Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law

## Summary The speaker poses a brief but pointed rhetorical question regarding a payment that was allegedly made, challenging the logic of an instruction not to pay the Divisional Officer (DO) in the event of a case being lost. The question implies a contradiction or inconsistency in the handling of funds, suggesting that a payment was in fact made despite such a directive. The remark appears to be part of a broader line of questioning or scrutiny regarding financial accountability or a specific transaction.

## Summary Hon. Sunil Watagala rejected claims made by the Opposition, characterizing them as deliberate falsehoods. He clarified that while a case filed at the Labour Tribunal (LT) was unsuccessful, he challenged the Opposition's assertion that a case was "lost," demanding they substantiate the claim on the parliamentary record.

The Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs clarified that penalties in question are levied against the company concerned, not against the Minister personally. He emphasised that there is no court judgment against the Minister.

Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala made a brief statement asserting that all relevant activities are being carried out in accordance with the procurement process, without providing further elaboration or detail.

## Summary Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala issued a direct challenge to opposing members, requesting they provide a specific case number to substantiate a claim that a particular individual had been found guilty. The statement implies the Deputy Minister was disputing or questioning the factual basis of an allegation being made by another member during the debate. No legislative proposals or policy matters were raised in this brief intervention.

## Summary Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala challenged an assertion made in the debate, characterizing it as false and demanding specific documentary evidence — namely a case number — to substantiate the claim. His interjection was brief and direct, rejecting the need for lengthy explanations and calling for a concise, verifiable reference instead.

Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala responded to a remark made by Hon. Ajith P. Perera, who had called out that their Minister had been found guilty. The speech consists solely of the Deputy Minister acknowledging or referencing this interjection, with no substantive policy argument, proposal, or legislative matter addressed.

Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala provided a brief reassurance regarding a matter described as minor ("about two point something"), stating that measures are being taken to address it and that the procurement process has not been compromised. The speech was very brief and lacked specific detail or context.

## Summary Deputy Minister Watagala defended the government against Opposition allegations related to a coal procurement tender for the Lakvijaya power plant and a separate LPG tender, arguing that the current administration has strengthened procurement integrity by routing purchases through formal tender processes rather than Cabinet Memoranda, as he claims was the practice under previous governments. He challenged the factual basis of the motion itself, noting it cited an erroneous figure of 12.32 million metric tons of coal against a typical annual requirement of 1.5–2.25 million tons. The Deputy Minister demanded that the Opposition member substantiate specific allegations—including claims that money was deposited into the Minister's mother's bank account and that a court had found the Minister guilty—by producing an account number and court case number respectively, noting the member had made the assertions without tabling any evidence. He further asserted that the government does not interfere with CIABOC, the Attorney-General's Department, or the CID investigations, contrasting this with past practices of summoning law enforcement officials to political residences, and dismissed the broader Opposition motion as politically motivated.

Deputy Minister Watagala concluded his remarks by defending the government's gas procurement process against Opposition criticism, asserting that allegations regarding gas queues were unfounded and that procurement follows proper tender procedures. He outlined the government's multi-pronged anti-drug strategy, encompassing maritime law enforcement, supply chain disruption, rehabilitation programmes, and asset freezing measures. He also referenced a proposed constitutional framework within which he stated the Opposition Leader's role would be formally recognised.