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

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, on 05 June 2026, the Women Parliamentarians’ Caucus convened a discussion on a high-profile child abuse case in Anuradhapura. The purpose was to engage relevant State agencies to ensure the child victim receives adequate State support. The Sri Lanka Police, the Attorney-General’s Department, the National Child Protection Authority, and the Department of Probation and Child Care Services were summoned to Parliament.

¶ 02 It was revealed that the child is identified as a victim in three separate court proceedings against multiple suspects, requiring all agencies to cooperate fully to prevent further trauma and ensure protection. Given multiple proceedings and ongoing investigations, the Caucus instructed all officials present to refrain from discussing the content with third parties.

¶ 03 Because the victim is a child and those present are institutions tasked with protecting her privacy, safety and dignity, officials were advised not to disclose the content to outsiders, which could prejudice the child’s right to justice and jeopardize court proceedings or investigations. All parties were informed that any breach would prompt the Caucus to invoke Parliamentary Privileges. We believe Members of Parliament have a higher duty of care to the child’s legal rights, which must not be politicized for anyone’s gain. The Caucus noted that information about the ongoing investigations had already been leaked to outsiders, especially media—some of it fabricated, distorted, or untruthful.

¶ 04 On 08 June 2026, a journalist identifying himself as Sampath Dissanayake from BBC Sinhala called me about the 05 June Caucus proceedings. I informed him the proceedings were confidential and participants were advised not to disclose information. He stated multiple attendees had discussed the proceedings with outsiders but refused to identify any single informant.

¶ 05 On 08 June 2026, “BBC News Sinhala” published an article containing untruthful reports about the Caucus proceedings, portraying the Members and the proceedings negatively. Despite being told of the confidentiality in the child’s best interest, the journalist relied on unverified, malicious information undermining the proceedings. I table that article for the Hon. Speaker’s reference.

¶ 06 The article reduces the proceedings to gossip and unreliable narrations, undermining the Caucus and women’s political representation in Parliament.

¶ 07 What is more concerning is the blatant disregard for confidentiality by State officials, even when requested to refrain from engaging with outsiders regarding a child-related case in Parliament. Misrepresenting the proceedings constitutes not only a breach of Parliamentary Privileges but also irresponsible conduct in a high-profile child abuse matter, willfully sabotaging the child’s protection.

¶ 08 Therefore, I request that this article published on 08 June 2026 on “BBC News Sinhala” be referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, as Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Part A of the Schedule to the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act have been breached.

¶ 09 Further, due to ensuing debate, I wish to record specific false statements attributed to me in that article: - It is false that I stated the NCPA Director (Legal Enforcement) criticized police investigations and demotivated investigating officers. - It is false that I said there was no failure to arrest a suspect within a month. - It is false that I questioned on what basis the NCPA Director (Legal Enforcement) asked why the police were being forced to act. - It is false that I claimed the Government and Police armed YouTubers to spread false perceptions on social media while the official media remained silent.

¶ 10 I also note a statement issued on 10.06.2026 by the Free Media Movement quoting the BBC Sinhala site to say I proposed invoking Parliamentary Privileges against those who disclose information to the media. Yes, we clearly stated at that meeting: this concerns a child; therefore, confidentiality must be protected. Our purpose was solely to safeguard the child’s interests. We have never raised Privilege to shield ourselves from criticism. All have a duty to protect confidentiality in child matters, especially State officials. We engaged them with the expectation they would act accordingly. We express grave regret if that confidentiality is breached. Thank you for the time, Hon. Deputy Speaker.