The Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

¶ 02 Although today’s debate is on the Rescue, Rehabilitation and Insolvency (Corporate and Personal) Bill, I will respond to the Opposition’s comments on the Treasury transaction and the sensitive death associated with a Treasury officer. Yesterday, 20 Opposition MPs demanded and held a debate. We asked then for minimum decency, considering the family’s grief. Instead, Hon. Mujibur Rahuman made many false statements.

¶ 03 Let me explain the process. Not every death warrants a post-mortem. Where there is suspicion, unknown cause, or required by law, a post-mortem is ordered. In this case, due to sensitivity, the police requested the Kuliyapitiya Magistrate to order a panel post-mortem rather than by a single JMO. Accordingly, the Magistrate wrote to the Director General of Health Services. I table that letter.

¶ 04 In response, the DGHS, Dr. Asela Gunawardena, properly appointed a panel. The DGHS letter states “died under suspicious circumstances.” That phrasing is standard; it does not mean the wife went and made a police complaint as claimed. If the wife had complained, it would be to the police in the normal course, but do not twist these documents to claim something else.

¶ 05 Four consultant JMOs—from Kuliyapitiya, Kurunegala, Nikaweratiya and Anuradhapura—were appointed to conduct the post-mortem. There is a proper sequence: preliminary interviews with family and witnesses, crime scene examination, and then the autopsy. Do not exploit public unfamiliarity with forensic procedure to spread lies. If what I say is wrong, produce contrary evidence today.

¶ 06 Let us await the post-mortem report and then discuss. Do not play with people’s lives and deaths for politics. This Parliament deserves better. Thank you.