The Pulseline News Desk
Questions over legal oversight at the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (CPCEC) and the transparency of large-scale debt write-offs by State-owned banks have emerged in Parliament, with Opposition MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam calling for greater scrutiny of institutions handling significant public resources.
Rasamanickam, questioning the Minister of Finance and Planning, has said Parliament had a fundamental responsibility to ensure financial and administrative transparency at major State institutions whose decisions could have a direct impact on the national economy.
His concerns centred on two issues: the absence of a permanent Legal Director at the Port City Commission and the extent to which Parliament can scrutinise major loans written off or restructured by State banks.
Two years without a permanent Legal Director
Rasamanickam has questioned why the CPCEC, a specialised regulatory body vested with extensive legal and regulatory powers, had operated without a permanent Legal Director for around two years.
The issue assumes added importance given the Commission’s role in regulating the Colombo Port City as a special investment zone.
The Commission is involved in matters relating to investment agreements, regulatory decisions and tax concessions, areas in which legal oversight can have significant financial and policy implications.
Rasamanickam has therefore questioned what alternative legal mechanisms were being used to ensure that decisions taken by the Commission remained legally valid while the permanent position remained vacant.
The question also raises broader concerns about institutional checks and balances within a regulatory framework designed to attract major domestic and foreign investment.
Salary disclosure comes under scrutiny
The MP has also raised questions over the disclosure of salaries paid to Commission officials.
He has said that although he had previously requested individual salary details from Parliament, the information provided consisted only of the overall salary expenditure.
According to Rasamanickam, aggregate figures alone do not necessarily provide sufficient information for effective parliamentary or audit scrutiny.
He has argued that detailed and verifiable information is necessary when assessing how public institutions utilise financial resources.
The combination of the vacant Legal Director position and the limited salary information provided, he has said, warranted an official explanation from the Government.
How far can Parliament look into bank write-offs?
The second major issue raised by the MP was the treatment of large loans by State-owned banks, particularly loans that have been written off or restructured amid recent financial-sector reforms and domestic debt restructuring.
The issue is sensitive because State banks handle substantial amounts of public deposits and are ultimately institutions in which the State has a major financial interest.
Rasamanickam has acknowledged that banks have a duty to protect customer confidentiality and that banking secrecy is a standard principle governing commercial banking operations.
However, he has questioned whether banking confidentiality should prevent Parliament from exercising its constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the use and management of public funds.
His argument was that there needs to be a balance between protecting individual customers’ confidential information and ensuring accountability when substantial amounts of money are written off by State-owned institutions.
Calls for committee-level scrutiny
Rasamanickam has proposed that the necessary information could be provided to the relevant parliamentary committees without compromising individual banking confidentiality.
He has argued that key documents and relevant financial information could be submitted in a manner that allows MPs to determine whether proper procedures were followed when significant loans were written off or restructured.
The issue is particularly significant because loan write-offs can ultimately affect the financial position of State-owned banks and, by extension, the public sector.
The parliamentary scrutiny sought by Rasamanickam is therefore not necessarily about revealing the identities or private financial details of individual borrowers, but about establishing whether proper procedures, financial controls and accountability mechanisms were followed when major financial decisions were made.
Transparency becomes the common thread
Although the two issues raised in Parliament relate to different institutions, they point to the same underlying question: how effectively are public institutions being held accountable for decisions with significant economic consequences?
The Port City Commission was established to facilitate investment and operate within a specialised regulatory framework, while State-owned banks play a critical role in the country’s financial system.
Both therefore require strong internal controls and effective external oversight.
As Sri Lanka continues its post-economic-crisis reforms and seeks to attract investment while strengthening public finances, questions surrounding transparency, legal accountability and the use of public resources are likely to remain firmly on Parliament’s agenda.
For the Government, the challenge will be to demonstrate that institutional independence and commercial confidentiality can coexist with the level of transparency required when decisions ultimately carry implications for the wider public purse.
Leave a comment