The removal of the Chairman of Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) (Private) Limited has been officially framed as a routine administrative restructuring. Yet, the absence of any visible restructuring blueprint has transformed what should have been a procedural decision into a public controversy.
Minister Anura Karunathilaka has been categorical in dismissing claims that Harsha Abeywickrama was removed over a disagreement concerning a special airport terminal access permit for a religious leader. The Ministry has confirmed that the former Chairman complied with ministerial instructions, issued the authorization letter with conditions, and that no dispute followed.
However, the government’s response appears focused on refuting one narrative while leaving the core issue unexplained: what exactly is being restructured at AASL?
Restructuring, by definition, implies planned reform whether financial, managerial, or operational. In state-owned or state-linked enterprises, such processes are usually accompanied by cabinet papers, policy statements, or at minimum, internal circulars defining goals and expected outcomes. In the case of AASL, no such framework has been made public.
Minister Karunathilaka stated that by January 21, it had become apparent that a change in administration was required. Yet there has been no disclosure of performance audits, governance failures, or structural weaknesses necessitating this change. Without such context, the term “administrative restructuring” risks becoming a catch-all justification rather than a meaningful policy action.
The aviation sector is particularly sensitive to leadership instability. International aviation bodies, airlines, and investors place a premium on continuity, regulatory clarity, and institutional credibility. Abrupt leadership changes, unaccompanied by clear reform agendas, can send mixed signals about governance stability.
Furthermore, the Ministry’s insistence that social media reports are false underscores a broader issue: the lack of proactive communication. When official explanations lag behind public speculation, governments lose control of the narrative. Transparency is not merely about denial—it requires disclosure.
The central concern is not whether the Minister had the authority to remove the Chairman, but whether the removal aligns with a coherent reform strategy. If AASL is undergoing restructuring, stakeholders deserve to know its scope: Does it involve cost rationalization? Management overhaul? Policy realignment with national aviation goals?
Until these questions are answered, the restructuring claim remains unsubstantiated. In the absence of a published plan, the leadership change appears isolated rather than systemic.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Abeywickrama’s removal reflects a deeper governance challenge how public institutions justify power decisions in an era where accountability demands more than assurances. Without clarity, restructuring risks being perceived not as reform, but as uncertainty.
