Editorial

Entering into its second year, the National People’s Power (NPP) Government is showing a habit of rolling back its pre-election promises—and making no bones about it.

Its second budget last week made it clear that this administration will follow the IMF script to the letter, notwithstanding impassioned pledges that it would amend it once in power.  On the contrary, the Government is veering full speed in a direction opposite to what it promised in its manifesto, which is not necessarily a bad move.

What is now bordering on a scandal, however, is an epic reversal of its commitment to ‘system change’. The Government’s rush to purchase 1,775 double cabs—for, among others, all 225 Members of Parliament—is a glaring example of how procurement should not be executed. The tender violates several key procurement conditions drawn up on IMF strictures under the previous administration and brought into fruition under the NPP.

During his budget presentation on November 7, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake announced that every MP will receive a fully insured pickup truck, no doubt from the large haul now being ordered on the public purse. He also said that according to the tender opening for these pickup trucks, “a good cab has emerged on top”.

Least among the many red flags this tender sets off is the non-existence of an election pledge to supply all shades of parliamentarians with brand new four-wheel-drive automatic transmission diesel double cabs sponsored by a citizenry already burdened by heavy taxes imposed without question on the counsel of the previously much-maligned IMF.

There are far more serious concerns. For instance, how did the President declare just three days after tender opening, and before there was any time for a proper evaluation of bids, which offer had “emerged on top”? According to information now in the public domain, there had been six bids and two letters of protest.

That isn’t the only indication of an unholy rush to close this purchase—or that it seemed rigged from the start. The tender was advertised on October 23, 2025, and closed at 2 p.m. on November 4, 2025. This left 12 days, or just seven working days, for interested parties to make their offers. Was there ‘inside information’ passed like in the Central Bank bond scam? It was in violation of the new procurement manual, which stipulates that the minimum bidding period under the national procurement bidding procedure for tenders valued at more than or equal to Rs. 50 million is 21 calendar days. This tender is to the tune of—at the minimum—Rs. 30 billion.

These factors alone are enough to raise fears that what can only be termed as ‘manipulation’ will set a precedent for future high-value tenders. What was the need to expedite vehicle purchases even as the evaluation of bids for the expansion of the Bandaranaike International Airport hasn’t been closed for eight months and the purchase of vital equipment for the East Container Terminal of the Colombo Port is stalled?

Government ministers now say—irrespective of what their election manifesto had pledged—these 1,775 vehicles are needed for the economic development of the country. On the back of the secrecy behind the non-disclosure of the details in the MoUs signed with India or the ownership of the 324 containers released from the Port, the Government is on the fast track to acquiring a negative reputation contrary to its public profile.

 ‘Independent’ commissions without independent funding

Sri Lanka’s ‘independent’ commissions acting as ‘governance monitors’ under special laws are plagued by a common problem—legal provisions guaranteeing their financial independence that are being casually tossed aside by ministry officials.

A belligerent—and rightly so—intervention came from the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), who complained of not being allowed to recruit essential staff. “I have only 169 investigation officers and 31 legal officers despite getting thousands of complaints,” he said.

Under the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA of 2023), budget estimates of CIABOC ‘shall’ be submitted to the Speaker to decide after consultation with the Ministry of Finance. The estimates are then tabled in Parliament with the Ministry’s observations and approved.

However, the Ministry of Finance has insisted on adhering to the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA, 2024), which requires all budgetary estimates to be submitted to the Treasury Secretary.

The Attorney General has now given his opinion that the PFMA supersedes the ACA (Please see front page story) and the DG has said that he will go to the Supreme Court to clarify as to whether the ACA or the PFMA has priority. The (earlier) ACA provides that it shall prevail over ‘written law’ at the time. The (later) PFMA says that it shall supersede ‘any other law governing the management of public finance’. There was the apparant contradiction.

Reportedly, the Audit Service Commission is plagued by a similar lack of financial independence. And earlier this year, the Director General of the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) told the media that only 17 posts have been filled out of an approved staff cadre of 35 posts. Approval has been held back by the Government for key senior positions, including a director-legal. The Commission has had a solitary legal officer and three legal assistants since its inception.

The absence of an information technology (IT) assistant has resulted in the Commission being unable to monitor the digitisation of Sri Lanka’s RTI regime. Recently, the Commission reported in response to a parliamentary question that it had concluded 1,157 appeals out of 1,306 appeals filed during the first nine months of this year. Some 308 appeals had been adjourned for further hearing. Its power of prosecuting public authorities for failure to obey has also been affected due to lack of legal staff.

All these independent commissions have the legal power to recruit their own staff, but the AG opines it must be done through the Salaries and Cadre Commission. These are the bottle-necks for these Commissions that require expertise. The Commissions claim their monies must be deposited into dedicated Funds. But these provisions have also been ignored. Additionally, even though the RTIC decides its own budget, its independent line item in the National Budget was withdrawn in 2018. Its funding is channelled through the budgetary allocations of the Ministry of Mass Media with which it has been locking horns on severe staffing concerns.

The effective operation of these commissions has not been to the liking of some segments of the public sector which are resisting accountability. The bureaucracy controls the funding tap. Is this also part of the political resistance to ‘open and transparent government’ now that the JVP-NPP is in office and not in opposition?