The Hon. Mujibur Rahuman

¶ 01 Further, in the coal tender there are conditions. One is that if substandard (low-quality) coal is supplied, the agreement can be cancelled. It is now confirmed that all eight vessels brought low-quality coal. Another is that if delivery is late, the agreement can be cancelled. So two key conditions were breached: all eight vessels had low-quality coal, and deliveries were late. Why then wasn’t the agreement cancelled? Is it because the deal was sealed and cannot be undone? Why can’t it be terminated when two core conditions were violated?

¶ 02 You talk about transparency and the rule of law; that nothing will be done outside the law. If two fundamental conditions have been breached, you can cancel the contract; it says so. Why isn’t it being cancelled? That is why we ask questions. Don’t get angry—give logical answers. Even the Government’s Media Spokesman, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa, accepted at the press briefing that the coal brought by all the vessels was substandard; the Government has accepted that. Is anyone here now saying the eight vessels did not bring low-quality coal? No. So all accept it was substandard. If so, the agreement can be cancelled. Your spokesman said last week penalties would be imposed. Penalties are imposed for substandard supply; otherwise there is no penalty. Now the CEB says all eight vessels failed. I have the CEB report. It says as at today the loss is Rs. 7.6 billion. Who will pay that loss?

¶ 03 Now the 9th vessel has arrived; its coal is not yet discharged. Another 20 vessels are due. If substandard coal keeps coming, the loss will grow by billions. To recover this, you have moved to increase electricity tariffs by 13%. That burden is on the people. You won’t pay it; the Ministers won’t bear it; the Cabinet Ministers who approved won’t share it. Will those Ministers who approved in Cabinet pay the loss? No. The Treasury won’t either. Instead, the loss is added to people’s electricity bills and recovered from them. Since it’s being charged from us, we must speak. If Ministers paid it, we would stay quiet. We are not here to defend anyone; we are here because people will have to pay.

¶ 04 This company is blacklisted in another transaction. We all know that. The tender conditions were framed to let this company win, though they lacked capacity to supply the required advance stock of 1 million metric tons. Why award to a company with less capacity? That is the question.

¶ 05 Why give a coal tender to a company that had not supplied coal before and lacked capacity? That is where suspicion arises. Because it was awarded thus, we now face issues. When we raise questions, you say there is no problem. If there were no problem, we would not have a Rs. 7,000 million-plus loss.