The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) is among the independent institutions that were caught in controversy in recent times, particularly in the context of the economic crisis. On a number of occasions, the PUCSL, especially its Chairman Janaka Ratnayake, took a strict stance against the Government’s decisions to hike electricity tariffs, while President Ranil Wickremesinghe and Power and Energy Minister Kanchana Wijesekera also did not hesitate to retaliate with various charges against Ratnayake. The cold war between the two parties has now reached a crescendo, with the Government actively seeking to oust Ratnayake from the PUCSL Chairman post.

This month, a motion to remove Ratnayake was tabled by Wijesekera in the Parliament. This move comes following Wijesekera’s announcement in January which raised attention on ousting Ratnayake and additionally in March a charge sheet signed by the President was sent to Ratnayake and the response from him was noticeably lengthy. The ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has already decided to support the motion, while the main Parliamentary Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the National People's Power (NPP) of the Opposition are yet to arrive at a decision regarding the motion.

The motion, which was presented in accordance with the PUCSL Act, raises concerns about the Government’s motives. That is primarily due to the hostile manner in which the Government dealt with Ratnayake, or the PUCSL Chaired by Ratnayake, during the past few months. Whether the Government wants to save the PUCSL from Ratnayake or save itself from the PUCSL Chaired by Ratnayake is a question the public widely discuss on social media platforms, and in such a background, the motion against Ratnayake seems to be more serious and controversial in reality than on paper.

Even though this is the legitimate move to remove the PUCSL Chairman, actions against Ratnayake must be more transparent if the Government’s efforts aim to go beyond a mere removal and achieve something that is beneficial and meaningful. 

First and foremost, it is not sufficient to level allegations against Ratnayake. If these allegations are in fact legitimate and are serious enough to oust Ratnayake from the PUCSL Chairman post, the Government should prove them per the balance of probability. It is what the public expects and shows the genuineness of the Government’s actions in this regard, and above all, such due process based transparency and responsibility is required when removing the Head of an independent Commission, recommended by the Constitutional Council (CC). In fact, ideally, the alleged issues concerning the PUCSL Chairman should be dealt with through the CC, through an equally transparent and democratic process that set up the PUCSL and appointed PUCSL members. What is more, Ratnayake should be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, and the lack of such an opportunity is more than enough for the Government’s actions to be construed as undemocratic and arbitrary, especially due to the public perception that Ratnayake opposed several decisions taken by the Government for the public’s well-being.

Transparency is not something that should be applicable only in the case of the PUCSL, given the fact that one of the major purposes of appointing independent Commissions was to ensure that important aspects of the governing system and the public sector are free from political interference and function in a transparent manner. Instead of using its power in the Parliament to get rid of Ratnayake, the Government should employ a transparent, scientific and democratic mechanism with the involvement of the CC, and focus on showing why Ratnayake’s removal is necessary and ensure that Ratnayake’s successor does not cause the same issues. This is crucial to ensure the public’s well-being and to rebuild the weakened public trust in the governing system and in the public sector.