Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika

Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika concluded his remarks by criticising the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) for what he characterised as contradictory positions, alleging the party simultaneously complains that no legal cases are filed against the Rajapaksas while also objecting to restrictions on Rajapaksa-linked imports. He did not attribute specific allegations to named individuals, clarifying he had not personally identified any Rajapaksa member. He closed with a Sinhala idiom to underscore his view of the SJB's inconsistency.

## Summary Hon. Dr. Najith Indika defended the government's coal procurement tender process against opposition allegations of a "scam," arguing that the tender resulted in a bid Rs. 10 billion lower than previous prices and represented a transparent improvement over the prior administration's practice of awarding contracts by Cabinet approval to a single company without open bidding for three consecutive years (2023–2025). He rejected opposition claims that the tender would cause a 10% tariff increase, stating that the CEB's formal submission to the PUCSL for any tariff revision makes no reference to "coal fraud," and contrasted this with what he characterised as a 400% tariff increase under the previous government. He outlined the government's plan to reduce tariffs by one-third over three years through cost reductions and renewable energy expansion, citing falling solar and battery storage unit costs achieved through competitive tendering. The speaker challenged opposition members who alleged funds were transferred to a family member of the Minister to formally table account details in Parliament, warning against misuse of parliamentary privilege, and alleged that the previous Cabinet-approved sole-supplier contracts were connected to a company linked to Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Dr. Najith Indika raised a procedural objection, asserting that no valid Point of Order existed in the matter before the House. He argued that the dispute concerning the Minister's manner of answering was a matter solely between the Minister and Hon. Ajith P. Perera, and therefore did not constitute grounds for a Point of Order.

## Summary Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika spoke in support of the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill, tracing the origins of MPs' pensions to 1977 and outlining subsequent amendments that progressively expanded entitlements to include widows, spouses, children, and even concurrent MP-spouses, arguing this expansion contributed to a culture of personal gain over public service. He contended that introducing pensions did not reduce corruption, as the Opposition Leader suggested it would, but instead coincided with increasing political privilege that he linked to the country's 2022 fiscal crisis. The speaker situates the Bill within his party's pre-election policy commitments, which included capping ministries at 25, abolishing perks for retired Presidents and their spouses, and ending MPs' pensions after five years. He dismissed claims that the legislation targets specific individuals and argued that politics should be treated as temporary public service, with former MPs returning to prior professions rather than relying on lifetime political entitlements.

Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika presented the Report of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection regarding the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill, which was ordered to lie upon the Table. He noted that the abolition of Members' pensions was a pre-election pledge and expressed satisfaction that the Bill had received the full approval of the Sectoral Oversight Committee.

Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika defended the extension of the emergency declaration, originally proclaimed following Cyclone Dithwa on 27 November, arguing that the emergency powers remain necessary to facilitate ongoing housing, resettlement, and relief operations for displaced persons, including the functioning of mechanisms such as the Commissioner General for Essential Services. He rebutted Opposition concerns about potential misuse by challenging members to identify any instance in the preceding two months where emergency powers were deployed to suppress protest or political opposition, citing examples such as the Government's restrained response to Development Officers protesting outside the Presidential Secretariat. He further dismissed allegations of the Government acting above the law, inviting formal complaints through due process and contrasting the current administration's approach with past practices of suppressing such cases. He concluded by calling for an end to abusive and profane political discourse, affirming that substantive debate is acceptable but demeaning language directed at national leaders is not.