The Hon. Bhagya Sri Herath, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, thank you for giving me this opportunity.

¶ 02 Today we are debating amendments to the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the Judicature Act. I am pleased to join this debate. I expected the previous speaker to address these matters but that did not happen. Therefore, I will begin by outlining the Opposition’s position and drawing attention to what the previous speaker stated.

¶ 03 The Opposition’s position is that these amendments are good, and we agree to them. There is no need to re-litigate whether they are good or bad. Accepting that they are good, we must ask why such sound reforms did not come earlier and why we waited so long. Nevertheless, we welcome that they are now being brought.

¶ 04 What will these amendments achieve? For a long time our country was shackled by various traffickers, with narcotics networks intertwined with politics and other institutions. We have consistently said that beyond the political class on top, there existed a parallel criminal state tied to drug trafficking and other illegal rackets. We said the political links at the highest levels to drug traffickers must end. That is the mandate the people gave us.

¶ 05 History is clear: in the past, when law enforcement went to take into custody or search a person suspected for narcotics, a state leader would intervene to shield such individuals. We became a country where drug containers were found in private residences. That corrupt power was what prevailed. Internationally, too, our country was portrayed as a hub for drug traffickers. Accordingly, amendments to the Judicature Act and to the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance are brought so that not only within our territory but also beyond into the high seas we can interdict, prosecute and adjudicate these offences. We in the Opposition are happy to support this.

¶ 06 During the debate, a Member suggested that under the Maintenance Act a mother seeking maintenance cannot request a DNA test if paternity is denied, leaving her helpless. People should not be misled. If a child’s paternity is denied, one can go to court and seek a DNA test; there is no bar. If the putative father refuses, the Evidence Ordinance section 114 allows the court to draw an adverse inference. Maintenance proceedings can then proceed. My clarification is as a lawyer so the public is accurately informed.

¶ 07 It was also said that amendments are pointless because the police fear criminals and traffickers. Yes, there was a time our police were afraid—not of drug traffickers per se, but of the political authority that protected them. Pressure on police came from political power, not traffickers alone. That era of fear is over. We know there are good, capable, honourable officers who even dared to enter powerful politicians’ homes when there was suspicion. Although politics once diverted their efforts, today officials, the public, and we in government stand on one side. Officers are now acting with backbone. Some bad elements may still exist; cleaning a system long corrupted cannot be done overnight. The message of this government is clear: there is no space for corruption and crime. Officials are united to rebuild this country.

¶ 08 Passing laws alone will not end drugs. The Opposition said laws are futile because “stuff” is everywhere. We say those addicted must be seen not only as offenders but also as patients needing help. While we enforce the law against traffickers, we must rehabilitate those dependent. We are establishing rehabilitation centres and broader programs to give addicts a path to recovery.

¶ 09 We have lacked sustained programs to uplift sports and positive alternatives. Alongside interdiction, we are investing in sports infrastructure, rehabilitation facilities such as those at Mihintale, and opening public spaces weekly for sports—interlinked efforts to reduce demand.

¶ 10 To the Opposition factions that dragged the country down in this world and now posture as saviours: we will rebuild this nation not only by law but also by ethics and example. If you cannot at least agree, then refrain from obstructing. I conclude with thanks for the opportunity.