By: Staff Writer
May 07, Colombo (LNW): The Government was compelled to reverse its earlier position and agree to a Parliamentary debate on the $2.5 million Treasury cyber theft, following a tense confrontation in the House that exposed deep disagreements over transparency and accountability. Just a week after rejecting the Opposition’s request, mounting pressure and a dramatic standoff forced the administration to concede.
Opposition MPs disrupted proceedings, demanding urgent discussion, shifting the focus from procedural objections to substantive concerns about how the fraudulent transactions were executed. The exchanges revealed gaps in internal controls, raising questions about oversight mechanisms and the delay in informing Parliament.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa framed the issue as a serious institutional failure, calling for a comprehensive explanation of the ten transactions totaling $2.5 million. He pressed for clarity on the legal framework governing public debt operations and the transition of responsibilities under the Public Debt Management Act No. 33 of 2024. According to him, Parliament must understand every stage of the process, including who was responsible at each level.
He questioned how payment details, including SWIFT information, could have been altered despite what was described as a multi-layer verification system. Premadasa also demanded a timeline of when complaints were made to authorities and why Parliament was not informed earlier, especially if sufficient information existed to alert law enforcement agencies.
Beyond the central fraud, he raised additional concerns involving alleged financial discrepancies, including a reported $600,000 loss linked to payments to the US Postal Service, possible duplicate payments under welfare programs, and missing documentation related to foreign loans. These, he argued, pointed to broader systemic weaknesses.
Responding on behalf of the Government, Deputy Minister Dr. Anil Jayantha Fernando outlined the sequence of transactions, detailing payments made between November and January in several installments. He described the existing payment process, involving multiple departments and verification steps, while acknowledging that investigations were ongoing to determine where the breakdown occurred.
Fernando stated that authorities only confirmed the funds had not reached the intended creditor in March, following notification from Export Finance Australia. Earlier warnings had been referred to cybersecurity and law enforcement agencies in January, with additional notifications made in April.
Addressing criticism over delayed disclosure, he argued that the Government needed verified information before informing Parliament. Premadasa rejected this justification, insisting that informing the Criminal Investigation Department should have triggered immediate disclosure to lawmakers.
The debate underscored a widening divide: the Government maintained that the incident was a cybercrime beyond its direct control, while the Opposition argued it reflected deeper governance failures. Although the administration acknowledged procedural lapses, it resisted claims of deliberate wrongdoing.
Ultimately, the confrontation highlighted growing tensions over financial oversight and public accountability, setting the stage for a high-stakes Parliamentary debate that could have broader implications for governance and institutional reform.