Columns

The Avurudu Koha that came more than a fortnight ago seems to have laid a scandalous trove of eggs in the government’s nest before fleeing from its cuckoldry.

With a whole lot of cracking going on, take your pick on which one to concentrate on first, lest the bumper crop of fledglings – popping out of their shells at an alarming rate – distract your attention.

With the backdrop already aflame with coal-fraud hellfires, the shock resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody gave rumour the spurs to run with the wind, suggesting that something unfavourable to the government’s squeaky-clean image was astir.

But it was the inferno that broke out at the Treasury last Tuesday that did the worst damage to the JVP government’s immaculate image of inviolate purity. If its iconic image had laid on the ground smeared with coal soot the previous week, last week’s astounding revelation that 2.5 million dollars – equivalent to nearly 800 million rupees – had vanished without trace from the Treasury safe caused the iconic idol to be smashed to smithereens.

Whatever the reason for its disappearance – be it due to fraud, negligence or sheer incompetence – it was totally inexcusable and amounted to nothing short of sacrilege. This was public money. Sacred money. As President cum Finance Minister Anura Kumara had assured the people, every rupee dropped into the Treasury till is dropped to the clink of Sangeeka property.

Last Friday, the curtain fell on a scene of chaos and confusion, with the government blaming hackers while the public watched in shock. But this Monday, the curtain lifted to reveal a different picture altogether. Instead of hackers crawling all over foggy government screens, public watchdogs swung into action, exposing the government’s gross failures in oversight, transparency, and financial governance.

The charging pack was led by the Free Lawyers Organisation’s Maithri Guneratne PC and his colleague Attorney-at-Law Keerthi Tennekoon, whose letter to the Speaker at the start of last week had first brought the ‘mystery of the missing 2.5 million dollars from the Treasury coffers’ to public light. Attending a series of media conferences, he reiterated the same allegation: This was no hacking job. This was done with Treasury collusion.

Sri Lanka’s Free Lawyers Organisation has

• Rejected the ongoing Treasury-led inquiry, stating that it cannot be considered independent.
• Highlighted that the Technical Investigation Committee operates under senior Treasury officials who oversee the very functions under investigation, creating what it described as a structural conflict of interest;
• Claimed that a transaction of this scale could not have occurred without the involvement, or at minimum, the failure, of senior officials, including the Treasury Secretary.
• Called for a parliamentary-led independent mechanism to ensure transparency and public confidence.
• Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa described the diversion of funds as a serious breach of financial security. He questioned how such a transaction could proceed without adequate verification mechanisms. He called for an independent and transparent investigation into whether safeguards across key institutions, including the Treasury and Central Bank, were bypassed.

At Tuesday’s Cabinet briefing it surfaced that a payment of 625,000 dollars – nearly Rs 200 million – paid to US Posts had also gone missing. The vanishing act had come to the ministry’s attention only when the US Postal Service had reported the matter several weeks ago.

Mass Media Minister Nalinda Jayatissa, who is also the Minister of Postal Services, appeared quite nonchalant when he said, ‘Sri Lanka has made the payment, but the US Postal Service has informed us that it has not received the funds. Investigations commenced several weeks ago at the ministerial level. I am saying this because it comes under my department. So everything is not discussed at the cabinet level.’ Clearly the postal box – which also holds public money – does not have the same sanctity as the Treasury till which holds Sangeeka property.

On Wednesday, four senior finance ministry officials were interdicted over the alleged financial fraud. That same day, the Chairman of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF), Harsha de Silva – with the consent of the other members – summoned Finance and Treasury Secretary Suriyapperuma to Parliament on Thursday evening to be questioned on the Treasury scandal. Suriyapperuma shot back, expressing regret over his inability to attend.

On Thursday, news reports revealed that civil activist Achala Divaka had lodged a complaint with the CID claiming that Treasury Secretary Suriyapperuma was a dual citizen of Australia. Sanjeeva Edirimanna, a senior member of the SLPP, also made the same claim on Hiru News the same day. He said, ‘Suriyapperuma, while being a dual citizen, also sat in Parliament as a JVP National List member from November 2024 to June 2025. During this time, he also served as deputy finance minister. This was totally against the constitution, which bans dual citizens from sitting in Parliament. If he can prove otherwise, let him do so.’

Later that day, Suriyapperuma underwent a dramatic change of heart. Changing his previous No to a Yes at the eleventh hour, he willingly appeared before COPF Chairman Harsha de Silva to be questioned on the Treasury’s payment of 2.5 million dollars to a mystery figure that had vanished into thin air.

‘It was during this amicable meeting – as Harsha told the media – that we got the news that one of the Finance Ministry officials who had been interdicted yesterday had been found dead in the back garden of his home. We went into a state of shock.’

The news that Ranga Rajapaksa – a 50-year-old Assistant Director of the Department of External Resources of the Treasury, one of the four senior Finance Ministry officials who had been interdicted on Wednesday – had been found dead in the back garden of his home plunged the nation into a state of shock.

It deepened the mystery of the missing millions and made the alleged Treasury fraud take a sinister turn, one that can only bode ill for the country.

The King and Trump: A Tale of Two Georges

As Charles Dickens would have put it – and, indeed, did in another context – ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times’ for Britain’s King Charles to visit the United States for the twentieth time in his life.

Worst of times: because acrid clouds hung heavy in the capital, and Charles knew he might get a frosty reception at the White House in Washington as Man Friday of the blundering tenant at No. 10 Downing Street – not a patch on Winston Churchill – sent to massage the world’s hottest ego with the svelte royal touch and unruffle the feathers that Britain’s Labour Prime Minister Starmer had insensitively ruffled by denying Britain’s wholehearted support for the ongoing war waged by President Trump against Iran.

Starmer had stepped on the corns of the most powerful man on earth. And to soothe the soreness and calm Trump’s temper, nought but His Majesty’s personal service would do. The world watched with growing applause and admiration as King Charles bravely rose to the challenge his squirmy prime minister requested of him to save his own skin, for Britain’s sake.

CHARLES GETS TRUMP’S SEAL OF APPROVAL: A King is better than a Keir

Best of times: because the visit to Washington gave Charles the opportunity to deliver the speech of a lifetime to keep enthralled not only Trump and Europe but also the entire English-speaking world as he took them on a guided Grande Tour of Britain’s colonial past, of her age-old customs and traditions, of her enduring Christian values, of her common sense, and of her sense of fair play, which form the bedrock of her justice system, which she bequeathed to the world.

All in all, the King’s speech to Congress was absolutely splendid and a marvellous treat to watch.

Spiced with eloquent wit and typical British humour, King Charles began his speech to Congress with an old Oscar Wilde quote. Referring to this semi-quincentennial year of the Declaration of Independence, he said, “And for all of that time, our destinies as nations have been interlinked. As Oscar Wilde said, ‘We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language.’

With poise, with tact, and with a classic touch of masterful diplomacy, the King had the US Congress eating out of his hands, receiving a dozen or more standing ovations from both sides of the House. No mean feat, in a land of No Kings.

He did not fail to dwell on the purpose of his visit to the US. He said: ‘Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed. Whatever our differences, whatever disagreements we may have, we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy, to protect all our people from harm, and to salute the courage of those who daily risk their lives in the service of our countries.’

Nor did he neglect to cement the recent cracks that had appeared in the friendship that had existed for over 400 years between the two nations by restating, ‘Today, I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States.’

Nor did the King derelict his duty to reinforce the need for peace in a world fraught with war. His call for peace at an unpredictable time of conflict between Iran and America placed emphasis on understanding and respecting each other’s different faiths. He said: ‘I am inspired by the profound respect that develops as people of different faiths grow in their understanding of each other.’

With humour as the anchor of his speech, he said, ‘This is a city which symbolises a period in our shared history, or what Charles Dickens might have called “A Tale of Two Georges”: the first President, George Washington, and my five-times Great Grandfather, King George III. King George never set foot in America and, please rest assured, I am not here as part of some cunning rearguard action.’

Wit, the golden thread that ran through the entire tapestry of the King’s speech to the US Congress, continued its marathon sprint at the dinner hosted by Trump at the White House that night.

At the more informal affair, Charles couldn’t resist giving full flight to his well-honed talent as an after-dinner speaker to combat Trump’s jocular assertion that ‘if not for the United States, Britain and Europe would be speaking German.’ His cutting retort: ‘Dare I say that, if it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking French’.

But the classic monarchical touch was the parting gift he presented to President Trump at the state banquet – an original bell from a wartime submarine called HMS Trump. ‘And should you ever need to get hold of us… well, just give us a ring!” said the King. Corny, perhaps, but it worked awfully well with the audience.

To paraphrase Hamlet, the wily British king had delivered a crafty speech to balm the conscience of a president.