The Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Over the past few weeks, the Opposition has repeatedly asked why the Ministry of Finance did not report to Parliament regarding the USD 2.5 million that is missing or went to a third-party account. As I recall, around April 22, some organization first raised this publicly. Along with that, the Opposition created a discussion as to why this was not reported to Parliament.

¶ 02 Hon. Harshana Rajakaruna, claiming to be a member of the Committee on Public Finance, stated in Parliament a number of highly inaccurate details about matters supposedly discussed by that Committee. Generally, when the Committee on Public Finance meets, its report is presented to Parliament by its Chairman. We are also members of that Committee. We have a discipline: until the Chairman submits the report to Parliament, we act accordingly. In this instance, the Committee met with the consent of its members. The Chairman is from the Opposition—Hon. Dr. Harsha de Silva. Until he submits a report to Parliament, I do not think Hon. Harshana Rajakaruna or anyone else has any ethical right to present those details here. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition learned these things—who told him or how these would be reported here. Speaking here about matters deliberated in the Committee on Public Finance is inappropriate. The responsibility lies with the Chairman, and we expect him to act accordingly.

¶ 03 Further, Hon. Harshana Rajakaruna also said we tried three times to summon the Secretary to the Treasury before the Committee on Public Finance regarding this matter. As I recall, the Leader of the Opposition said this too. That is not correct. I will state precisely the date on which we specifically summoned the Secretary to the Treasury: it was only for the Committee sitting on April 28. Before that date, we had not specifically issued a summons to the Secretary to the Treasury. Generally, invitations go to the Ministry of Finance for requested officials. The three instances mentioned were unrelated to the USD 2.5 million matter. The Ministry has, on other occasions over the last one and a half years, given reasons for inability to attend. But not for this USD 2.5 million matter. Portraying that the Secretary refused to come to Parliament is false. What the Secretary did on that occasion was only to request an alternative date due to inability to attend that day. Once the Committee was informed to attend on the given date, he came and participated. The Secretary is not a politician; to tarnish his reputation and conduct with falsehoods in this manner is very wrong.

¶ 04 Next, on Parliament’s control over public finance: Article 148 of the Constitution states, I quote: “Parliament shall have full control over public finance. No tax, rate or any other levy shall be imposed by any local authority or any other public authority, except by or under the authority of a law passed by Parliament ...” The essence is that without a law passed by Parliament, no revenue shall be raised or expenditure incurred. That is why every year we pass a Budget. No taxes can be imposed or expenditure made without Parliamentary approval. But having control of public finance does not mean executive power over the Ministry of Finance lies with Parliament. Under Article 4(b), executive power is exercised by the President and, through him, the Cabinet of Ministers—not by Parliament or its Committees.

¶ 05 Now, when an issue arises at ministerial level, there are officials: the Secretary, Minister, State Ministers, etc. First, executive, administrative, and investigative actions are taken within the Ministry. If there is a criminal matter, it is referred to investigative agencies. Therefore, the notion that everything must be immediately reported to Parliament for investigations is incorrect.