The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Mr. Presiding Member, yesterday twenty Members sought, under Standing Order 19, to move an urgent motion on the grave war-related developments between Israel and Iran affecting Sri Lanka and the world. I was among the twenty; as Chief Organizer of the Opposition I submitted the motion in writing. The Opposition Leader and Chief Organizer came to the House by 3.30 p.m. I too was here in the morning, attended the Constitutional Council at noon, and then briefly left, intending to return by 3.30 p.m.

¶ 02 Unexpectedly, I met with a minor accident. Normally, it is nothing to even mention, but when I arrived at 3.30 p.m., my name had been called to move the motion. That is correct; as the mover, I should have commenced the debate, and the sitting was suspended. I then entered the Chamber, met the Opposition Leader and Government Members. I will not delve into technicalities of Standing Order 42, since the Hon. Justice Minister has spoken. I will simply say: may no Member suffer even a minor mishap; may all be able to arrive in time. Everyone has bad days.

¶ 03 I do not agree with some technical positions taken, but I express my strong regret that the debate did not take place.

¶ 04 Hon. Justice Minister, today’s debate is on anti-corruption. You know that in 2018 the good governance administration initiated these anti-corruption investigations. To expedite trials—since ordinary criminal trials take long—Parliament, following recommendations of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Legal (Anti-Corruption) and Media, amended the Judicature Act and established the three‑judge High Court for anti-corruption (the Permanent High Court at Bar). The first such court was established near the Law College. Two more were envisaged and benches appointed. But after the 2019 Presidential Election, when a defendant in those cases became President, the court’s activities were affected. One case from that era—the case in which Mahindananda Aluthgamage and another former minister were convicted—proceeded, but continuity suffered.

¶ 05 This government has been in power for seven months, yet no new cases have been assigned to the anti-corruption three‑judge courts. I urge you to reactivate them. The original plan was three courts with one appeal to the Supreme Court, enabling day‑to‑day trials. Only then will results be achieved; otherwise cases drag for years. Even the Aluthgamage case, ultimately convicted, lost day‑to‑day momentum and took years.

¶ 06 I was among those who went to the Supreme Court as a private petitioner to defend this law when the then government sought to undermine it—Hon. Iran Wickramaratne and Hon. Harsha de Silva were also petitioners. Therefore, please prioritize anti‑corruption prosecutions by assigning concluded investigations with indictments to a permanent three‑judge High Court to secure swift outcomes.

¶ 07 I also raised last week a serious issue about abuses in granting Presidential pardons. Because the President is responsible for pardons, I criticized him then. He has since called for a police investigation. It has emerged that under “General Pardons” for Christmas, Sinhala New Year, and Vesak, persons not eligible were released. The Prisons Commissioner and the Department Head are now in remand. If they committed wrongdoing, punishment is fine. But here is the key concern: individuals who were unlawfully released—effectively “escaped” not over the wall but through the gate with officials’ help—have not been arrested. If people who jump over the wall are arrested, why not those who “walked out” unlawfully using the gate? The government says this wrongdoing recurred since last Christmas, and an inquiry started then has not concluded after six months. What is this efficiency?

¶ 08 Hon. Minister, I ask sincerely, lawyer to lawyer: Why are the unlawfully released prisoners not in custody? What is the legal position?

¶ 09 Thank you.