The Hon. Anura Karunathilaka - Minister of Ports and Civil Aviation

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, three main issues underlie this debate: - Whether a non-registered company was awarded the coal procurement tender; - Whether the laboratory that tested the substandard coal held valid accreditation; - Whether there are mechanisms to recover financial losses due to substandard coal, and whether those losses are being passed to the public.

¶ 02 Both the Government and Opposition have repeatedly cited the Auditor-General’s Report. It is fairest to rely on that document.

¶ 03 On the first point—award to a non-registered company—Opposition Members refer to p. 102, para. 6.1.3, which notes that by 18 August 2025 (the bid-calling date) a certain supplier had not paid the USD 5,000 registration fee. However, the same Report records (p. 4868), I quote: “LCC mentioned that recently approved coal suppliers are still in the process of registering by making payment of USD 5000. SHLPC informed the LCC to inform them that any coal supplier will not be eligible for bidding without being registered by paying USD 5000 before the submission of the bid.” I emphasize: before submission of the bid. Therefore, if the fee was paid and registration completed before bid submission, it was sufficient. This was the decision of the High Procurement Committee—comprised of senior public officials: the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment as Chair, and members including Udayanga Hemapala, Dilrukshi, Kalansuriya, and Edirisuriya—not politicians or their agents. Hence, the recurring claim that the tender was awarded to a non-registered company is false; the motion built on that premise is also flawed.

¶ 04 On political involvement: at no point did politicians, including the subject Minister, intervene in the procurement workflow. Thus, lodging corruption charges against the Minister on this basis is unjustified.

¶ 05 On accreditation: the testing was done as per clause 3.5.1 of the procurement contract—two split samples during loading, tested under an independent inspector. The supplier was Trident Chemphar. From their three proposed labs, Mitra SK – South Africa was selected. The Sri Lankan High Commission in South Africa confirmed on 2025.12.08 that Mitra SK – South Africa is a laboratory facility under SANAS accreditation. It was therefore incorrect to allege testing was done without accreditation.

¶ 06 However, Mitra SK – South Africa’s scope does not cover analysis of coal composition parameters such as volatile matter. Therefore, for composition and volatile matter, PT Mitra SK Analisa Testama Samarinda in Indonesia was proposed. On 2025.12.12, the Sri Lankan Consulate in Indonesia certified that the Indonesian lab held accreditation for the relevant tests. Thus, both the “non-registered award” and “no accredited labs” arguments are baseless.

¶ 07 Hon. Ajith P. Perera: May I raise a point on accreditation? The Auditor-General (2026.04.02, p. 102 §6.1.1 onward; p. 103 §6.2.3 onward) concluded accreditation was absent and prior accreditations had lapsed on 31 December. Are you challenging the Auditor-General? On what basis?

¶ 08 Hon. Anura Karunathilaka: I am basing myself on the Auditor-General’s Report itself, which notes the 2025.12.12 certification by the Sri Lankan Mission in Indonesia. Do not mislead the House; these facts are clearly recorded. How can it be said “no accreditation” in the face of these diplomatic certifications?

¶ 09 Falsehoods have short lives; truth will prevail even today within this House.

¶ 10 On quality deviations: substandard coal deliveries are not unprecedented. Contracts explicitly stipulate remedies for off-spec deliveries. The Auditor-General’s Report (see p. 37, Table 14) details the steps and penalties applicable when specifications for parameters such as gross calorific value, sulphur, ash, and moisture deviate, and how penalties are computed.

¶ 11 We have already sought and are obtaining confirmatory quality results. Additionally, samples from load and discharge are being tested; and we have sent third-party samples to Bureau Veritas—an internationally reputed Australian-linked firm—for further verification. Those engaged in corrupt deals do not submit third-party samples to independent global labs.

¶ 12 Because neither the Ministry nor LCC intervened to protect wrongdoing, we have without hesitation escalated to independent verification. We have already withheld Rs. 9.6 billion in payments to suppliers and expect to withhold more, ensuring losses from substandard coal are recovered under the contract and not passed to the people. As a Government committed to combating corruption, we will not shield any wrongdoer. With that assurance, I conclude. Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker.