Batticaloa campus, agreements with foreign countries, agencies dominate House debates
An eventful week in Parliament saw debates on the controversial Batticaloa Campus ( Pvt.) Ltd. (BCPL) and several key agreements the Government plans to enter into with the US.
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna ( JVP) MP Dr Nalinda Jayathissa moved an adjournment debate on the BCPL on Wednesday (7), stating that the campus had been set up illegally, using political influence. Claiming that the campus has now become an obstacle to free education and national reconciliation, Dr Jayathissa endorsed the recommendations made by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Education & Human Resource Development ( SOCEHRD), in its report on the campus, that it be taken over by the State and made a part of the Eastern University ( EU). He also called on the Government to initiate Legal action against those responsible for setting up the campus through illegal means.
United National Party (UNP) MP Prof. Ashu Marasinghe, who is Head of the SOCEHRD, strongly refuted allegations by former Eastern Province Governor M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, that the report had been prepared to advance his ( Prof. Marasinghe’s) personal motives. “The report was prepared by all members of the Oversight Committee. We have identified many illegal actions and instances of financial misappropriations related to this project. This is why we have recommended that it be taken over by the State and run as a campus of EU.”
Meanwhile, the United People’s Freedom Alliance ( UPFA) moved an adjournment motion on Friday ( 9) insisting that Parliamentary approval should be obtained by the Government, before entering into agreements with foreign countries or agencies.
The motion was moved on account of three different agreements the Government was set to enter into with the US; namely the Status of Forces Acquisition ( SOFA) and Cross- Servicing Agreement ( ACSA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement.
Moving t he motion in Parliament, Mahajana Eksath Peramuna ( MEP) Leader Dinesh Gunawardena accused the Government of entering into agreements that are detrimental to the country. He demanded that they be presented to Parliament, so that MPs could see their contents and decide whether to approve them.
“The whole country is concerned about these agreements. If the MPs cannot receive information on the content of these agreements, who can?” MP Gunawardena queried.
He also said that, such security agreements with the US runs contrary to the non-aligned foreign policy that Sri Lanka has adopted for more than 50 years.
“The agreements will also affect regional stability. The Government is trying to push these forward even though the President himself opposes them,” he charged.
Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella however, insisted that the SOFA and ACSA agreements were signed during the times of earlier UPFA Governments and the present Government was only extending them. “The SOFA agreement was initiated under President Chandrika Kumaratunga, while the ACSA agreement was signed by then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in 2007. We are bound to implement those agreements signed by previous Governments. We will send all the drafts to the Attorney General ( AG). They will ensure that there’s nothing in them that are harmful to the country’s sovereignty. We will only sign them after obtaining AG’s approval,” he added.
He also queried as to whether any Opposition MP raised issue when the ACSA agreement was signed by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was a US citizen then. “This agreement was signed by two US citizens. If we are to accept their (Opposition) argument, Gotabaya Rajapaksa betrayed the country and committed treason,” he quipped.
He insisted that, when Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana was in the US, conducting negotiations on extending the SOFA agreement, he had insisted that any US citizen suspected of an offence committed in this country, will be subjected to Sri Lankan jurisdiction and not US jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, the Government, on Tuesday ( 6), withdrew the Sri Lanka Electricity ( Amendment) Bill in Parliament, based on observations made by the AG that some sections of the proposed Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution. The Bill had also come under severe criticism from the Opposition, which insisted that it would give unprecedented powers to the subject Minister, by allowing him to take over powers vested with the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) regarding Power purchases.