The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I am pleased to speak while you are in the Chair. Looking at the Opposition’s accusations, I recall yesterday’s gas tender debate—again the lowest evaluated bid principle applied. Likewise for coal.

¶ 02 We have improved political culture: after a year in office we still used an open tender, unlike in the past when Cabinet papers drove everything. Even with a strong two‑thirds majority, we adhered to tender procedures. Technical issues can arise—in gas and here—and we address them. This is not the “first ever” incident under an NPP Government; similar matters occurred under previous administrations too.

¶ 03 Today’s motion itself contains an error: it claims a requirement of 12.32 million metric tonnes for 2025–2026 at Lakvijaya; typical annual volumes are about 1.5–2.25 million tonnes. Yet we debate a motion with wrong figures.

¶ 04 The mover also swore money was sent to the Minister’s mother’s account—naming Homagama branch—and brandished papers, like past claims about MPs’ vehicle permits. We never denied taking permits; we did not sell them. He challenged us to reveal bank details, then disappeared from the Chamber.

¶ 05 He also said the Minister had been “found guilty” by a court. I asked for the case number—none was provided. He claimed a complaint to the CIABOC and alleged “pressure” to stop it. We are the first to breathe life into the 21st Amendment; we do not interfere. Say outside this House that we interfered, and prove it.

¶ 06 Law and order processes are proceeding equally for all—through CIABOC, the Attorney‑General’s Department, and the CID. Previously, political figures summoned investigators to their homes; today, the law is equal to all. For example, notices have been issued to appear before the CID in matters relating to well‑known accounts; even top leaders have appeared before CIABOC. This is a political transformation.

¶ 07 On the tender itself, there is a technical matter; the Minister has clarified it. Any liquidated damages are levied on the supplier, not on our Minister, and there is no adverse court decision against him.

¶ 08 Thank you.