The controversial situation surrounding the non-reappointment of Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Opposition Parliamentarian and economist Dr. Harsha de Silva as the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chairman appears to have attracted the attention of many. This was, after news started circulating that SJB MP Mayantha Dissanayake was to be appointed as the COPF Chairman instead of Dr. de Silva, with the Government’s blessing.

“I have been removed from the Chair of the COPF. President and Minister of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Government appointed Dissanayake, supported by all Government MPs in the Selection Committee, thereby overruling my original appointment. Goes to show how low people can go,” Dr. de Silva criticised on his Twitter account, adding that the “Government abused their power and used Dissanayake to get their way.” 

This matter was discussed in Parliament, where Government MPs stated that the Selection Committee did not choose Dr. de Silva, and that a vote has to be conducted when more than one name has been nominated for the COPF Chairpersonship. However, the Opposition MPs’ response was that Dr. de Silva was the Opposition’s nominee for the post. According to those who have commented on the matter, especially on social media, this is not a matter of Dr. de Silva being denied the COPF Chairmanship or Dissanayake being granted the same. This is more of a matter about what reasons the Government had to replace Dr. de Silva with Dissanayake. As per the law, the COPF Chairperson should be a member of the Opposition. Dr. de Silva is the Opposition’s nominee for the COPF Chairpersonship, and many supported his appointment based on his background as an economist and experienced politician. It is unclear as to what led to the Government’s decision to appoint as the COPF Chairman an MP who was not nominated by the Opposition.

The COPF is one of the most important Committees which play a decisive role in the Parliament’s money-management powers. Among its duties are the collection of revenue under Article 148 of the Constitution, the payment from the Consolidated Fund, the utilisation of public funds for specific purposes by law, the application of public funds, public debt service, and the implementation of the Appropriation Act for the current year. In fact, in the recent past, the COPF has discussed and revealed a number of public funding-related matters of national interest. At a time when there is a pressing need to be conscious about the Government’s money management, the COPF and its members should be strengthened, its activities should be facilitated, and support should be extended to build a strong connection between the public and the COPF.

One way of strengthening the COPF, and even committees such as the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) which play an equally important role in ensuring that public funds are utilised effectively, is by ensuring that these Committees comprise members that are capable, accountable, and knowledgeable. When it comes to the COPF, which handles public funds, its reliability as well as the results of its decisions depend mostly on the competence and integrity of these members. Therefore, managing COPF members is a matter that should be handled carefully and transparently, and the Government should not unnecessarily meddle in the COPF’s affairs. 

Many that have commented on Dr. de Silva’s non-reappointment as the COPF Chairperson are of the opinion that he is a one of the most qualified persons for the post, especially given his experience as an economist and a politician that has been a part of many public-funding-related decisions, and that therefore, he should not have been replaced with Dissanayake. In addition, the hasty nature of this decision raises doubts about the grounds on which the Government decided to remove Dr. de Silva. The Government has not issued an official statement on this development. However, regardless of whether the Government has a legal obligation to issue such a clarification, given the sensitive and controversial nature of this incident, it is advisable that the Government reveals what reasons led to its decision. Whether Dr. de Silva is not suitable for the COPF Chairpersonship, or if Dissanayake has the potential to lead the COPF in a comparatively better manner, are matters that the public is interested in learning. Fulfilling that moral obligation would help the public understand the Government’s decision with regard to the leadership of this extremely crucial committee.