable energy and maritime assets in the Indian Ocean, had been a key topic of discussion during the high-level meeting. The proposal to develop an oil hub in Trincomalee, coupled with plans for a cross-border petroleum pipeline linking India and Sri Lanka, reflects a shared recognition that energy security, logistics, and regional influence are now deeply intertwined.

For Sri Lanka, the logic is immediate and compelling. Still recovering from an unprecedented economic crisis, the Government is focused on stable, long-term partnerships that can deliver infrastructure, investment, and energy resilience and an Indian-backed oil hub in Trincomalee could transform the eastern port into a regional storage and distribution centre, generating revenue while reducing dependence on volatile global supply chains. The proposed pipeline would further anchor Sri Lanka into a reliable energy network, lowering transport costs and ensuring steady supply.

For India, it is equally strategic and it would help further deepen its footprint in Trincomalee, given its immense geopolitical significance, especially as competition in the Indian Ocean intensifies. Strengthening energy connectivity with Sri Lanka also aligns with India’s broader ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, reinforcing its role as the island’s primary economic and security partner.

However, these developments are not without complexity. Trincomalee has historically been a site of both opportunity and sensitivity, with past agreements such as the long-contested oil tank farm project that sparked domestic debate over sovereignty and foreign involvement. The irony is that it was the JVP that vehemently opposed Indian involvement and presence in Trincomalee. Therefore, any renewed push will need to navigate local political concerns, especially Opposition parties that could remind the ruling party of its previous role, ensure transparency, and deliver tangible benefits to Sri Lankans beyond macroeconomic gains.

Also, closer Indo-Lanka energy integration will be viewed through a wider geopolitical lens. Sri Lanka has long balanced relationships with multiple regional powers, and a visible tilt towards India in critical infrastructure could invite both scrutiny and recalibration in Colombo’s foreign policy posture.

A $ 2.5 m question

Be that as it may, the Government’s key controversy for last week – especially given that there seems to be a controversy on a weekly basis – was triggered by President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne’s letter to the Speaker of Parliament. The letter, which was released to the media, added yet another layer to Sri Lanka’s already fraught public finance narrative.

At its core was the claim that the Treasury may have incurred a loss of approximately $ 2.5 million in the course of a debt repayment transaction involving the Australian Government – an allegation that raises uncomfortable questions about competence, transparency, and accountability at a time when the country can ill afford any of the three to be in doubt.

Gunaratne’s intervention is notable not merely for its content but for its timing. Sri Lanka remains under intense scrutiny from international creditors and institutions, where even minor discrepancies risk being magnified into broader concerns about governance standards. Against this backdrop, the suggestion of a financial loss in a bilateral transaction, particularly with a country like Australia, which has maintained relatively steady engagement, has inevitably drawn attention beyond domestic political circles.

Opposition politicians have been quick to seize on the issue, framing it as deeper systemic weaknesses within the Treasury. Their criticism has been characteristically sharp, questioning both the decision-making process and the apparent absence of safeguards that might have prevented such a loss.

Several other pertinent questions from the Opposition revolve around why complaints regarding the matter had not been lodged by the authorities when the incident had taken place, when it had been known that such an incident had taken place, and whether the Auditor General had been informed of it.

Another more pertinent question is whether the Government had informed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) delegation that was in Sri Lanka on a review mission about this issue.

The response from the Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka has been measured but significant. By addressing the matter directly, the High Commission has signalled that the issue is not being dismissed as mere domestic political noise. While diplomatic language tends towards restraint, even a carefully worded clarification carries weight, particularly when it touches on financial dealings between governments.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Harshana Suriyapperuma has offered a technical rebuttal, attempting to contextualise or outright refute the claim of loss. His response underscores a familiar tension in such controversies which shows the clash between political interpretation and bureaucratic explanation. 

“In January, we came to know that cyber criminals were trying to enter the External Resources Department’s system. When such information was reported, we coordinated with the relevant foreign countries and ensured that no harm was caused to the country that was to receive the payment. That issue was resolved. We felt the need to prepare the necessary procedures to review past payments, because similar incidents had occurred even before January. Accordingly, it took some time. During that period, it was revealed that the hackers’ activities had also affected a past payment in January,” he said.

The Treasury Secretary further noted that actions, including disciplinary action against officers, had been taken based on the reports of the committee obtained thus far.

Treasury officials often argue from the standpoint of procedure, exchange rate mechanisms, or timing differences, while critics focus on outcomes and accountability.

What makes this episode particularly instructive is not simply whether a $ 2.5 million loss occurred, but how the issue is being communicated and contested. The ongoing investigations will now have to reveal what happened, months after the incident took place.

Old decisions, old rivalries

Meanwhile, a Presidential Commission of Inquiry probing coal procurement is reopening old decisions and old rivalries, while Opposition parties are reorganising their public posture ahead of the next electoral cycle. It is interesting to see that accountability processes and political strategy are now moving in parallel.

However, in a development that adds another layer of contention to the ongoing coal import controversy, senior Government Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe has publicly rejected key elements of the Auditor General’s report that point to alleged irregularities in coal procurements, arguing that certain findings “cannot be accepted”. His remarks, made during a televised debate, signal a widening gap between the Government’s interpretation of the report and the concerns raised by oversight authorities.

The Minister was careful to frame the report as speculative rather than conclusive. According to him, the Auditor General has merely outlined possible scenarios surrounding the procurement process without establishing evidence of fraud. This distinction is central to the Government’s defence, which continues to maintain that no wrongdoing occurred in the coal import deal.

Intimidating the Opposition

However, if the Government believed that appointing a Presidential Commission on coal procurement would slow down the Opposition, early signs suggest otherwise. The real question is not whether the Opposition will be pressured, but whether it will change course. So far, the answer appears to be no. The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) maintains that the Opposition has managed to bring the JVP/NPP Government with 159 seats in Parliament to its knees by forcing former Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody out of office.

Even during the New Year holidays, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and his SJB, it is learnt, have remained active behind the scenes with a series of internal discussions held over Zoom, pointing to a group that is not retreating but reorganising.

One of the most notable decisions by the SJB is to not oppose the Presidential Commission investigating coal procurement dating back to 2009. Instead, the party has chosen to fully cooperate. 

This could be seen as a calculated move. By engaging with the commission rather than resisting it, the Opposition, or at least the SJB, has positioned itself as transparent and unafraid while subtly reinforcing its claim that it bears no responsibility for past deals.

The second key decision taken by the SJB, it is learnt, is to intensify its campaign against what it describes as the ongoing issue of substandard coal imports and controversial emergency procurements. This escalation is expected to take a public turn. 

Focus on RW and SLPP

While the SJB has made a strategic decision to support the Government’s Special Commission of Inquiry into coal procurements, several other political parties and politicians are not too happy with the ongoing developments.

According to developments emerging from the inquiry, much of the scrutiny has been directed at former power and energy ministers during the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Government led by the Rajapaksas, as well as the period under former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The commission is reportedly examining procurement decisions, pricing structures, and emergency purchases linked to coal imports over multiple years.

Officials familiar with the proceedings suggest that the commission is attempting to map responsibility across different phases of coal purchasing, rather than limiting its inquiry to a single administration.

At the centre of the review is the broader governance structure of the energy sector during the relevant period, including ministerial oversight and administrative approvals. The role of the power and energy ministries under successive governments is expected to be a key line of inquiry, particularly in relation to procurement transparency and contract awarding procedures.

Coal procurement has long been a contentious issue in the country, frequently linked to allegations of inefficiency, inflated pricing, and emergency procurement practices that bypass standard competitive processes.

Near-black market rates

While the coal saga continues, the latest controversy that has grabbed the Opposition’s attention in the energy sector is the Government’s purchasing of fuel at near-black market rates – underscored by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) confirming a diesel barrel price of $ 286. This has become a political discussion that cuts to the core of credibility, competence, and the lingering shadows of crisis governance.

At one level, officials will argue about necessity. Sri Lanka has, in recent years, operated under conditions that blur the line between market discipline and emergency improvisation since the 2022 economic crisis. When foreign reserves run dry and suppliers demand premiums, the textbook rules of procurement often give way to survival tactics. In that context, paying above-market rates can be framed as the cost of keeping the lights on and the queues from returning.

The problem, however, is not simply that the Government paid more, but it is how, when, and under what oversight such decisions were made. A price like $ 286 per barrel is not just economically striking; it is politically combustible. It invites questions about transparency, about who authorised the purchase, and whether alternative options were fully explored or deliberately sidelined.

More importantly, it feeds a growing public suspicion that crisis conditions have been used to normalise extraordinary and insufficiently scrutinised financial decisions. When governments operate in emergency mode for too long, exceptions risk becoming the rule. This is what the Opposition is focusing on.

For a public already burdened by the high cost of living, the idea that the State may have paid ‘black market’ rates for essential fuel is not an abstract policy issue because it translates into higher pump prices, elevated electricity tariffs, and a deeper sense of economic unfairness.

This also complicates the Government’s reform narrative. 

Diplomatic test over fuel

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s decision to source fuel from the United Arab Emirates and the United States while continuing discussions with Russia is less an energy strategy than a careful balancing act shaped by economics, geopolitics, and lingering vulnerability.

After the shocks of the recent crisis, relying too heavily on any single supplier is a risk Sri Lanka can no longer afford. Securing supplies from the UAE and the US offers a degree of reliability and, just as importantly, political alignment with partners who are central to Sri Lanka’s broader economic recovery narrative. These are relationships that come with fewer reputational complications in dealings with institutions like the IMF and other Western-backed lenders.

But the parallel engagement with Russia tells a different story. Russian fuel, often discounted due to global sanctions dynamics, presents an attractive option for a country still grappling with constrained foreign exchange reserves. For policymakers, cheaper fuel can ease pressure on domestic prices and reduce fiscal strain.

The tension lies in trying to do both without fully committing to either path. Buying from the US and the UAE signals adherence to a more conventional, rules-based procurement framework. Keeping Russia in the conversation signals that price may be the deciding factor. This dual-track approach may be tactically clever, but it risks appearing strategically ambiguous.

There are also diplomatic undercurrents. Sri Lanka has long prided itself on a non-aligned foreign policy posture, and this fuel strategy fits that tradition – engaging multiple power centres without locking into one. Yet today’s global environment is less forgiving of such ambiguity. Energy procurement is no longer just a commercial decision since it is increasingly read as a geopolitical signal.

Domestically, the stakes are more immediate. The public is less concerned about where fuel comes from than about how much it costs and whether it is available without disruption.

If sourcing from the UAE and the US leads to higher prices, while cheaper Russian options remain on the table, the Government will face difficult questions. 

Joint Opposition campaign

Meanwhile, the joint Opposition convened by former Minister G.L. Peiris is gearing up for the second in the series of anti-Government seminars, scheduled to be held next month in Matra.

Members of the joint Opposition last week convened at Peiris’ residence in Colombo 5 where the discussion was focused on the procurement of diesel at near-black market rates. Several Opposition members had proposed that the latest diesel procurement issue should also be included in the second seminar. It was then decided that the theme of the next seminar should be on the lines of ‘gal anguru madiwata diesel’ (diesel on top of coal).

Peiris had noted that as predicted earlier by the group, the Government had managed to provide the joint Opposition camp with a topic for its next seminar.

JVP/NPP’s changed plans

With increasing challenges on many fronts resulting in heightened pressure on a Government with waning public support, the JVP/NPP has chosen to mark May Day this year with a significant departure from tradition, opting to hold 21 district-level rallies across the country instead of one large, centralised event. While this decision is rooted in practical concerns, it also reflects a broader political strategy shaped by current political developments.

Initially, the JVP/NPP had planned to organise three major rallies in Colombo, the north, and the hill country. However, the ongoing fuel shortages have made long-distance travel increasingly difficult for party supporters and following discussions between President AKD and district organisers, the party, it is learnt, has revised its plans in order to ensure wider participation by bringing events closer to local communities.

At one level, this is a pragmatic response to a continuing crisis by limiting the need for transport, reducing both costs and logistical challenges, and allowing more supporters to attend. 

This year’s theme, ‘People’s Power for the People’s Government,’ is also intended to convey a message of continuity between the party’s origins as a protest movement and its current role in government.

At another level, the decision carries political significance. By decentralising its May Day celebrations, the JVP/NPP is trying to reinforce its image as a movement rooted in grassroots mobilisation rather than one dependent on large, Colombo-based displays of strength. The distribution of party leaders across multiple districts further highlights this approach.

President AKD is expected to attend meetings in the hill country and Maharagama, while Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya will attend the Ratnapura rally. Senior figures such as JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva and Ministers Vijitha Herath and Bimal Rathnayake are also scheduled to take part in rallies across different regions.

However, the shift is not without risk since May Day has traditionally been defined by large crowds and highly visible gatherings in the capital. By moving away from this model, the JVP/NPP may lose some of the immediate visual impact that such events generate. Opposition parties have, however, noted that the absence of a major central rally is a sign of reduced momentum for the ruling party.

Sajith’s change

After initially deciding against holding a rally due to the proximity of Vesak, the SJB meanwhile has reversed course on holding a May Day event. 

A May Day event is now back on the agenda, although with a measured approach. Instead of traditional street processions, the party is planning to hold a large rally, framing it as a platform to highlight the coal controversy and broader concerns about governance.

SJB seniors have also decided to invite senior United National Party (UNP) members to the rally. While SJB MP S.M. Marikkar last Wednesday (22) issued an open invitation to the UNP to join the SJB’s May Day rally at the P.D. Sirisena Ground in Maligawatte, he noted that Premadasa would extend a formal invitation to the UNP seniors as well.

It is evident that the SJB is focused on owning the continuing discussion about the coal procurement saga while taking the lead in the anti-Government campaign.

May Day politics

Meanwhile, two of the country’s major political forces, the SLPP and the UNP, have opted out of May Day rallies altogether. Their decision signals either caution or fatigue in a period of political uncertainty.

However, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has chosen a different path, which is participation, despite its diminished political standing. The party has moved to reserve Campbell Park in Borella for its rally, insisting that it must demonstrate continued relevance in an increasingly crowded and unstable political field.

The question that follows the announcement, however, is unavoidable: does the SLFP still possess the organisational strength to mobilise at scale?

The party currently faces a significantly reduced electoral footprint. While estimates of its current voter base vary, political observers agree that its independent support has eroded sharply over recent cycles. However, the party retains one structural advantage, which is a historically entrenched rural network that, though weakened, has not entirely disappeared.

This is the calculation behind the May Day decision. The rally is not merely a labour-day mobilisation; it is an exercise in political visibility. In a landscape where perception often matters as much as arithmetic, presence itself becomes a form of argument.

The SLFP is no longer in a position where it can realistically contest major elections alone with expectations of victory. Today, internal dynamics within the SLFP appear increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small group of influential figures. 

Against this backdrop, the May Day rally at Campbell Park takes on added significance.

Clashes in container probe

Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding the release of 323 containers from the Colombo Port without mandatory physical inspection has evolved into more than a procedural dispute.

At the centre of the latest development is a decision by Government members of a Parliamentary Special Committee to reject a request by the Opposition to summon key witnesses. Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera has argued that the refusal undermines the credibility of the inquiry, especially given the seniority of those proposed, including President AKD and other former officials linked to the relevant ministries. 

The officials proposed to be summoned by the Opposition are President AKD, in his capacity as the Minister of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development; Bimal Rathnayake, who served as the Minister of Ports during the relevant period when the incident occurred; Janitha Ruwan Kodithuwakku, the Deputy Minister of Ports at the time; and the then Secretary to the Ministry of Finance.

From a governance perspective, the issue is not merely about whether procedures were followed, but whether institutions are willing to subject themselves to scrutiny when those procedures are questioned. Physical inspection of cargo is not a trivial administrative step; it is a safeguard embedded in systems designed to ensure compliance, revenue protection, and national security. Any deviation from such a process warrants thorough and transparent examination.

The Government’s position appears to favour a document-based inquiry, relying on existing records rather than expanding the scope of witness testimony. While this approach may be procedurally alright, it risks being perceived as incomplete, particularly in relation to a politically sensitive issue where public trust is already fragile.

For the Opposition, the argument is straightforward, where it claims accountability requires visibility. Its point is that without hearing directly from those who held authority at the time, the investigation may struggle to establish a clear chain of responsibility.

Anti-corruption agenda

However, the ruling party, it is learnt, is focused on expediting its anti-corruption programme while signalling that the issue will remain central to its governing agenda in the months ahead.

The renewed urgency appears to be both strategic and reactive. Having come to power on a strong platform of accountability and systemic reform, the administration is under increasing pressure to demonstrate tangible progress. Accelerating investigations and legal proceedings is likely seen as a way to signal momentum and reassure a public that has long demanded action against corruption.

However, the push has drawn sharp criticism from Opposition parties, who argue that the move is politically motivated. They note that the Government’s focus on expediting probes, particularly those targeting Opposition figures over alleged corruption, is an attempt to deflect attention from growing public dissatisfaction over its own performance in office. According to these critics, concerns relating to governance failures, weak accountability, and delays in fulfilling key election pledges are being overshadowed by high-profile investigations.

Missing inventories

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the Public Administration Ministry is facing difficulties in the reacquisition process of luxury Government-owned bungalows in Colombo that were earlier occupied by former presidents. 

Soon after assuming office, the Government initiated the process through the introduction of legislation to withdraw the perks and privileges offered to former presidents, including the official residences offered to them. Accordingly, the official residences of former Presidents Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (CBK), Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), Maithripala Sirisena, and Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) were handed back to the Government.

However, it is also learnt that the ministry is unable to complete the reacquisition of former President MR’s residence since the inventory of the items at the house cannot be found.

Maithri’s support

Meanwhile, former President Maithripala Sirisena has also joined the ongoing political discourse on accountability by questioning the uncertain fate of the special commission he had established during his presidency to investigate the controversial Central Bank bond scam that took place during the ‘Yahapalana’ Government.

Sirisena’s remarks also note that the commission, once positioned as a symbol of good governance efforts, now appears to have failed. 

His pledge to extend full cooperation to the current administration if the probe is reactivated adds a layer of political positioning as well. It allows Sirisena to align himself, at least rhetorically, with transparency and due process, while distancing himself from accusations that have periodically resurfaced around the scandal. At the same time, it also shifts responsibility onto current authorities to demonstrate whether there is genuine political will to pursue the matter further.

MR’s partial declaration

Meanwhile, the probe by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) into former President MR’s assets took a new twist with a report in the State media that the former President had submitted only a partial declaration of assets and liabilities in response to a directive from the commission.

According to the report, the 14-day deadline set by the commission expired on 10 April, with MR submitting an affidavit that did not include full disclosure. He (MR) has since requested additional time to provide the remaining documentation, prompting the commission to indicate that further investigations will proceed once complete submission is received.

MR’s revelation

Former President MR meanwhile has signalled a renewed political push, declaring that a “major plan” is in motion to bring his camp back to power. Speaking to reporters during New Year engagements at the SLPP Headquarters, MR had expressed confidence, stating that change was inevitable and that his party stood ready to capitalise on shifting political dynamics.

His remarks suggest that the SLPP, once the dominant force in Opposition politics, is attempting to reposition itself after a period of decline and internal divisions. While MR did not outline specifics, the assertion of a structured plan indicates ongoing efforts behind the scenes to rebuild political momentum and voter confidence.

At the same time, the party appears to be reorganising its public posture. MR confirmed that the SLPP will forgo its traditional May Day rally this year, as it coincides with Vesak. Instead, the party will mark the occasion through religious activities – a move that may reflect both cultural sensitivity and a strategic effort to align more closely with public sentiment.

RW’s trial-at-bar

Meanwhile, members of the joint Opposition have raised fresh concerns over the legality of moves to establish a trial-at-bar to hear the case against former President Wickremesinghe, arguing that due process must be strictly observed in matters of such significance.

Speaking on behalf of the Opposition grouping, former Minister G.L. Peiris has questioned the procedural basis for the decision, maintaining that the authority to constitute a trial-at-bar rests solely with the Chief Justice. He has pointed out that, to date, no formal announcement has been made by the Chief Justice in this regard, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the reported move.

His remarks underscore a broader concern within Opposition ranks about adherence to judicial norms and institutional boundaries. A trial-at-bar, by its nature, is reserved for exceptional cases and requires clear procedural compliance, particularly given its implications for both the accused and the integrity of the legal system.

Peiris has also stressed the importance of preserving the independence of the Attorney General’s Department, arguing that it should be allowed to handle cases without external interference. He has noted that any perception of undue influence could erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

The issue adds to an increasingly charged political climate, where legal proceedings involving high-profile figures are closely scrutinised for both their substance and their process.

Meanwhile, on Friday (24), the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) recorded a statement from Prof. Maithree Wickramasinghe, the wife of former President Wickremesinghe.  

Ex-MPs go international

Amidst all these political developments, internal parliamentary disputes have taken an international turn, with the Association of Former Members of Parliament lodging formal complaints with key global institutions.

In letters signed by former MP Pemasiri Manage, the association has appealed to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The complaints have outlined what the group describes as a series of illegal, unethical, and irregular actions within the Parliament of Sri Lanka.

The submission has highlighted four main grievances. The first is the cancellation of pensions of former MPs, which the association claims had been carried out unlawfully. The second concerns the suspension of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, described as being procedurally flawed and lacking proper legal authority. The third issue is the failure to implement recommendations from an inquiry led by a former High Court Judge into the harassment and intimidation of a female staff member. The fourth relates to the resignation of another female officer, which the association attributes to ongoing discrimination and the failure to address previous complaints.

Beyond these individual cases, the association has raised broader concerns about institutional integrity. It has argued that the process used to suspend the Deputy Secretary General had relied on a preliminary inquiry without legal standing. The letter has also claimed that the Staff Advisory Committee of Parliament did not have the legal authority to impose such disciplinary measures.

They have also questioned whether proper procedures are being followed within one of the country’s most important democratic institutions.