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

¶ 01 Thank you, Hon. Presiding Member.

¶ 02 We are debating an Adjournment Motion by the Opposition on alleged irregularities in the coal tender. Frankly, there is little left to say after the Minister’s clear explanation of the process. The Opposition has brought a narrative, not facts. Where exactly is the fraud? What in the tender process was improper? Which entity was barred from participating? Did anyone appeal? There is nothing specific—only a story that because the coal was substandard, there must be fraud.

¶ 03 In the past too, coal shipments were rejected for quality. That did not happen only under the NPP Government or Minister Kumara Jayakody; it also happened under the Opposition’s governments. We are not saying that every time a vessel was rejected in your time it was due to fraud. Rejection can happen within the process. We do not mine coal domestically; we must import. Therefore, we ensure safeguards in procurement to recover any loss—penalty clauses. If a supplier cannot meet specifications, the Government levies penalties. Why is the Opposition complicating a straightforward matter?

¶ 04 The only specific allegation today was from MP Marikkar—that monies related to this transaction were deposited into the account of the mother of the Minister’s wife. That is a grave allegation. We, too, are concerned. He must come and say what account and how much. That is the Opposition’s responsibility. But he spoke and left, and is still absent as the debate ends. If such an account exists and details cannot be presented here, at least provide them to the Bribery Commission. What is this charade? By such theatrics, who will take the Opposition seriously?

¶ 05 Another point must be clarified. This is a USD 150 million coal tender—large sums accrue to the supplier. In the energy sector there have long been issues across successive governments; due to irregularities, electricity tariffs have risen. The responsibility now is to resolve procurement issues—bring transparency, secure the lowest price without loss to the State—hence we use a proper procurement process. Yet, what do these MPs do? No one has challenged the procurement in court; no appeals were filed. Instead, they come here.

¶ 06 As the Minister said, earlier, supplies were given according to politicians’ whims, not through tenders—tenders cancelled and awarded via Cabinet Papers. In tendering, the selection of supplier must occur within the tender process; not by a Cabinet Paper tailored to give the Minister’s preferred supplier the award. That is where commissions existed. Even for 2023–2024, a Cabinet Paper was taken to give to someone other than the selected tenderer. That is the Minister’s decision under that old practice. Then they point fingers at us for conducting a proper procurement.

¶ 07 What we must understand is this: in recent years, under Cabinet Papers—i.e., a Minister’s preference—there was a supplier. Now that supplier has lost a USD 150 million tender. Is that why former Ministers and MPs are speaking here? Are their representatives present?

¶ 08 What damage does this cause to democracy and public discourse?