The Hon. Sunil Handunnetti - Minister of Industry and Entrepreneurship Development

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, today we held a day’s debate on the COPE Reports presented to Parliament in the first session of the Tenth Parliament. Among the key matters raised, a serious point from the Opposition requires a response on behalf of the Government—namely, the appointment of the Director-General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). Several Opposition Members suggested he was appointed to work for the Government or using the Government’s political power.

¶ 02 At one point, Hon. Nalin Bandara Jayamaha stated he saw him as the Chairman of the Bribery Commission. To clarify: the Chairman is not from our party. The Chairman is Mr. Neel Iddawela, a former Secretary-General of Parliament who served the Parliamentary staff. The Members of the Commission were appointed before our Government assumed office.

¶ 03 Hon. Presiding Member, under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, appointments are not made by nominations from the President to the Constitutional Council as earlier. Previously, nominees were named by the President, sent to the Constitutional Council, and upon its consideration, recommendations went back to the President. Now, under the new Anti-Corruption Act, the Director-General of CIABOC is named by the Constitutional Council and sent to the President. The Constitutional Council calls for applications, conducts interviews through its three independent members, and selects. Before our Government came to power, on 01 January 2024, the Constitutional Council appointed the current three Commissioners to CIABOC. We do not know whether they are JVP or otherwise.

¶ 04 Both the Chairperson and the Director-General were selected through interviews by the Constitutional Council. Particularly, Mr. Ranga Dissanayake is a Judge of the High Court. When he was selected, the Constitutional Council included Hon. Sajith Premadasa, the Leader of the Opposition, and Hon. Ajith P. Perera as a Member. With them as Members, approval was granted. Thereafter, on 08 January 2025, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake appointed the Director-General accordingly. Thus, the Director-General was chosen by the Constitutional Council on behalf of Parliament and then appointed by the President. At that time, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor Hon. Ajith P. Perera, who represented the SJB in the Constitutional Council, objected that the Director-General was someone working for the Government. In the past, perhaps the Bribery Commission could have been influenced to act as desired, but not now. It is an independent body, beyond even the control of the President, and is not under any Ministry. The Government only provides budgetary provisions and facilities requested by the Constitutional Council.

¶ 05 Therefore, the Constitutional Council calls interviews, names the Director-General, and sends the nomination to the President. It is incorrect to suggest otherwise. If anyone claims the Constitutional Council acts per the Government’s wishes, that is a misinterpretation of powers conferred by Parliament under the Anti-Corruption Act. It also undermines the independence of the Constitutional Council. If anyone, inside or outside Parliament, portrays it as a political tool, under the Constitutional Council’s powers and Section 160 of the Anti-Corruption Act, any person can seek a writ: to challenge a decision of the Constitutional Council or CIABOC as erroneous. Likewise, if someone makes improper political allegations against CIABOC, action can be taken under Sections 30H and 118 of the Act.

¶ 06 I say this because we have conveyed to the world that we are creating an anti-corruption State and setting an example. The President, representing 22 million people, stated at the UN General Assembly our foundation against corruption. If the Opposition now makes these claims, they are ridiculing the very powers in the Anti-Corruption Act that they themselves brought and approved. If they tried earlier to act otherwise, today they should, in good faith, act by that law. If they insult CIABOC’s officers—the Director-General, the Chair, and Commissioners—or ridicule their decisions, they are demeaning the system they themselves helped create. But none of this will make COPE, COPA, or the Government retreat for a moment from the struggle against waste and corruption.

¶ 07 Particularly, institutions once distrusted by the people are today becoming trustworthy. In the past, the extent to which state power bent the law is notorious. A monumental black mark in our history was the decision against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, taken here at night in breach of Parliamentary traditions and the Constitution—placing themselves above the law. Those decisions follow like a noose. Today, having corrected that course, our small Asian nation’s leader was invited to the UN and proudly spoke about our country—possible because we have a Government that implements what it professes and leadership to match. The Opposition should acknowledge this, though we do not expect it. International media and many leaders highly commended the President’s speech.

¶ 08 On CIABOC appointments and the Director-General, we categorically reject the Opposition’s baseless allegations.

¶ 09 Regarding COPE’s functions, I must commend its Chair, Dr. Nishantha Samarawickrama. Though a medical professional who entered politics through the National People’s Power, he has rapidly grasped accounting, management, and auditing processes. I thank him for the independent leadership he provides. As a former COPE Chair, I am pleased by the significant impact made within a short period. I saw your recent examination of the Ceylon Electricity Board—those findings are accurate and reveal how gas prices were increased, commodity prices rose, and an artificial electricity crisis was created—facts now laid bare to the country.

¶ 10 A challenge remains: implementing COPE recommendations in practice. I propose inviting officers of the Attorney General’s Department to support COPE—at least as an observation team or with legal assistance—under Standing Orders. With such support, many issues can be clarified.

¶ 11 Second, digitise COPE’s work. Many documents are submitted but often underutilised. If digitised, with a secure member-only portal, COPE could, in real time, collect data from Ministries, institutions, the Auditor General’s Department, and the National Audit Office, and Members could review and question instantly. We once attempted this with UNDP support, but it did not materialise. If the Hon. Chair intervenes, we can secure budgetary allocations to implement this digital platform, resolving many longstanding issues.

¶ 12 On implementation, as a line Minister, I am pleased. Regarding the 14 institutions discussed today, many recommendations were made. The National Gem and Jewellery Authority (under my Ministry) has implemented a significant portion and was the first institution under this Government to report back to COPE on implementation progress—a major achievement. I table the document containing actions taken and current progress.

¶ 13 Some say COPE did not catch thieves. That is true in a sense: COPE typically questions officials, not politicians. For example, when the Fisheries Corporation was before COPE, a current Opposition Member who had been a Minister kept pressing an officer: “Who told you to take this decision?” After repeated questioning, the officer stood up and said, “It was you, Hon. Minister; you recommended it.” Ministers often give verbal directions; officials sign and implement and are then held to account. Ultimately, the trail leads to political decision-makers. In the past, officials could not work independently without ministerial direction. Now, the Opposition claims officials are being intimidated, and simultaneously claims CIABOC is politicised and working for us. Both cannot be true. Today, there are no intimidated officials; the public service can work independently. No Minister or MP here exerts pressure or gives improper orders.