The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law - Minister of Justice and National Integration

¶ 01 Mr. Presiding Member, thank you for giving me this opportunity.

¶ 02 Today we are debating the report prepared by the National Audit Office dated 07 April 2025, namely the Special Audit Report on the advance payments for the importation of 15,000 dairy cows under Step 11 of Phase III of the Dairy Cattle Importation Project. This matter was previously discussed at COPE, and numerous observations were made.

¶ 03 We know clearly that the people of this country have shown strong opposition to fraud and corruption. Looking at recent elections, the people asked the National People’s Power government for one thing: not cheap food or fuel, but swift action against fraudsters and the corrupt, and to bring them before court as soon as possible.

¶ 04 According to this audit report and from speeches by my colleague Hon. (Dr.) Nishantha Samaraweera and other Hon. Members, it is apparent that nearly Rs. 21 billion of public funds were disbursed, yet not a single successful project or even a productive dairy cow outcome can be shown. What does this demonstrate? It shows a political leadership that treated public revenue as personal wealth, indulging themselves for years. That is why, in past instances, when former ministers were punished for corruption, courts imposed heavy sentences and justified them, noting that such conduct contributed to the country’s economic crisis and must be visibly deterred.

¶ 05 We must understand that the people will no longer tolerate such fraud and corruption. Conditions that allow such conduct must change. However, in practice, when investigating and prosecuting these cases, state institutions must repeatedly structure and restructure their processes. Many citizens criticize our government not out of hatred but asking, “Why aren’t you doing this quickly?” Our answer is: the responsibility and desire to bring these corrupt elements before court is ours more than anyone’s; but if we do not follow the proper procedure, they will all be acquitted. Therefore, we must proceed patiently, methodically, and lawfully, though I understand why the public is agitated—because they see YouTube videos and hear claims and ask, “If that’s true, why aren’t you filing cases?”

¶ 06 A criminal complaint must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence must conform to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Ordinance. I urge those influenced by online commentary to look carefully: many commentators do not speak of matters they personally witnessed or have first-hand knowledge of, but of hearsay. There may be some truth in the seed of those claims, but to present admissible evidence in court, proper investigation is required. When we say “investigation,” people accuse us of stalling. I don’t blame them; legal education in our country is limited. Research shows English-speakers have better general legal awareness, while Sinhala and Tamil speakers have much less.

¶ 07 We often say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but even at O/L or A/L we do not teach basic, practical legal literacy. In other countries, these basics are taught in school. I am pleased to say, with support from the Ministry of Justice, we are discussing a JURE Project to raise public legal awareness nationwide. We believe this will help mitigate some of these problems.

¶ 08 Another thread today has been grievance over provincial council power formation. There have been arguments about holding or not holding secret ballots. If these need to be argued, go to court; that is the proper forum.

¶ 09 Regarding foreign issues like Israel and Iran, as humans and citizens we are horrified by the situation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated our position. No citizen doubts we understand right and wrong, but in this House we must be sensitive and recognize the right to life of all peoples and the horrors of war, while focusing here on governing this country. The Opposition requested time for a debate yesterday, and we agreed. There is a process under Standing Order 40. However, when it came time to move the motion in the evening, the relevant MP was not present or had not properly delegated in writing. Minister Bimal Rathnayake explained this. If it was that important and the Opposition agitated for it since morning, at minimum the mover should have been present at the appointed time. In court, if counsel cannot attend, a junior appears to seek a postponement. When moving a special motion—akin to seeking the court’s valuable time—professional ethics dictate you must be present. The Government side committed no unfairness and broke no tradition.

¶ 10 On COPE: People say they watch live, they see “thieves,” but then no cases are filed. The issue is procedural. COPE hears statements, not sworn evidence. Matters surfacing at COPE may disclose Penal Code offences, Bribery Act offences, or other offences, but COPE lacks a built-in mechanism to convert those into prosecutable evidence. We need mechanisms to record evidence, take statements from complainants, and maintain Q&A records in a manner supporting prosecution. A COPE report alone is insufficient as it is not on oath or tested evidence, though it is an excellent starting point. Currently COPE can refer reports to the Attorney General (AG). There is no issue with that.

¶ 11 To make this effective, we can attach technical support to COPE—designate an observer from the AG’s Department, an investigator from Police, and an officer from CIABOC to attend. Then, when legal interpretation is needed, COPE can obtain it in real time, and the committee can form a preliminary view whether a revealed wrong is under the Penal Code, the Bribery Act, or otherwise, enabling direct referral from Parliament to the proper authority and reducing delay. The true problem is not a legal bar but a lack of structured process previously. We will discuss with the relevant departments and put “teeth” into this process.

¶ 12 To public servants: our issue is not with you. Our inquiries are not to hunt civil servants, but to identify politicians who, by abusing power and subjecting officers to duress, compelled unlawful acts. Officers should now feel safe to tell the truth. Even if delayed due to fear, the law recognizes such circumstances; credible explanations for late complaints can be accepted. If any public servant is still “doing deals” with old thieves, hire lawyers—you will be caught. We will expel thieves from this country.

¶ 13 Thank you, Mr. Presiding Member.