2026-02-19 / Debate (Continued): Judicature (Amendment) Bill and Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill - Committee and Third Reading 2026-02-19
## Summary
Hon. Bhagya Sri Herath spoke in support of proposed amendments to the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the Judicature Act, which the Opposition stated it endorses, while questioning why such reforms were delayed. The speaker argued that past political interference had shielded drug traffickers from law enforcement, and asserted that this obstruction has now ended, enabling officers to act without political pressure. In response to an Opposition concern regarding DNA testing in maintenance cases, the speaker clarified that courts can draw an adverse inference under section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance where a putative father refuses testing, making legislative intervention unnecessary. The speaker outlined a broader government strategy combining legal enforcement, expansion of rehabilitation centres, and social investment—including sports facilities in Anuradhapura and Mihintale—to address drug use through what was described as a coordinated, society-wide approach.
Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Speaker.
Today we debate amendments to the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and to the Judicature Act. The Opposition’s position is clear: these are good amendments, and we support them. The question is why such necessary reforms were delayed for so long.
For years our country was enmeshed in networks of traffickers intertwined with politics and institutions. We have long said that beyond the visible politicians there existed an “underworld state” linked to drug trafficking and other rackets. The people gave us a mandate to sever the political ties to traffickers.
History shows how, when law enforcement tried to act—even to search or arrest on reasonable suspicion in drug cases—political leaders intervened to shield suspects. Containers of narcotics were seized from private premises, yet the political authority of the day protected those involved. It was not drug traffickers the police feared; it was the political power behind them. That fear has ended. There are many capable, honourable officers. They have shown the backbone to knock on even powerful politicians’ doors. Now the Government, the people, and the public service are aligned, and officers can act without fear.
An Opposition Member raised a concern about maintenance cases: that where paternity is denied, a mother cannot obtain a DNA test and is left helpless. That is not the law. A mother can seek relief from court. If the putative father refuses DNA testing, under section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance an adverse inference can be drawn. There is no need for public alarm on this point.
Some argue that more laws alone will not end drug use because supply appears everywhere. We agree legislation is not a silver bullet. That is why, alongside laws, we are expanding rehabilitation so that those who wish to quit can access treatment at centres already established. Our approach views those addicted not merely as criminals but as patients who need help, while also ensuring that traffickers face the full force of the law.
We are also investing in positive alternatives—sports development, for instance—to counter the social factors that feed addiction. New facilities are being developed, including an international sports complex in the Anuradhapura District and rehabilitation centres in Mihintale. Weekly markets and public spaces are being adapted to encourage healthy activities. This is a coordinated, society-wide approach: enforce the law, rehabilitate users, and build community resilience.
To those who failed to rebuild this country and now stoke division, our answer is that we will rebuild Sri Lanka not only through policy and law but also through ethics and example. If the Opposition cannot support this, at least refrain from obstructing it.