Investigation Against Deputy Secretary General of Parliament Challenged Under Law

By a Special Correspondent

Serious revelations have emerged suggesting that the ongoing “preliminary investigation” targeting G. K. A. Chaminda Kumara Kularatne, the Chief of Staff and Deputy Secretary General of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, is a flagrant violation of statutory law and established administrative regulations.

The evidence suggests that this process is not a legitimate administrative procedure, but rather a move executed with mala fide (bad faith) intentions and an abuse of power.

1. Violation of the Act: Speaker Usurping the Secretary General’s Power

According to the Parliamentary Staff Act No. 9 of 1953 and the disciplinary procedures (Code of Conduct) formulated under it, there is a clear hierarchy regarding disciplinary control of parliamentary staff.

• Legal Provision: Per Sections 4(2) and 5(1) of the Act, the legal authority to order a preliminary investigation and appoint investigating officers against a parliamentary official rests solely with the Secretary General of Parliament.

• The Violation: In this instance, the Secretary General’s statutory authority has been bypassed, and the Hon. Speaker has personally appointed the investigating officer. This is an illegal appropriation of executive powers specifically assigned by the Act.

2. Legal Discrepancies Regarding the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC)

The foundation for this investigation was reportedly laid during a Staff Advisory Committee meeting held on July 25, 2025. However, several legal issues arise:

• Jurisdictional Limits: The SAC, established under the 1953 Act, possesses no legal authority to conduct or direct individual disciplinary inquiries.
• Composition Flaws: The Deputy Minister of Finance participated in the meeting despite having no legal standing to represent the committee under the Act. Furthermore, the absence of the Leader of the Opposition or his representative invalidates the legality of the committee’s decisions.

3. Illegal Appointment and ‘Post-Dated’ Approvals

A critical piece of evidence pointing toward an irregular process is the discrepancy in dates:

• The investigating officer, Attorney-at-Law S. K. Liyanage, was appointed on August 20, 2025.
• However, the Advisory Committee report which supposedly forms the basis for this investigation was only approved on September 12, 2025.

The fact that an investigator was appointed before the necessary approvals were granted indicates that this process is a pre-planned “witch-hunt” rather than a fair inquiry.

4. Violation of the Seniority Rule

Section 7 of the disciplinary procedure emphasizes that an investigating officer must be senior to the officer under investigation.

• The Violation: The Deputy Secretary General holds one of the highest positions in the parliamentary hierarchy. The appointed investigator, based on his previous roles in the public service, is significantly junior to the Deputy Secretary General. This is a direct violation of established administrative law.

5. Shift in Scope and Evidence of Malice

Initially, the investigation was purportedly launched to clarify an “ambiguity” in a response provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

However, the Terms of Reference (TOR) provided to the investigator have been expanded to question the Deputy Secretary General’s qualifications and service confirmation. Documented evidence suggests this expansion occurred outside the Advisory Committee’s decisions, influenced directly by the Speaker and his Private Secretary.

6. Misuse of Public Funds and Accountability

Since the investigation itself is deemed illegal, the expenditure of state funds (investigator fees and other costs) constitutes an offense under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 09 of 2023 and the Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982. The following parties are held directly accountable for utilizing public funds for personal or malicious agendas:

1. The Hon. Speaker
2. The Speaker’s Private Secretary (Chameera Gallage)
3. The purported Investigating Officer (S. K. Liyanage)

Conclusion

This illegal investigation, which undermines the reputation and administrative independence of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, must be halted immediately. When the supreme institution responsible for upholding the rule of law violates those very laws, it poses a grave threat to democracy. Targeting a senior official with over 20 years of unblemished service for political or personal vendettas will inevitably lead to the collapse of an independent civil service.

Translated from the original report on slleader.lk