Columns

• Explosive findings in committee report raise serious questions about national security
• Customs has released containers without inspection on 13 occasions since mid 2024, report finds
•  Two committee members’ reservations dilute the impact of report
•   Main opposition SJB sees political hand in container release scandal
•  Ranil’s efforts bear fruit, as Lanka connects with Starlink
•  Yet another commission to probe into activities of SriLankan Airlines

By our Political Desk

The release of more than 300 high-risk “red”-labelled containers from the Colombo Port without subjecting them to mandatory physical inspection by Customs was the first major scandal to hit the National People’s Power (NPP) Government. The release of the containers, which occurred in January as authorities struggled to clear a massive backlog of containers held up at the port, raised a number of serious questions, including what was actually in those containers, who authorised their release, and who the containers belonged to. Six months later, it continues to haunt the NPP government, with the release of an investigation committee’s report raising even more questions regarding the entire saga.

Revelations that a large consignment of red-labelled containers had been released on January 17 and 18 without subjecting them to a physical inspection were first exposed by unions representing Customs officials. On January 20, the Customs Trade Union Alliance wrote to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake accusing the Customs Director General of releasing the containers in violation of risk management criteria while using the container congestion at the port as cover. The matter was subsequently picked up by the media and opposition politicians.

Committee report faults Customs

A four-member committee, headed by Deputy Treasury Secretary A.K. Seneviratne, was appointed by then Treasury Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana on January 30 to inquire into the incident. After an investigation lasting nearly four months, the committee’s report observes that 309 containers, including red-labelled containers (rather than the 323 as originally claimed), had been released without subjecting them to physical inspection. It notes that the release of these 309 containers without subjecting them to a physical inspection exceeds the general discretionary authority vested with the Customs Director General under the Customs Ordinance.

Other observations made in the report state that the process whereby the containers were released violates the law, as well as accepted procedures and systems. It has also been observed that the release of high-risk containers without physical inspection could have negative consequences on state revenue, national security and public health. The investigation committee has further questioned whether the release of the containers truly contributed to easing the container congestion at the port, adding that officials of the committee appointed for the purpose of clearing containers had not functioned transparently or within the limits of their delegated responsibilities. The prevailing Risk Management System (RMS) guiding the release of containers also does not accurately reflect the actual risk, the investigation committee has found.

The report has gone into extensive detail regarding issues it has identified in the process of clearing containers from the port. Following are some of the key areas that it has highlighted:

According to the mechanism currently being used by Sri Lanka Customs to clear containers from the port, the RMS labels all containers into three distinct categories under three colours. These are red, amber and green. Those labelled red are subjected to both a scan and a physical inspection, while containers labelled amber are subjected to a sample inspection and/or scan. Containers with the green label are not subjected to a physical inspection or a scan and are released subject to verification of documentation.

The Colombo port container flow: Report says the release of red-labelled containers in January was a violation of the Customs Ordinance and accepted procedures and systems

To ease container congestion that affected the port from July 2024, the senior management of Customs had decided to appoint a committee to oversee the release of containers. This committee was given the authority to release consignments classified as ‘Red’ under the RMS without physical inspection but following a scan examination.

The investigation committee, though, has made several observations regarding how this committee of Customs officials had deviated from its mandate and criteria when releasing the consignment of 309 containers on January 18, 2025. The report notes that the committee was only authorised to reroute and clear red-labelled consignments, yet it proceeded to release 158 consignments classified as ‘yellow,’ which was beyond its scope of authority. Meanwhile, of the 151 ‘Red’ consignments, 37 were released without being scanned, despite the protocol mandating scan inspections as a minimum requirement before bypassing physical inspection. This omission meant that the minimum risk confirmation—that no suspicious or prohibited goods were contained—could not be established. Even among the 114 scanned ‘Red’ consignments, notes by the scan officers indicated the presence of ‘density variations’ and a mixture of goods. As such, given uncertainties regarding the contents and quantities found in some of those containers, the officers had recommended further investigation through a physical inspection. These recommendations had been ignored.

Accordingly, the failure to scan 37 of the red-labelled containers and the uncertainty surrounding the goods in some of the 114 containers that were subjected to scanning mean there are doubts regarding the nature and size of the goods in the 151 red-labelled containers that were released. As such, the committee has observed a serious risk regarding the red-labelled containers that were released without a physical inspection.

The Customs committee’s decisions were made based on their professional judgement, yet no documented risk assessment was provided to justify the release of each consignment. The investigation committee points out that this absence of formal, recorded criteria creates serious doubts about the transparency and accountability of the release process and limits the ability for a post-clearance audit.

High-risk containers released sans inspection since mid-2024

It has also been revealed that prior to the January 18 operation, the same committee met 13 times, releasing a total of 2,218 consignments, including 999 red-flagged and 1,219 yellow-flagged consignments without physical inspection since July 2024. Therefore, this process was not a one-off occurrence limited to January 18, 2025, but rather a continuing practice initiated mid-2024.

Had post-clearance audits been conducted on these earlier consignments, and elevated risks identified, the committee’s subsequent decisions—including the January 18 release of 309 consignments—could have been reassessed, with additional controls introduced to minimise future risks, the report points out.

Although the investigation committee had been notified in writing that the consignment of the 309 containers had been referred for post-clearance audit, no report on any risks identified was made available to the committee.

The stated purpose of releasing consignments without inspection was to reduce port congestion. For this goal to be achieved, the released consignments must be physically removed from the port immediately. However, the investigation committee did not find any evidence that the consignments were actually cleared from the port immediately once clearance was granted on January 18. Some of the containers had remained inside the port even two days after they were officially cleared. If the consignments remained in the port post-release, the entire justification for bypassing the Risk Management System (RMS)—i.e., the alleviation of port congestion—is invalidated.

The then President Ranil Wickremesinghe meeting billionaire businessman Elon Musk in May last year on the sidelines of a global conference he attended in Bali

On the other hand, two of the containers had been cleared from the port on January 17, before the committee had even met to decide their release the following day. The investigation committee has noted this is highly problematic and has recommended an internal Customs inquiry be held to ascertain how approval was granted to release these two particular containers without a physical inspection even before the Customs committee met to decide on their release.

It has been observed that, among the 309 containers released on January 18, 2025 without physical inspection under the supervision of the aforementioned committee, 65 belonged to importers who were also involved in at least one of the 13 previous instances of container releases. “Accordingly, the repeated selection of containers belonging to certain importers for release without physical inspection raises the question of whether this occurred randomly or whether special favouritism was shown towards these importers,” the report states. There is, however, insufficient information to confirm either scenario. Furthermore, the committee responsible for releasing the containers has not clearly stated the specific criteria or basis on which these containers were selected for release.

The investigation committee’s report reveals that it was not provided with importers’ prior compliance histories related to the 309 consignments released without inspection. Thus, there was no documented basis to verify whether these importers had a track record of violations.

According to the report, available data reveal that the alleged congestion in 2024 and early 2025 was not solely due to increased import volumes. Average monthly clearances ranged between 800 and 1,500 containers from Grayline yards and 7,000 and 10,000 containers from Rank Container Terminal (RCT). Artificial backlogs had been created owing to a number of factors, including administrative inaction and professional disputes within the Customs Department. The investigation committee observes that these matters could have been rectified through normal Customs administration, rather than adopting a high-risk method that saw the appointment of a committee to clear red-labelled containers.

The investigation committee has added that given the release of red-labelled containers on 13 previous occasions, importers appear to have been aware that, during times of real or artificially created port congestion, even high-risk containers marked ‘Red’ could be cleared without physical inspection through this committee-driven process.

Given this awareness, importers previously flagged by the Risk Management System (RMS) for Customs infractions may have exploited this committee-based clearance procedure deliberately for illicit purposes. Since the committee consists of four officers who are authorised to make decisions based on their discretion, there is a strong possibility that such importers could have cleared prohibited or undeclared goods by gaining the approval of one or more committee members, bypassing physical inspection, the report claims.

The investigation committee has accordingly recommended suspending the current clearance method where a committee decides on the release of containers, conducting a post-audit to assess economic losses and irregularities arising from the questionable release of consignments, directly exchanging information with importers, using AI technology for scanning consignments, and conducting a forensic audit of the released consignments. The committee also recommends an internal investigation and appropriate disciplinary action against officers who ignored recommendations to conduct further investigations into 114 of the 151 red-labelled containers that were subjected to scanning, leading to revelations of there being uncertainties regarding the contents and quantities found in some of those containers.

Differences among committee members over final report

It must, however, be pointed out that not all the investigation committee members agreed with the full contents of their report.

The Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation Ministry’s Additional Secretary, E.M.S.B. Jayasundara, has noted he cannot agree with the committee’s interpretation concerning the limits of the general authority vested in the Customs Director General with regard to the management of Customs operations and the related issue that was subject to investigation. He has said it is his opinion that this matter should be clarified by a more appropriate authority.

M.K.P. Kumara, Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment Policies, meanwhile, has stated that he was not provided with a draft or earlier version of the report before its finalisation. The lack of opportunity to freely review and study the report beforehand prevented him from examining it comprehensively and thoroughly, Mr. Kumara has said, adding that even under these circumstances, he has observed certain structural issues in the report, including the use of predetermined language, unclear authorship of expressed opinions, and the absence of legal clarity regarding the interpretation of legal points.

Customs’ Senior Director General M.K.S.P. Jayawardena has noted that in compiling the report, committee members had relied on two legal judgements delivered by courts regarding the powers vested with the Director General of Customs under Section 2 of the Customs Ordinance. He has opined that the committee members compiled this report without a proper understanding of the above-mentioned judgements. Accordingly, he has stressed he does not agree with the committee report, as it was prepared without obtaining the Attorney General’s opinion regarding the interpretation of these two case rulings.

Government and Opposition reactions

Nevertheless, there is no doubt the report has identified some serious lapses on the part of Sri Lanka Customs when clearing high-risk containers from the port.

It was Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Parliamentarian Mujibur Rahman, who had been continually raising the issue of the container release, who tabled the committee’s report in Parliament during the special session held on Monday for the government to present its fiscal strategy statement. He told the Sunday Times that the government needed to come clean regarding the report and noted the government had not made the report public until he tabled it in Parliament. “They came to power promising transparency, but there is zero transparency about their actions now,” said Mr. Rahman.

The SJB MP also claimed Customs officials could not have decided to release these containers alone. “Someone in political authority would have ordered the release of these containers. Since Sri Lanka Customs is under the President, that authority lies with him. The Customs officials must reveal who in the political authority gave them the order to release the containers.”

For its part, the government has promised an inquiry. Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation Minister Bimal Rathnayake reminded journalists on Tuesday that the SJB and some others in the opposition had first pointed fingers at Western Province Governor Hanif Yusuf over the container issue. “They didn’t say a word about that even in Parliament yesterday. That is because they know those are lies. Some five months later, they accused me over the matter, saying I was the one who gave the order. They didn’t say a word about it in Parliament yesterday. They’ve been blatantly politicising the issue, and the report put paid to their lies.”

Mr. Rathnayake noted it was a government-appointed committee that had observed there were lapses on the part of Customs officials in the release of the containers. He said the President would act based on the contents of the report.

Starlink: Ranil’s initiative brings results

Meanwhile, this was a week that brought satisfaction to former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, with billionaire businessman Elon Musk’s announcement that his satellite-based high-speed, low-latency internet service Starlink was now available in Sri Lanka. As President, Mr. Wickremesinghe had a meeting with Elon Musk in Bali, Indonesia, in May last year on the sidelines of the 10th World Water Forum. During the meeting, Mr. Wickremesinghe appealed to Mr. Musk to make Starlink available in Sri Lanka as soon as possible. The meeting was also attended by United National Party (UNP) Deputy Leader Ruwan Wijewardene.

A wholly owned subsidiary of Elon Musk’s American aerospace company SpaceX, Starlink is the world’s first and largest satellite constellation using a low Earth orbit to deliver broadband internet capable of supporting streaming, online gaming, video calls, and more. The service also enables high-speed internet access to remote and rural areas where ground-based infrastructure is limited.

In a post on his X account, Mr. Wickremesinghe thanked Mr. Musk for making Starlink available in Sri Lanka. “I thank @elonmusk for enabling Starlink satellite internet access for all Sri Lankans. This marks a significant step forward in the digital transformation of our nation. I look forward to meeting Elon soon to explore further advancements for Sri Lanka’s digital future,” Mr. Wickremesinghe said.

Mr. Wickremesinghe is known to be championing new technology and played a leading role in introducing computers to Sri Lanka in 1982. As Minister of Education, he helped introduce computers to schools, marking a new chapter in the country’s education system. As Prime Minister, Mr. Wickremesinghe also helped to introduce the internet to Sri Lanka in 1993 through an agreement signed with then US Vice-President Al Gore.

Mr. Wickremesinghe would no doubt be rather amused at the way some in the NPP government are now trumpeting the availability of Starlink in Sri Lanka given how they criticised him over his meeting with Elon Musk only a year ago when the party was still in the opposition.

Deshabandu inquiry committee edges closer to final report

The probe committee headed by Supreme Court judge P.P. Surasena—appointed to investigate allegations of misconduct and abuse of power against Inspector General of Police (IGP) Deshabandu Tennakoon—edged closer to finalising its report this week by concluding oral evidence placed before it both by the respondent and the prosecution.

The committee notified both parties to submit their written submissions before 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, following which a final report would be compiled. The Sunday Times learns a report could be submitted to Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne by the end of this month.

The other members of the three-member committee are Justice W.M.N.P. Iddawala and National Police Commission Chairman Lalith Ekanayake.

A total of 28 witnesses gave evidence before the committee for the prosecution, which also presented 82 documents in relation to the case. As respondent, Mr. Tennakoon had five witnesses giving evidence on his behalf, with 17 documents also being presented.

A resolution to appoint the Committee of Inquiry for the removal of Deshabandu Tennakoon from his position as IGP due to alleged misconduct and abuse of power was passed in Parliament on April 8. The resolution handed over to the Speaker to appoint the committee had been signed by 115 NPP MPs.

The resolution provided for the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry in terms of Section 5 of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, following which the three-member committee was appointed by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris and Deputy Solicitor General Rajitha Perera represented the Attorney General’s Department at the committee, while Attorney-at-Law R.S. Weerawickrama appeared for the suspended police chief.

Mr. Tennakoon was served a charge sheet containing 22 charges, and he appeared before the committee on May 18 to give evidence. He spoke in his defence and was also cross-examined.

The 22 charges include the shooting near the W15 Hotel in Weligama on December 31, 2023, and the death of an officer from the Colombo Crime Division in the shootout there, as well as an assault at the aragalaya protest site at Galle Face Green on May 9, 2022. He also faces a charge of evading summons to appear before court in relation to the Weligama shooting incident.

Overall, Mr. Tennakoon faces charges of acts of misconduct and/or acts of gross abuse of power by which he has brought the office of the Inspector-General of Police of the country and the Police Department to disrepute and thereby committed an act unbecoming of the IGP, which amounts to an act of misconduct in terms of Section 3(d) of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, thus making him unsuitable to hold office as the IGP.

Once the committee submits its report under the provisions of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, the Speaker is required, where a finding of guilt has been arrived at, to place such finding in the form of a resolution in the Order Paper of Parliament for the removal of the holder of such office in respect of whom the inquiry was held.

Once the resolution is debated in accordance with the Standing Orders of Parliament and passed by a majority of MPs voting in favour of such resolution, the holder of office to whom such resolution relates is required to be forthwith removed from office by the President.

The Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, lays out the procedure for the removal of holders of the Office of the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police. The grounds for removal of persons holding such office include being unfit to continue in office by reason of ill health or physical or mental infirmity; being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, treason, or bribery; being found guilty of misconduct or corruption; being found guilty of gross abuse of power of his office; being found guilty of gross neglect of duty; being found guilty of gross partiality in office; or ceasing to be a citizen of Sri Lanka.

This is the first time the law enacted in 2022 is being used for the removal of a person holding office of either the AG or IGP.

Yet another committee to probe SriLankan Airlines

As part of the government’s aggressive anti-corruption drive, the Cabinet this week granted approval to establish a Special Presidential Investigation Committee to probe frauds, corruption, and irregularities that had occurred in the past within SriLankan Airlines Limited and Airport and Aviation (Sri Lanka) (Private) Limited.

“Although a contribution to the economic improvement of the country is rendered by SriLankan Airlines Limited, a greater cost has to be borne by the government to maintain it, while the annual loss of the company has been unbearable to the country’s economy. The expectation of the public is to successfully maintain this company by converting it to an economically advantageous, efficient, and productive state entity utilising the novel technology,” the official government statement announcing the Cabinet decision said. It added that to realise this objective, a thorough formal study and evaluation of the transactions and incidents should be carried out to unearth the causes that led the airline towards the current situation.

Furthermore, the government’s attention has been drawn by various parties to the need to investigate the activities of Airport and Aviation (Sri Lanka) (Private) Limited, which is responsible for airport monitoring, and the presidential committee will also be enquiring into the matter.

The government’s special presidential investigation committee will be headed by former Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe, and it will be tasked with probing alleged frauds, corruption and irregularities that occurred from 2010 to 2025 and submitting a detailed report with its recommendations.

This is not the first time that a government has appointed a committee to probe SriLankan Airlines. Former President Maithripala Sirisena appointed a commission during the Yahapalana government to inquire into allegations of large-scale fraud at SriLankan Airlines, Sri Lankan Catering, and Mihin Lanka from January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2018. The commission was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Anil Gooneratne. It interviewed at least 560 people and investigated with oral and written submissions from 150 witnesses. The commission’s Criminal Investigations Department unit recorded 853 statements from 341 persons.

The commission’s extensive report, running over 800 pages, was submitted to then-President Sirisena in July 2019. How many of that exhaustive report’s recommendations were implemented is anyone’s guess. Almost six years to the day, the new NPP government has appointed yet another committee to look into malpractices at the national carrier. With the NPP government’s commitment to tackle corruption and its insistence on retaining SriLankan Airlines under government control, one hopes it will at least act according to whatever recommendations the new committee eventually makes in its report.

In a development related to alleged corruption at SriLankan Airlines, the airline’s former Chairman Nishantha Wickramasinghe was this week further remanded until July 15. He was earlier arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption in relation to its investigation into three separate corruption allegations related to decisions taken during Mr. Wickramasinghe’s tenure as the airline’s chairman.

Wimal claims effects of Indo-SL defence MoU being felt

National Freedom Front Leader Wimal Weerawansa this week again expressed doubts over the nature of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) Sri Lanka signed with India during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official visit to the country in April. He noted that the NPP government is yet to make any of these MoUs public. Pointing out that special attention should be directed towards the MoU on defence cooperation, he said, “Not even the most extreme right-wing government in power in Sri Lanka had ever moved to sign a defence MoU with India before this. Even the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement that then-President J.R. Jayewardene signed under Indian pressure in 1987 was a defence agreement.”

He claimed that Mr. Jayewardene, referred to as “Yankee Dickee” by his opponents, attempted to hide the 1987 agreement from the public.

Mr. Weerawansa alleged that this week’s announcement of the acquisition of a 51% controlling stake in Colombo Dockyard PLC by India’s state-owned Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders (MDL) for $52.96 million from Japan-based Onomichi Dockyard showed how the defence MoU with India was proceeding. While Onomichi Dockyard is a commercial shipbuilding enterprise, MDL builds a range of naval vessels and attack submarines, he pointed out. If Colombo Harbour was used as a location for building vessels and submarines for military purposes, it could potentially lead to Sri Lanka becoming a target in any future global conflict, Mr. Weerawansa said, pointing out how US military bases in Qatar recently came under Iranian ballistic missile attack following the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The NFF leader also questioned whether any Sri Lankans would be employed at an Indian facility that may end up building military vessels and submarines utilising advanced technology. This question did not arise when the Colombo Dockyard was building commercial vessels, but if this changes in the future, the jobs of Sri Lankan workers at the Colombo Dockyard might be uncertain, he warned.