The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake
Argues that while Keheliya Rambukwella’s case may be a relevant comparison because actions were taken under a specific Act, it differs from Minister Jayakody’s case. He states that Keheliya allegedly altered or undermined procedures for the purpose of theft, whereas Jayakody neither intended wrongdoing nor changed the established process.
Verbatim record (translated)
Machine-translated from Sinhala / Tamil / English¶ 01 Yes, it can apply to Keheliya too; fair point. But we must examine Keheliya’s process—he brought it under a certain Act; that is your valid example. Let us compare Keheliya’s case with Jayakody’s. Keheliya dismantled process for theft—his aim was theft. Minister Jayakody neither had that intent nor altered the process.
Provenance
- Source
- Hansard, Friday, 10 April 2026 ·No. 23479 ·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/6176
Cite as: The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake. 10th Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka. Hansard, 10 April 2026. No. 23479. Politick, https://staging.politick.io/lk/speeches/6176