2026-02-06 / Debate: Extension of Emergency Regulations under Public Security Ordinance 2026-02-06
## Summary
Minister Vijitha Herath defended the government's declaration of a state of emergency following Cyclone Dithwa, arguing it was necessitated by the inadequacy of the Disaster Management Act and the seven-year lapse in convening the National Council for Disaster Management, which had rendered normal statutory procedures inoperable. He explained that emergency powers were essential to enable cross-boundary deployment of military, police, and equipment from distant districts to areas with severed road access, which would have been legally impossible under ordinary administrative rules. The Minister rejected opposition claims that emergency powers had been used to suppress protests or media freedom, citing ongoing doctor strikes and daily media criticism as evidence, and noted that parliamentary privilege matters fall under Standing Orders rather than emergency regulations. He also reported record tourist arrivals of 277,000 in January despite cyclone damage, attributed partly to emergency-enabled designation of tourism as an essential service, and cited a World Bank interim estimate of USD 4.1 billion in economic damage from the disaster.
Hon. Presiding Member, this unforeseen disaster struck suddenly. Immediately, the President convened Government and Opposition. It was the Opposition who first proposed declaring emergency; we agreed and did so—because the Disaster Management Act is too weak for a crisis of this magnitude, a fact even the Opposition acknowledges and seeks to amend.
The National Council for Disaster Management had not been convened for seven years. Appointments and procedures under that Act had lapsed. To act swiftly and lawfully, emergency was necessary—not merely to pay Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000 as some suggest, but to mobilize the tri-forces, police, social services and all state agencies rapidly.
For example, mountain roads in Kandy and Badulla were cut off; usual machinery couldn’t reach. Under emergency, equipment and vehicles from Weligama, Hambantota, Beliatta, even the Colombo Municipal Council, could be deployed across provincial and local boundaries—impossible under normal rules. That is why emergency was needed.
We have not used emergency to suppress protests. Many protests by doctors and others continue; none have been curtailed using emergency powers. Claims that we used specific clauses for media suppression are false; look at the reality—media criticize us daily without fear. Parliamentary privilege matters are handled under the Standing Orders, not emergency.
We are reforming genuinely oppressive laws. We have amended the Online Safety Bill and called for public submissions, incorporating Supreme Court directions and further democratic changes. We have repealed the PTA and introduced the State Security Bill for public consultation. We are committed to more democracy, not less.
Emergency also enabled us to designate tourism as an essential service during peak season, averting cancellations. December recorded 258,000 tourist arrivals—the highest ever for that month; January saw 277,000—the highest ever January—despite damaged infrastructure. This was possible because emergency accelerated inter-agency work and procurement for urgent needs.
The World Bank’s interim estimate places the economic impact of Dithwa at USD 4.1 billion; the final figure may be higher. We immediately brought supplementary estimates to this House and mobilized international and diaspora support. The emergency is used solely to rescue our people from the cyclone’s devastation and expedite recovery across health, housing, transport, highways and ports. We will not use it for repression. We continue to rebuild the economy and uphold democratic freedoms. Thank you.