The Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition
The Leader of the Opposition argued that the Government should have declared a disaster situation under the Disaster Management Act during “Dicha” and used its provisions for relief, rather than relying on emergency regulations under the Public Security Ordinance. He said the current regulations resemble those used for counter-terrorism or public disorder situations and are disproportionate to disaster-response needs, despite promised compensation and relief payments. He asked the Prime Minister to clarify the legal basis for extending the emergency after a notice stated that the declared disaster situation had ended on 15 December 2025, and called for properly tailored disaster-relief provisions to be operationalized.
Verbatim record (translated)
Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English¶ 01 Mr. Presiding Member, on the extension of the state of emergency, I note: during “Dicha,” the Government failed to declare a “disaster situation” under Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005. We repeatedly requested this. Had it been done, Section 12 would have enabled appropriate measures under that Act. We concurred with implementing disaster-related regulations, but what is now presented under the Public Security Ordinance replicates regulations used after Easter attacks and during the Aragalaya, not those tailored for a national disaster.
¶ 02 We asked for measures to ensure public safety and to enable officials to deliver relief rapidly, without fear. But the current emergency regulations include provisions suited to counter-terror or public disorder, not disaster response. Before extending, please correct the content to match disaster needs.
¶ 03 You promise Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000 payments, crop compensation (Rs. 150,000–200,000 per hectare), Rs. 400,000 for fishing boats, Rs. 500,000 for fully damaged houses and Rs. 250,000 for partially damaged—these are in circulars. But how do the current regulations under the Public Security Ordinance legally align to deliver these? The PSO’s Part II includes provisions on requisitioning premises and vehicles and compelling services; powers of search and detention by armed forces; offences about public agitation and publications; prohibitions on statements that could disturb the public. How are these proportionate to a post-disaster context?
¶ 04 The Supreme Court has held that regulations must be proportionate to their objectives. Here, they are not. Disaster relief—cash, land allocation, crop compensation—can be executed under existing legal frameworks without invoking such public order provisions. Emergency is for imminent threats, not general administration. Do not misuse State power to oppress the public.
¶ 05 Finally, I ask the Hon. Prime Minister: Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuiyakontha, as Secretary, issued a notice stating that the “widespread disaster situation” declared on 21.11.2025 ended on 15.12.2025. If so, on what basis is the current emergency being extended? Please clarify and ensure that disaster-relief clauses are immediately and correctly operationalized.
Provenance
- Source
- Hansard, Tuesday, 6 January 2026 ·No. 23111 ·English daily/uncorrected Hansard
- Page · column
- not yet extracted — page/column anchors are not in the current dataset; the source PDF is the citable location.
- Permalink
/lk/speeches/17664
Cite as: The Hon. Sajith Premadasa - Leader of the Opposition. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 6 January 2026. No. 23111. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/17664