The controversial Rs. 25 million monthly airtime agreement with a Lyca-linked broadcaster faces scrutiny over competitive bidding, financial transparency and the protection of public assets.
Sri Lanka’s controversial decision to lease airtime on the state-owned Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation’s (SLRC) Channel Eye to VIS Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., linked to the Lyca Group, has raised fundamental questions about the management of public broadcasting assets, the protection of state revenue and the accountability of officials entrusted with public property.
The arrangement, under which Channel Eye airtime was reportedly leased for Rs. 25 million a month to telecast sports and entertainment programmes under the SBC TV banner, has attracted criticism from opposition politicians, employee trade unions and anti-corruption campaigners. The central concern is whether a financially distressed public broadcaster received a fair return for an asset with potentially substantial commercial value.
At the heart of the controversy is the alleged failure to conduct a transparent competitive bidding process. According to objections raised by trade unions and transparency advocates, earlier bids had been invited but subsequently discarded, with the final agreement instead negotiated directly between the then SLRC chairman and the private broadcaster’s local affiliate.
If established, this would raise serious questions about why a competitive process was abandoned and whether the state obtained the best possible commercial terms. Public assets should not be allocated through discretionary negotiations without clear justification, documented evaluations and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
The financial implications could be considerable. Complaints challenging the arrangement reportedly argue that Channel Eye’s cricket and sports broadcasting opportunities could have generated more than Rs. 200 million monthly through competitive bidding. That figure, however, remains an allegation requiring independent verification against broadcasting rights, advertising potential, operating costs and contractual obligations.
Nevertheless, the reported disparity between that estimate and the agreed Rs. 25 million monthly payment warrants a detailed financial assessment. If the higher valuation is substantiated, the difference could represent a substantial opportunity cost to the state. Authorities must establish the asset’s actual market value before concluding whether the agreement caused financial damage.
Further concerns surround the reported advance payment. The private company allegedly paid Rs. 50 million, which was used to settle outstanding electricity bills and operational debts at the cash-strapped SLRC. Critics maintain that the initial expression of interest required Rs. 100 million. Whether that requirement formed part of a binding agreement, and whether the reduced payment received formal approval, must be clarified through the contract and relevant financial records.
The agreement also reportedly proceeded without prior formal approval from the SLRC Board or the Ministry of Mass Media. If confirmed, the absence of required authorisation would raise questions about internal controls and the division of responsibility between management and oversight authorities.
Channel Eye’s financial difficulties provide important context. Its broadcasting hours reportedly fell to four or five daily because the corporation struggled to meet basic utility expenses. Leasing airtime may therefore have offered immediate financial relief, but an emergency cash requirement cannot substitute for transparent procurement and long-term commercial planning.
The controversy has also coincided with broader anti-corruption investigations into past SLRC administrations. However, those investigations must be distinguished from the lease dispute unless investigators establish a direct connection.
The government, SLRC management and relevant oversight bodies should publish the agreement, valuation reports, bidding records, approvals and payment details, subject to lawful confidentiality requirements. The public deserves evidence-based answers on whether the arrangement protected a national asset or sacrificed potential revenue without adequate safeguards.