• People who took wrong decisions want to scuttle investigations
• Economic crisis was man-made; it did not emerge naturally
• Govt. completely destroyed smooth process of economic activities
• Some COPE appointments raise questions of credibility, legitimacy
• Investigation into financial decision-making must continue
• Parliament should take COPE role as watchdog very seriously
• SLPP mechanism running on autopilot, some decisions irrational

  By Marianne David Following much delay, debate, and drama, former Chairman of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) MP Prof. Charitha Herath has secured a place in COPE once again, but was not re-appointed as the chairman of COPE. On Monday (3), 27 members each were nominated to COPE and the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) by the Parliament’s selection committee, with Prof. Herath being a prominent exemption from COPE. He promptly decried the move on Twitter, stating: “After a delay of two months, COPE member list is out. As predicted, my name isn’t on the list. Thieves, dealmakers who are in favour of a corrupted system won the day. People behind the economic crimes wanted me out of their way. Shame on you, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Dinesh Gunawardena.” On Tuesday (4), the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) withdrew its nomination of SJB MP Dr. Harsha de Silva to COPE in order to make way for Herath. Speaking in Parliament, Opposition and SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa proposed Herath’s name to the committee. In this interview with The Sunday Morning, Prof. Herath, who was part of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and now sits with a group of independent MPs in the Parliament Opposition, emphasised the importance of continuing key COPE investigations – especially the investigation related to the economic crisis – and appointing credible people to oversight committees to ensure legitimacy. He asserted that efforts were underway to scuttle key investigations initiated by previous committees: “That is the main intention of some people and it is a very sad situation because we all know that this economic crisis was created, it was man-made; it did not emerge naturally. People who made wrong decisions will be fearful and I think they are behind the efforts to scuttle this.” Following are excerpts of the interview:   How do you view the political drama that unfolded over the appointments to COPE and COPA?   It is actually a very pathetic situation in terms of parliamentary democracy of a country. What happened was that the new President prorogued Parliament to get a space for him to address the nation and to give his policy statement, which is fair enough. After proroguing Parliament, all the committees cease and should be reappointed as soon as Parliament is reopened. This time all the other committees were re-established afterwards but COPE and COPA were not. I think one reason for the delay was the chairmanship of COPE. I know many people even within Government and within parliamentary groups got upset about the issues that we raised in the last term of the COPE sessions.  The second reason, I think, is because of the very severe issue we had finalised to start examining – that was on the financial decision-making process from 2018 to 2022. The examination on that matter was planned, with dates fixed. This was done before the 9 July incident of the then President leaving the country.  Our target was to look at how financial decision-making was done. We planned to summon former Governors of the Central Bank Nivard Cabraal and Prof. W.D. Lakshman, present Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, previous Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle and the present Secretary, then the previous Secretary to the President Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, and members of the Monetary Board to look at this issue. Then the Auditor General has already issued a special report on this matter and that was also tabled in Parliament. I think this was the main reason why some people got upset about our work in COPE in general and my work in particular. Due to this the appointments to the two committees were delayed over and over again.  Earlier in the week the Speaker read out the names of the nominees to the two committees and my name had been dropped from the COPE. The reason was not known to anyone. This has led to questions from many people, but no answer has been forthcoming. I think this is actually because some people wanted to put certain people into positions from which they could ‘manage’ the work of these oversight committees. I think that was the rationale behind the delaying, behind dropping me, and the rationale behind appointing a selected group of people into those committees.   What are your thoughts on the members appointed to COPE, COPA, and the Committee on Public Finance (COPF)?   Now, fortunately, two Opposition members have been selected for COPF and COPA. I think those two are capable people to handle those matters. Some members of the committees are also known and they have some experience and knowledge on the issues.  However, regarding COPE, the appointment of some people from the Government side has been questioned by many sections of society. There are questions relating to some of them in certain legal matters, issues in the public domain, and so on. The names of such people have also been included in the list.  As a result, people will get frustrated about COPE and will not trust the judgement of these people. The officials who are summoned by COPE will not see that they are being subjected to an honest, transparent, and clean oversight process. This will bring the legitimacy of the committee into question. While the committee will meet all legal requirements, its legitimacy may be questioned by people who are brought before it. COPE then loses credibility and acceptance.   Do you feel that there are moves to scuttle key investigations initiated by previous committees, especially with regard to the economic crisis and the policy decisions that led to it?   That is the main intention of some people and it is a very sad situation because we all know that this economic crisis was created, it was man-made; it did not emerge naturally. People who made wrong decisions will be fearful and I think they are behind the efforts to scuttle this. They don’t want the previous investigations to continue. They want to stop them. In order to do that, they believe that some people they can manage should be on the committee. The chairmanship of COPE will be crucial in this regard. If the chairman is also with the culprits, then there won’t be good judgements. Then the people of the country will lose respect for the judgements or findings of the committee.   What should the next steps be with regard to COPE investigations into the economic crisis?   I think whoever comes in and takes up the position of chairman should address this pending issue – ‘Examining the Financial Performance of the Period 2018-2020’. As you know, my name has also been suggested to the committee and I will emphasise this matter when I sit in the committee. There is also a special audit report on ‘Financial Management and Debt Control in Sri Lanka 2018-2022’. That report should be examined.    How should the new chairman proceed with COPE, how can the stalled investigations be restarted, and what should be given priority?   I think the new chairman should categorise the enterprises into a few categories. We have 427 public enterprises, out of which nearly 100 are very important. Out of those 100, some 10-15 are critical and related to the people’s day-to-day activities; institutions such as the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, Ceylon Electricity Board, SriLankan Airlines, and things like that. I recommend that COPE categorise these enterprises and give priority to these important enterprises and to loss-making enterprises. There are many which are loss-making. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in line with the Staff-Level Agreement (SLA), expects the Government to reform some of the State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). In order to do that, COPE has a big role to play. That is why I feel that if the international community sees that COPE is being hijacked by culprits or the wrong group of people, the international financial community might think that Parliament will not address the financial misconduct which has taken place. We have to be very mindful that even in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution, they have included accountability on financial crimes. It means that there are some financial criminals behind these financial activities. I think the international entities are now focusing on how to help Sri Lanka by exposing some misconduct, moving away from some misjudgments and misconceptions, and examining some of the wrongdoings.  Parliament should take COPE’s role as a watchdog very seriously and appoint acceptable people to it.   With regard to parliamentary democracy and the allocation of speaking time, now that the SLPP barely has a simple majority, shouldn’t the time allocation be changed?   That is a very sad aspect of this situation. The SLPP mechanism is now running on autopilot. Some of the judgements and decisions are not at all rational. They sometimes tend to show that nothing bad has happened in this country, that everything went really well, and they have done a marvellous job in terms of economic developments, and so on.  Other than some of those people who are now taking decisions, everybody else knows that our Government completely destroyed the smooth process of economic activities of this country. Who did it and what exactly happened are not known yet, but we know that as a result everything collapsed and we all found ourselves in queues on the roads. I think the SLPP should also take into account that our balance sheet was not good at all. Then, with that thinking, you have to look at how we can share time and knowledge available in Parliament. What some of them are now doing is trying to prevent other people from thinking and talking, believing that they are thinking better and talking about the correct thing. But the world has seen that their thinking was not correct and what they have done in terms of the economy was not good at all. Then what we need to do is to allow other people to think and talk and help find solutions.  Stopping other people from talking and not allowing them time to talk in Parliament is, firstly, anti-democratic and, secondly, a completely pathetic situation, given that we are in a critical and dangerous situation after our Government from 2019 to now. We need to find solutions. If you are closing all avenues to discuss solutions in Parliament, then what you are committing is the next level of the same crime.