The National People’s Power (NPP) Government swept into office promising a decisive break from the opaque procurement practices of the past. Yet, the unfolding coal tender controversy surrounding the Lakvijaya Power Plant suggests that policy intentions alone are insufficient without institutional discipline and procedural consistency.
From the outset, the 2025–2026 coal procurement process suffered avoidable delays. Tender calls were postponed, committee approvals dragged on, and bid deadlines were repeatedly revised. While officials cited technical complexities, critics argue that such indecision created the very urgency that later justified shortcuts an outcome directly at odds with the Government’s anti-corruption pledge.
Constructive criticism of the NPP administration centres not on individual wrongdoing alone, but on systemic lapses. Allegations that procurement timelines were accelerated to suit certain suppliers point to weak internal controls rather than deliberate malice. When procedures become flexible under pressure, the risk of perceived favouritism increases, even if no laws are technically broken.
The selection of Trident Chemphar highlighted this vulnerability. Questions about the company’s sector experience and financial background should have been conclusively addressed at the evaluation stage. Instead, doubts emerged after shipments arrived, shifting scrutiny from governance to crisis management. This reactive approach undermines the credibility of a Government that campaigned on “clean processes, not clean excuses.”
Quality concerns further exposed policy-practice gaps. While Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody correctly emphasised contractual clauses, penalties, and accredited testing, the unloading of a second coal shipment before final test results were released sent mixed signals. Anti-corruption governance is as much about perception as legality; inconsistent messaging erodes trust among stakeholders, including plant engineers, the CEB, and the public.
The resignation of the Lanka Coal Company Chairman amid the controversy should have prompted a broader institutional review. Instead, the response remained fragmented, focusing narrowly on technical compliance rather than procurement reform. A government committed to anti-corruption must demonstrate accountability through transparent audits, timely disclosures, and independent oversight—not merely ministerial assurances.
Importantly, the NPP’s challenge lies in balancing urgency with integrity. The Norochcholai plant cannot afford fuel shortages, but emergency logic should not override standard safeguards. Long-term coal contracts demand long-term credibility, especially when billions of rupees and national energy security are at stake.
This episode offers the NPP Government an opportunity for course correction. Publishing tender evaluation reports, strengthening the independence of procurement committees, and insulating technical decisions from political pressure would signal seriousness beyond rhetoric. Anti-corruption is not proven by slogans, but by predictable, rule-bound governance.
If the Government fails to institutionalise these lessons, the coal tender controversy risks becoming a symbol not of inherited dysfunction but of a reform promise left unfulfilled.