2026-02-06 / Debate: Extension of Emergency Regulations under Public Security Ordinance 2026-02-06
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.
Hon. Presiding Member, this debate shows the Opposition’s stance has shifted slightly over the past month or two. Emergency was proclaimed after Cyclone Dithwa struck from 27 November. Under the Constitution, emergency can be used to prepare the State, public service and public finances to respond quickly—beyond routine procedures.
When the cyclone struck, from the very first hours the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly demanded that emergency be declared. We listened and acted. The question now is: why extend? Because the machinery—appointments like the Commissioner General for Essential Services and rapid inter-agency mobilization—remains necessary to complete housing, resettlement and relief for those still displaced and to manage fully damaged homes.
The Opposition raises spectres from the 1970s onward, when emergency was abused—abductions, disappearances, killings in both North and South, and attacks on journalists. That was how their leaders used emergency. Today, after two months, show one instance where we used emergency to crush a protest or an opposition action. There is none. Development Officers protested in front of the Presidential Secretariat; we engaged, we did not tear gas them. Even when the Opposition Leader himself was jostled, we did not use emergency powers.
We did not invoke emergency against education reform protests, or when certain MPs faced trouble. Emergency is for disaster recovery—not to suppress. We will continue to ensure that.
Some claim the Government is above the law; bring concrete cases, not rumours. If there are genuine complaints of theft or corruption, file them—unlike past regimes where cases were buried, we will let due process work.
Finally, the recent coarsening of discourse—profanity and abuse hurled at national leaders—must stop. Debate is fine; demeaning and abusive language is not. Thank you.