Captions:

PIC 01 - Auditor General Chulantha Wickramaratne

PIC 02 - COPE Chairman and Govt. MP Prof. Ranjith Bandara

PIC 03 -  NMRA Director General and CEO Dr. Vijith Gunasekera

Over:

Head:

Strap: NMRA top brass deny withholding documents; seek AG’s written request

The Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) criticised the National Medicines Regulatory Authority's (NMRA) purported decision not to submit documents requested by the National Audit Office (NAO), with the former claiming that it is a violation of the Constitution.

This was revealed when NMRA officials were summoned to the COPE on Wednesday (4). In that meeting, Auditor General (AG) Chulantha Wickramaratne said that the NMRA Director Board had taken a decision to not submit any document requested by the NAO, adding that therefore, he will be withdrawing from auditing the NMRA until the particular decision is reversed.

Criticising the said decision taken by the NMRA, COPE Chairman Government Parliamentarian Prof. Ranjith Bandara ordered the NMRA Director Board to reverse the particular decision as soon as possible since the Constitution is violated by it, while Parliamentary supremacy is also challenged. “As we know, the AG is accountable only to the Legislature. Therefore, no other institution can neglect his orders as well as issue orders over him. Therefore, we ask the NMRA to reverse this decision as soon as possible,” he said.

In response to the allegations made by Wickremaratne, the NMRA’s Director General and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Vijith Gunasekera and Director attorney Manoj Gamage said that such a decision had not been taken, but that it had been misinterpreted by certain parties. They said that they had never asked any official to refrain from giving documents to the NAO, but to instead keep records about requested documents.

Speaking during the meeting, Ministry of Health Secretary Janaka Sri Chandraguptha said that he has been continuously informing NMRA officials to submit any document requested by the AG, since the latter has been given such authority by the Constitution. However, Chandraguptha also said that he has not been informed about such a decision by the NMRA.

Bandara blamed NMRA officials, saying that this kind of behaviour cannot be expected from a public institution since they have not submitted certain documents even when the AG has requested them on more than five occasions. The AG stated that the NAO had taken a decision to refrain from auditing the NMRA until this decision was reversed.

According to the NMRA decision, the AG should submit a written request if he wants to obtain a relevant document.