By Adolf
Something is stirring inside the Colombo Port City Commission. And this time, the questions are not about investors, tax incentives or the billions of dollars Sri Lanka hopes to attract. They are about who gets appointed, who provides the legal advice and who ultimately answers for decisions being made inside an institution entrusted with one of Sri Lanka’s biggest economic bets.
The Colombo Port City Economic Commission is facing questions over its recruitment and legal oversight arrangements, particularly following concerns about the concentration of senior commercial and legal responsibilities under the same official. That may sound like an internal administrative matter. It is not.
Governance
When an institution is created to oversee a project designed to attract billions of dollars of international investment, governance cannot be treated as an afterthought. The people occupying key positions matter. So does the independence of the advice they receive.
Director General Revan Wickramasuriya has indicated that the matter will be considered internally. But Parliament is also taking an interest. COPF Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva has confirmed that the Port City Economic Commission is expected before the Committee on Public Finance.
That hearing could prove interesting, provided Dr. de Silva is not overwhelmed by the presence of the Commission members.
Among the questions likely to arise are straightforward ones: What were the recruitment criteria? Who approved the appointment? What qualifications were required? Was an open and competitive process followed? And, perhaps most importantly, is there sufficient independent legal oversight within the Commission?
These are legitimate governance questions. They do not, by themselves, establish that anything improper has taken place. Nor do they establish that any personal relationship or conflict exists.
But institutions dealing with major commercial interests cannot expect scrutiny to disappear simply because an appointment was made internally—particularly when questions are already being raised publicly about the circumstances surrounding it.
A Top Officer
The woman at the centre of the discussion is understood to have been brought into Port City through the initiative of a top officer, having previously worked with the Chinese company involved in the project.
If that is indeed how the appointment came about, another obvious question follows: was the process appropriate and consistent with the Commission’s recruitment procedures?
That is a question for the Commission to answer. If the top officer exercised discretionary powers available to them, that should also be capable of being explained publicly.
Discretion is not the same thing as exemption from scrutiny. In public institutions, perception matters almost as much as process.
If an appointment appears to have been driven by a top officer rather than through a transparent and competitive process, reasonable questions will follow. If the same official subsequently carries significant commercial and legal responsibilities, those questions become even more pertinent.
Conflicts
Port City is being marketed as a future international investment and financial centre.
Investors do not look only at buildings and incentives. They look at institutions. They want to know who makes decisions, how those decisions can be challenged, whether legal advice is independent and whether the rules are applied consistently.
This is why the current controversy is bigger than one individual.
If commercial and legal responsibilities become too closely intertwined, questions about independence are inevitable. Even where there is no actual conflict, the appearance of insufficient separation can itself become a governance issue.
And perception matters enormously in international investment.
The Commission therefore has an opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt. It can explain the recruitment process, the top officer’s role and relationship to the woman. It can disclose the qualifications required. It can clarify reporting lines. And it can demonstrate how independent legal advice is obtained when decisions involve significant commercial, regulatory or investor interests.
That would be good governance. It would also be good politics.
Because Port City cannot afford an institutional credibility problem before it has fully established its international credibility.
The project has been presented as a transformational opportunity for Sri Lanka. The ambition is enormous. The potential investment is enormous. The expectations are enormous.
The governance must therefore be equally robust.
The COPF hearing, chaired by Dr. Harsha de Silva, who is familiar with the wider background surrounding the Commission and its top officer, could provide an important opportunity to establish exactly how robust those governance arrangements really are.
The Political Irony
And there is an obvious political irony.
The administration of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has placed considerable emphasis on accountability, proper recruitment procedures and adherence to approved cadres and terms of reference in the public sector. Recruitment and appointments outside established frameworks have come under intense scrutiny.
Already, two lawyers, Akila Viraj and Shamala Perera, are on bail for a similar incident. That makes the Port City questions particularly interesting.
The public will reasonably ask whether the same standards of transparency, procedure and accountability are expected inside one of the country’s most strategically important economic institutions.
The issue, ultimately, is not whether Radhika is rocking Port City. It is whether the governance arrangements of the Port City Commission are strong enough to withstand the rocking and prevent decisions being made at the whim of a top officer.
That is what Parliament—and the public—now have every right to find out.
And if it is ultimately established that a top officer used discretionary powers to bring in an individual without following the required recruitment process, then the question will no longer be simply whether the appointment was wise.
It will be whether that top officer can continue to command the confidence required to lead the Commission.
That is a question Parliament should be prepared to ask—and one the top officer should be prepared to answer.
