The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, our Minister of Justice spoke of 500 files. Not a single one has led to a trial or conviction yet. The convictions you see today relate to cases filed during the 2016 Yahapalana period—investigations done, arrests made, indictments filed then. If there are results today, they flow from those cases. Many were delayed, yes. So when the Minister speaks of “500 files,” it creates a wrong impression. He should be here to listen. Before he came to this House with new amendments, we on this side fought for them. When we came to power, we created the Permanent High Court at Bar against serious corruption, amended laws, and filed cases against powerful, corrupt figures—regardless of party. Those who believe such individuals must never again hold power still exist today. If you truly oppose corruption, there is no divide between us.

¶ 02 We fought against the coal scam. Yet the CIABOC complaint on coal has not been heard to date. Likewise, the complaint by Hon. Mujibur Rahuman regarding the emergency procurement audio has not been heard to date. If you are genuinely against corruption, the ordinary law must operate. When the President appointed a commission on coal, we submitted written and digital evidence and are ready to assist, including through counsel. Talking against corruption is not enough; we acted.

¶ 03 Hon. Presiding Member, why do we need Emergency Regulations to uphold the Rule of Law now? ERs are for when ordinary law is insufficient. What obstacle exists today to maintaining law and order under the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure? The Minister did not explain. We have protested against unnecessary ERs before—Hon. Sunil Watagala and I stood in such lines. ERs are necessary only when ordinary law fails.

¶ 04 During Cyclone “Ditva,” we were the first to say ERs were needed. But why extend them now? I trust Hon. Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala will address this. Minister, please clarify in which sectors and for what functions these ERs are now required, and what incidents have occurred in this period necessitating them.

¶ 05 Another matter: to uphold the Rule of Law we need an independent judiciary. Today there are eight vacancies across the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, some unfilled for six months. Can the President regularize this? The appointments process must begin so the Constitutional Council may consider suitability. Why are these vacancies not filled? Senior judges are retiring without elevation. Why? This undermines efficiency and worsens delays—creating a deep problem.

¶ 06 Finally, no judge has asked to increase the retirement age. There is no public mandate for it, and no member of either side has requested it. Yet you bring a constitutional amendment to grant currently serving judges an extra two years—raising from 63 to 65, and 65 to 67. If you wish to change retirement ages, amend the Constitution broadly for all posts. Doing this selectively is a blatant reversal of democratic norms.

¶ 07 Thank you.