The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law - Minister of Justice and National Integration
The Minister justified extending the state of Emergency under the Public Security Ordinance, citing ongoing relief and resettlement needs after the “Ditwah” cyclone and possible fuel supply disruptions arising from instability in the Middle East. He argued that emergency powers had been used only to deliver essential services and not to detain, suppress dissent, or restrict media freedom. He rejected Opposition claims of interference with judicial independence, stating that corruption investigations and prosecutions proceed through an independent judiciary and that the Government is committed to equal application of the law.
Verbatim record (translated)
Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, I join this legal debate on extending the state of Emergency. Why are we compelled, repeatedly, to extend Emergency? Following the “Ditwah” cyclone disaster, normal administration was disrupted; people urgently needed relief; and a Commissioner of Essential Services had to be appointed. Though “Ditwah” fades into memory, we are still providing relief, building houses, and moving people out of shelters and protection camps. Under these conditions, the Public Security Ordinance is necessary to resolve issues promptly.
¶ 02 We also know the situation in the Middle East. Global supply chains, especially fuel, have been affected. If a national emergency arises in fuel acquisition or distribution, we need the Emergency provisions to manage it. The Middle East war’s outcome remains uncertain; fuel prices fluctuate daily on statements from the US or Iran or fears of reignited conflict. This directly impacts our energy costs — petrol and gas. In such a scenario, to manage any emergency, this law is necessary.
¶ 03 Despite numerous crises, our Government has delivered timely relief. Unlike countries where petrol sheds ran dry and gas queues formed, we managed in an orderly way due to our vision, prudent savings, and the proper use of emergency regulations.
¶ 04 I expect a vote today. Some oppose Emergency on policy grounds — that is their right. But our country has an unfortunate history: previous governments misused Emergency to suppress people and free expression. I challenge them: over the past three months under Emergency, we used it only to deliver relief to the people. We detained no one under it, nor used it to suppress anyone. Law is like a butter knife — it can spread butter or be misused to harm. It depends on the wielder’s intent. Guided by our intentions and aims, managing the Emergency yields only public good, without infringing fundamental rights or freedom of speech.
¶ 05 Recently, an international media freedom index shows that after we took office, we rose by 46 places. This indicates media freedom. The Opposition lacks policy and a message; they rely on distorting our statements on social media. People no longer believe those distortions. If we were as bad as they say, their May Day rally would have overflowed. Yet the crowds were with us. We safeguard democratic fundamentals. We have not misused the law.
¶ 06 We are fulfilling promises. They now claim we interfere with judicial independence. Do they forget how Chief Justices were attacked, ousted, and humiliated? Rocks were thrown at judges’ homes in past regimes. On what basis do they make such claims now? There is none. The issue is simple: we promised to bring wrongdoers and the corrupt before courts. After one and a half years, investigations proceed and we can prosecute. Once cases are filed, decisions are by an independent judiciary; even the Minister of Justice cannot interfere. We merely discuss cases publicly as citizens opposed to corruption — case numbers and next dates are public facts. People entrusted us with the country; they will ask what is happening with cases. The guilty know what they did; fear is theirs, not our doing.
¶ 07 Some claimed in Parliament that “orders have already been issued, so I will not hire lawyers.” Those cases have not even begun. We have not interfered. Those who did wrong are now afraid. The “bogeymen” they conjure will follow them one day because we uphold the rule of law. We do not abduct people in white vans, burn TV stations, or ban channels. We accept criticism — but patience is not weakness; it has limits. Accusing us of meddling in cases is because they know there’s no presidential pardon to save them now. The law applies equally to all.
¶ 08 In conclusion, we must extend the Emergency to deliver services to the people. We have not used it to suppress the public. Despite mudslinging, we proceed with patience, building a new political culture. Before five years are over, results will be visible and it will be clear our path was correct. Thank you for the opportunity.
Provenance
- Source
- Hansard, Thursday, 7 May 2026 ·No. 23540 ·English daily/uncorrected Hansard
- Page · column
- not yet extracted — page/column anchors are not in the current dataset; the source PDF is the citable location.
- Permalink
/lk/speeches/3588
Cite as: The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law - Minister of Justice and National Integration. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 7 May 2026. No. 23540. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/3588