At the outset, it must be acknowledged without equivocation that the present coal crisis has assumed centre stage in the national discourse. It is visible, tangible, and understandably disquieting. Yet, beyond the smoke that now envelops public debate, there lies a pressing need for scientific clarity. For in its absence, analysis risks degenerating into assertion, and criticism into paralogism—arguments that mimic logic while remaining unmoored from fact. What follows is a persuasive argument anchored in scientific clarity and disciplined reasoning. To view the current situation in isolation is to misunderstand its nature. The volatility of global coal markets—shaped by geopolitical tremors, supply realignments, and escalating freight costs—has placed even the most carefully structured procurement strategies under strain. Nations with far greater resources have faced comparable disruptions, compelled to recalibrate their energy policies in real time. What confronts us, therefore, is not merely a domestic lapse, but the convergence of external pressures acting upon an already delicate system. It would be remiss not to recognise that the present strain did not materialise overnight. For years, energy planning has too often oscillated between short-term expedience and deferred reform, leaving structural vulnerabilities insufficiently addressed. The consequences of such drift are seldom immediate—but when they surface, they do so with force. To attribute today’s challenges solely to present decision-making is to detach cause from context, and effect from origin. Beneath the surface of this debate lies a more fundamental truth, too often overlooked in the rush to apportion blame: coal is not a uniform commodity, but a geological inheritance shaped over millions of years. Its quality varies not by administrative decree, but by the slow alchemy of nature—by age, pressure, temperature, and the conditions under which ancient organic matter was laid down and transformed. These intrinsic differences are not academic curiosities; they bear directly upon the efficiency and stability of power generation. Coal of lower rank, burdened with higher moisture or ash, yields less energy and imposes greater strain on generation systems, requiring larger volumes to produce the same output. Conversely, higher-grade coal, forged under more intense geological conditions, delivers greater calorific value and cleaner combustion. To speak, therefore, of “coal supply” as though it were homogeneous is to elide a critical variable. It is a simplification that edges dangerously close to paralogism—an argument that appears sound, yet falters under scrutiny for having ignored the very factors that determine performance. In energy policy, as in science, such omissions are not trivial; they are decisive. Against this backdrop, much of the criticism now being amplified warrants closer scrutiny. For what is presented as incisive critique often dissolves, upon examination, into selective reasoning: fragments of data elevated in isolation, context conveniently omitted, and complex realities reduced to simplistic binaries. Such arguments may generate headlines, but they do little to illuminate the problem—still less to resolve it. Even when frustration drives the opposition to sling mud, nothing adheres—for what is cast is not mud, but sand: shifting, insubstantial, and incapable of clinging to fact. What must instead be assessed is not the absence of difficulty, but the presence of response. The government’s task has been one of navigation rather than denial—stabilising supply chains, negotiating procurement under volatile conditions, and confronting inherited inefficiencies that can no longer be deferred. There is, in this approach, no pretence of instant remedy—only the steadier discipline of corrective action. More importantly, the present moment underscores the necessity of transition. Diversification of energy sources, investment in renewables, and the strengthening of grid resilience are no longer matters of policy preference, but strategic imperatives. A crisis, if approached with clarity, can serve not merely as a test of governance, but as a catalyst for reform. The question, therefore, is not whether a crisis exists—for it plainly does—but whether it is being confronted with sobriety and resolve, or obscured by rhetorical sleight of hand. A nation’s energy future cannot be secured by arguments that merely resemble logic. Paralogism may generate noise—but it cannot generate power.
A bank does not lose billions overnight. It loses it in instalments – through unchallenged assumptions, unasked or unanswered questions, missed warning signals and the quiet comfort of believing that someone else is watching the controls.
It is this timely but uncomfortable truth that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey captured with clinical precision, speaking at the CII Corporate Governance Summit in April 2026.
“Boards are often well constituted, but not always equally effective. Information is available, but not always interrogated deeply. Independence exists in form, but may not always translate into independent perspective.”
In this observation, Pandey was articulating a deep structural weakness that resonates across emerging markets, including Sri Lanka: the persistent triumph of Form over Substance in Corporate Governance.
This phenomenon of symbolic governance – is now in sharp focus in Sri Lanka’s financial sector. Recent developments surrounding NDB Bank reveal what could be one of the most significant internal control failures in recent banking history.
While the disclosures suggest a staggering exposure of Rs. 13.2 billion, the true significance of this episode lies not merely in its scale, but in what it reveals about how corporate governance is practiced and the lessons it can teach us.
The failure of interrogation
In an institution where information is not merely received but actively interrogated, a sharp increase in receivables within a relatively short period should have triggered immediate scrutiny. A sudden variance from historical norms is not just an accounting anomaly – it is a signal calling for action.
This brings us to Pandey’s most piercing insight: “information is available, but not always interrogated deeply”
For many boards, receipt of voluminous board packs satisfies the requirement of oversight in form. But governance, in substance, demands more requiring directors to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge the trends, and probe beneath the surface of reported numbers. Receiving the board pack is availability. Asking why a specific ledger entry has deviated from its historical norm is interrogation.
Board and sub-committees – Audit and Risk in particular, should focus on interrogation and not availability. The distinction is critical. Availability of information is passive; interrogation is active. In the absence of interrogation, risks accumulate and compounds.
The mirage of independence
Sri Lanka’s corporate governance framework, guided by listing rules and regulatory expectations, has largely succeeded in institutionalising the form of independence. Boards are populated with Independent Non-Executive Directors. Committees are constituted. Regular meetings are held. Disclosures are made.
But as Pandey cautions, independence in structure does not always translate into independence in thought. In tightly networked business environments, familiarity can inadvertently dull skepticism. Collegiality can override challenge. Over time, a board culture may emerge where consensus is valued more than inquiry, and where dissent is subtly discouraged.
True independence is not a legal status or conformity to set criteria, it is a state of mind that assumes nothing and verifies everything!
It is the willingness to question, seek verification, and to resist the comfort of alignment when evidence suggests otherwise.
Well-constituted, but not effective: The execution gap in governance
Pandey’s most consequential observation is also his most uncomfortable: ‘’boards are often well constituted, but not always equally effective.”
This is where failures of interrogation and independence converge. A board receiving extensive information may fail to interrogate it. It may satisfy formal requirements of independence yet lack the mindset to challenge. Resulting structure appears robust on paper, but underperforms in practice.
Effectiveness in governance is not a function of composition but a function of contribution.
Boards are often assembled with impressive credentials – distinguished careers, strong reputations, diverse backgrounds, top tier education. But governance does not operate on credentials; it requires intellectual friction and depends on engagement, judgment, and the ability to ask the right questions.
A director with an impressive CV will add little value if they lack domain familiarity or confidence to interrogate complex risks. In specialised environments such as financial institutions, oversight requires more than general business acumen. Without sufficient understanding of systems and vulnerabilities, interrogation becomes superficial.
Ineffectiveness is also about misalignment between expertise, availability and responsibility. When directors lack the capacity, are unwilling or simply too busy to engage deeply with the substance of the business, oversight becomes passive and governance ineffective.
A board becomes ineffective not for lack of structure, but for lack of the will or ability to act.
The cost of symbolic governance
The cost of a failure event is first borne within the institution but it rarely remains confined there.
At the organisational level, the impact is immediate and tangible. Financial losses erode capital, disrupt operations, and impede growth. More critically, reputational damage – often harder to quantify – can be far more enduring. Trust, once compromised, affects depositors, counterparties, investors, and employees alike. Leadership credibility is questioned, strategic momentum is lost, and the institution’s ability to compete is weakened.
In corporate governance failures, financial loss is often the trigger but loss of trust is the multiplier.
The cost does not stop at the institution. It is systemic and the consequences ripple outward across the entire economic and financial ecosystem.
1. Investor confidence and risk perception
For both domestic and foreign investors, governance quality is inseparable from valuation. More importantly, investors price not just what they see—but what they fear may be unseen. Episodes of this nature reinforce a “governance discount,” where capital reflects not only macroeconomic and corporate fundamentals, but the credibility of oversight. When boards appear passive, markets assume risks are being discovered late rather than managed early.
2. Regulatory credibility
Institutions such as the Central Bank of Sri Lanka are being pushed beyond rule-based supervision toward assessing effectiveness and culture. However, regulation has limits. No framework can compensate for a board that does not ask the second question. Compliance can be enforced; engagement cannot. As governance becomes symbolic, the regulatory burden rises – but its ability to pre-empt failure does not.
3. The Audit expectation gap
Such incidents expose the limits of traditional audit frameworks. Auditors are designed to verify, not suspect. Where anomalies are not escalated or interrogated at board level, even strong audit processes can miss emerging risks. If audit becomes a process of confirmation rather than challenge, it risks reinforcing the very silence it is meant to guard against.
From compliance to accountability
If symbolic governance is the problem, then the solution lies in embedding substance into boardroom practice. If we are to take Pandey’s signal seriously, Sri Lankan boardrooms must undergo a cultural shift.
1. Capacity building over resume gathering
As Panday suggested, we need “domain-specific orientation.” A director on a bank board should have a detailed knowledge of banking and a working knowledge of related areas such as trade finance, forex, cyber-risk and digital transaction flows – not just a general understanding of business. You cannot interrogate what you do not understand.
2. Strengthening whistleblower architecture
Companies must ensure that whistleblowing mechanisms are both protected and direct. Channels that allow escalation to board-level committees, independent of management are essential for early detection and institutional trust. If employees feel they must go to the press or the regulator before their own board, the board has already failed.
3. Timely oversight and exception reporting
Quarterly oversight cycles are increasingly inadequate in a real-time financial environment. Boards and risk committees should have access to dynamic dashboards that flag material deviations as they occur, enabling timely intervention rather than retrospective analysis.
4. Formalising dissent
The formal recording of dissenting views within board deliberations and minutes can strengthen accountability. It shifts the focus from unanimous decisions to rigorously examined ones, ensuring that alternative perspectives are neither lost nor discouraged.
5. Evolving regulatory supervision
Regulators must continue the transition toward risk-based and culture-focused supervision – where the emphasis is not only on adherence to rules, but on the effectiveness of governance practices in identifying and mitigating emerging risks.
Conclusion
The NDB event is a wake-up call for the Sri Lankan corporate sector, exposing systemic weaknesses and proving that governance is not a matter of documentation or a symbolic performance. It is a matter of conduct – found in the daily, often invisible work of questioning, verifying and safeguarding stakeholder interests.
We have reached the limits of symbolic Governance. The market now demands directors who are independent in thought, rigorous in interrogation, and unwavering in accountability.
Active boardroom engagement is the next frontier of governance which will shift the director from observer to guardian.
(The author is the Chairman of Navara Capital Ltd. He is a Chartered Banker and holds a PhD in Strategic Management and Master’s degrees in Commercial Law and in Business Administration with three decades Board experience across multiple Industries)
According to sources, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has initiated investigations into the banking transactions of certain senior officials of the National Development Bank PLC (NDB) and their family members in connection with a large-scale fraud that reportedly took place at the bank.
It is understood that the CID is preparing to present the relevant facts before the court to obtain judicial orders to examine the financial transactions linked to the individuals concerned.
Sources indicate that the move follows suspicions that several individuals — both current and former employees of the bank — who may be connected to the alleged financial fraud could have deposited or transferred misappropriated funds through various banks and financial institutions.
Meanwhile, permission was granted yesterday (20) by Asanga S. Bodaragama for investigators to visit prison facilities to record statements from four suspects, including a remanded businessman who allegedly aided and abetted the fraudulent theft by secretly accessing the bank’s general ledger account via the internet. The order was issued after the court considered a request made by the Computer Crimes Investigation Division of the CID. The court granted permission to record statements from the remanded suspects: Lahiru Harshana, Pathum Kothalawala, Kosala Tharanga, and Mohammed Inhamul Hashan, in connection with the incident. Presenting facts before the court, the CID stated that the suspects had allegedly attempted to steal Rs. 600 million belonging to the bank. Investigators noted that further questioning was required and therefore requested permission to visit the prison to obtain additional statements.
64 Fake Bank Accounts
Investigators also informed the court that further statements are required regarding the alleged deposit of Rs. 380 million of stolen funds into accounts on Binance after the money was routed through 64 fraudulent bank accounts.
According to investigators, funds credited to the bank’s general ledger account were first transferred through 64 bank accounts, then redirected to 100 additional accounts, before eventually being consolidated into five accounts — including accounts allegedly used by the suspects across several banks.
Data from the bank’s automated account monitoring system reportedly revealed deposits and withdrawals being made to the same account from multiple locations across the country at different times. After detecting these suspicious activities, the bank suspended the relevant accounts and lodged a complaint with authorities. However, investigators stated that funds credited to certain suspect accounts had already been misappropriated.
Questions needs answers
This episode raises serious questions about the breakdown of fiduciary responsibility across multiple layers of oversight — from NDB itself to the wider banking system that processed these transactions.
This includes the role of external auditors Ernst & Young, supervisors at the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), the bank’s internal audit mechanisms, the CFO, the CEO, the Board Audit Committee, and ultimately the Board of Directors.
Did these safeguards fail due to negligence, systemic weakness, or something more serious? The public deserves clear answers.
Several key questions remain unanswered ?
A) Why were proper dual control mechanisms not enforced within NDB?
B) How did NDB’s internal systems — along with Ernst & Young, CBSL supervision, and top management — fail to detect such a significant fraud earlier?
C) Did other banks such as Sampath Bank PLC, Seylan Bank PLC, and Hatton National Bank PLC report the suspicious accounts and transactions to the Central Bank?
D) Were the boards of NDB, CBSL supervisors, and Ernst & Young aware of the issue as early as December 2025, and if so, was the matter suppressed until the Rs. 16 billion sustainability bond was issued?
These questions are likely to become central to the unfolding investigation and the broader debate on governance, risk management, and accountability in Sri Lanka’s banking sector.
Media hyped Directors
Another important lesson for the banking industry is the need to appoint competent and vigilant boards capable of identifying emerging risks before they escalate into crises that ultimately harm the public and the financial system.
The NDB board, for instance, included several high-profile, media-hyped individuals such as Kasturi Chellaraja, who often speaks of her management expertise and accomplishments; Sujewa Mudalige, the former managing partner of PwC, the hyped financial wizard and investment banker; Sanjaya Mohottala, a Boston Consulting Group restructuring specialist who left the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka in 2018 after union protests; and Sriyan Cooray, known primarily for his sporting background.
Before the Central Bank of Sri Lanka is confronted with another such crisis, it may be prudent for regulators to carefully assess the governance strength and oversight capabilities of other banks in the system — including institutions such as Hatton National Bank PLC and Sampath Bank PLC that we have found wanting — and ensure that boards are strengthened across the sector.
Sri Lanka’s banking system cannot afford another episode similar to what is now unfolding at NDB.
Sri Lanka’s aggressive post-crisis construction drive is being framed as a success story of resilience and economic revival. With a targeted 5% growth rate and an unprecedented pipeline of public investment, the government has positioned infrastructure development at the heart of national recovery. However, an investigative look at the sector reveals a more fragile picture, where progress is uneven and risks are mounting despite official assurances.
The scale of the state’s commitment is undeniable. Approximately Rs. 342 billion has been allocated for road development in 2026, alongside major investments in housing, transport, and public buildings. High-profile projects, including multiple phases of the Central Expressway, are moving forward, with some sections reportedly reaching 75% completion. Authorities insist that all major works remain on schedule, even amid global uncertainties.
This confidence, however, contrasts sharply with industry-level challenges. The aftereffects of Cyclone Ditwah continue to shape demand, with reconstruction needs estimated at hundreds of billions of rupees. While this has created a surge in project activity, it has also exposed structural weaknesses within the sector. Contractors are grappling with escalating material costs and limited access to affordable financing, both of which threaten to delay timelines and inflate budgets.
Global factors are compounding these domestic pressures. Supply chain disruptions linked to geopolitical tensions have made key materials more expensive and less predictable. Energy price volatility adds another layer of uncertainty, particularly for projects heavily dependent on imported inputs. These external risks are difficult to control, yet they have a direct impact on the feasibility of ongoing developments.
Labor constraints further complicate the situation. The shortage of skilled workers has become a critical issue, slowing progress and increasing reliance on rapid training programs. While government initiatives aim to address the gap, questions remain about the quality and readiness of newly trained workers. Large infrastructure projects demand expertise that cannot be developed overnight, raising concerns about construction standards and long-term durability.
Housing and urban development projects illustrate both urgency and strain. The plan to build 31,000 homes in 2026 reflects a strong policy commitment, particularly for vulnerable populations affected by the cyclone and past conflicts. Financial support mechanisms, including grants for low-income families, are in place. However implementation challenges from land clearance delays to logistical bottlenecks continue to hinder progress on the ground.
Ultimately, Sri Lanka’s construction sector is at a crossroads. The current expansion is real, driven by necessity as much as policy. But the gap between official optimism and operational reality is widening. Without careful management of costs, workforce development, and external risks, the sector’s rapid growth could become increasingly difficult to maintain, potentially turning a recovery narrative into a cautionary tale.
Sri Lanka’s push for renewable energy has turned the spotlight on Mannar District, a region globally recognised for its ecological richness. But what is being promoted as green development is increasingly criticised as poorly planned expansion that risks irreversible environmental damage, particularly to one of the world’s most significant migratory bird corridors.
At the centre of the controversy lies the Vankalai Sanctuary, a Ramsar-listed wetland that supports over 20,000 waterbirds annually. The sanctuary, part of a major migratory flyway, hosts species ranging from flamingos and pelicans to rare shorebirds. Its wetlands, lagoons, and marine ecosystems also sustain fish populations, turtles, and endangered species such as dugongs. For decades, this delicate ecosystem coexisted with local communities, supporting both livelihoods and eco-tourism.
However, the arrival of large-scale wind power projects has dramatically altered this balance. The Thambapanni Phase 1 project, launched in 2018 with 30 turbines, marked the beginning of this transformation. Since then, concerns have mounted over bird deaths linked to overhead transmission lines that cut across critical habitats. Environmentalists argue that these installations have effectively turned parts of Mannar into a “death zone” for migratory species.
Criticism has focused heavily on the planning process. Experts allege that early decisions were based on outdated, broad-scale wind mapping studies that failed to account for ecological and social realities on the ground. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), which are meant to safeguard such sensitive areas, have been described as inadequate or improperly conducted. In some cases, recommendations such as placing transmission lines underground to protect birdlife were reportedly ignored.
The scale of proposed expansion has intensified fears. Additional wind projects, including large multi-turbine developments, threaten to further fragment habitats and obstruct migratory pathways. Scientists warn that even if individual projects appear manageable, their cumulative impact could be devastating. Each new installation adds infrastructure, access roads, and human activity, compounding stress on an already fragile ecosystem.
Beyond wildlife, there are concerns about broader environmental consequences. Mannar’s groundwater systems are highly sensitive, and increased construction could disrupt water availability for local communities. The region’s cultural and historical significance often overlooked in development plans adds another layer of complexity to the debate.
Proponents of wind energy argue that Sri Lanka needs to expand renewable capacity to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. However, critics counter that alternative locations with lower ecological risk exist and should be prioritised. They also point out that Mannar accounts for only a fraction of the country’s total wind potential, raising questions about why such a sensitive area is being heavily targeted.
Legal challenges and public opposition have already forced some projects to be reconsidered or withdrawn. Yet, the broader issue remains unresolved: how to balance urgent energy needs with environmental protection.
Mannar stands at a crossroads. Without more rigorous planning, transparent decision-making, and genuine consideration of ecological limits, the district risks losing not only its biodiversity but also the natural heritage that makes it unique.
Sri Lanka’s economic rebound, marked by projected 5% growth, is increasingly at risk of being derailed not solely by global shocks, but by domestic policy inertia and politically influenced decision-making. While the Central Bank paints a cautiously optimistic picture, its own analysis reveals a series of vulnerabilities that could intensify if reforms continue to lag.
A major concern is the country’s exposure to external shocks, particularly through energy imports. Sri Lanka’s reliance on Gulf-sourced fuel leaves it highly sensitive to geopolitical disruptions. Any sustained increase in global energy prices would raise import costs, widen the trade deficit, and accelerate inflation. Yet, policy responses to such risks especially in energy pricing and diversification—have been slow and, at times, inconsistent.
Inflation is already expected to rise more quickly than earlier forecasts suggested. Although it is projected to remain within the target range, this outlook depends heavily on stable global conditions an assumption that appears increasingly fragile. Delays in addressing supply-side constraints, including fertiliser availability and agricultural productivity, could further amplify food price pressures.
The country’s external buffers, rebuilt through years of adjustment, are also under strain. Remittances, a key source of foreign exchange, are concentrated in the Middle East, making them vulnerable to labour market disruptions. Similarly, exports such as tea and apparel face both demand-side risks and rising logistics costs. Tourism, a critical driver of growth, remains exposed due to its reliance on transit routes through the same region.
What amplifies these risks is the uneven pace of domestic policy implementation. Administrative bottlenecks and shifting political priorities have slowed reforms in key areas such as fiscal consolidation, public sector efficiency, and investment facilitation. This has created uncertainty among investors and limited the economy’s ability to respond effectively to external pressures.
Fiscal management presents another challenge. While the Government has set ambitious targets for revenue and deficit reduction, rising expenditures particularly for disaster recovery and potential energy subsidies could derail these plans. At the same time, revenue streams linked to imports may weaken, creating a mismatch between fiscal commitments and actual resources.
The banking sector, though currently stable, faces emerging risks. Slower economic activity or external shocks could weaken borrowers’ repayment capacity, while foreign currency liquidity pressures could resurface if inflows decline. These risks underscore the importance of proactive regulatory oversight, which must keep pace with evolving conditions.
Ultimately, Sri Lanka’s economic trajectory will depend less on projections and more on execution. The Central Bank has underscored the need for sustained reforms, policy discipline, and resilience-building. However, without timely decisions and insulation from political interference, these goals may remain aspirational.
The country stands at a critical juncture. Its recovery is real but fragile, and the window for consolidating gains is narrowing. Failure to act decisively could transform manageable risks into systemic challenges, undermining both growth and stability in the years ahead.
Sri Lanka’s decision to phase out para-tariffs marks a significant shift in its trade and fiscal policy, with far-reaching implications for industries, households, and the broader economy. According to recent economic analysis, the reform will reduce import duties by roughly nine percentage points, fundamentally reshaping cost structures, particularly within the manufacturing sector.
Para-tariffs such as the Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL) and the Commodity Export Subsidy Scheme (CESS) currently account for more than half of Sri Lanka’s import duties. With the country’s average import duty standing at 19%, about 11 percentage points stem from these additional levies rather than standard tariffs. Their gradual removal under the National Tariff Policy, scheduled through 2029, represents a major liberalization effort.
The most immediate impact will be felt in manufacturing, where para-tariffs exceed statutory tariffs across all subsectors. Processed food and beverage industries are expected to experience the largest reductions, with duties potentially dropping by up to 28 percentage points. This could significantly lower production costs and consumer prices. In contrast, sectors like textiles and mining—already operating under relatively lower tariff burdens will see more modest changes.
From a consumer perspective, the reform is projected to boost household consumption by approximately 3.1% in the short term. Lower prices on imported and domestically produced goods should increase purchasing power, particularly benefiting lower-income households. Rural families, which allocate a larger share of their spending to food, are expected to see the most pronounced gains.
However, the transition is not without risks. The restructuring of tariffs will alter competitive dynamics, potentially exposing previously protected industries to greater import competition. Sectors that have relied heavily on tariff protection may struggle to adapt, leading to job displacement. Since these industries employ about one-third of the workforce, the success of the reform will depend heavily on labor mobility and the ability of workers to transition into more competitive sectors.
On the trade front, the policy shifts incentives toward efficiency and productivity. Industries such as food processing, rubber, and plastics previously shielded by high input tariffs could become more competitive if firms capitalize on reduced costs to improve output. However, sectors lacking comparative advantage may remain vulnerable despite continued, albeit reduced, protection.
Critics argue that the policy could strain government revenue in the short term, as para-tariffs have been a significant source of fiscal income. Supporters counter that long-term gains from increased economic activity, higher consumption, and improved competitiveness will offset these losses.
Ultimately, Sri Lanka’s move to eliminate para-tariffs represents a bold attempt to rebalance its economy toward openness and efficiency. While the benefits lower prices, increased consumption, and enhanced competitiveness are clear, the transition will require careful management to mitigate social and economic disruptions.
A special discussion was held between British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Andrew Patrick and Minister of Ports, Civil Aviation, and Energy Anura Karunathilaka on strengthening cooperation in infrastructure development.
During the meeting, the High Commissioner expressed readiness to support both state and private sector partnerships for the development of Sri Lanka’s ports and airports. He noted that foreign investment and technical expertise could be provided, particularly in areas such as modern airport technology and airspace management.
Minister Karunathilaka stated that several port terminals are already operated through private sector partnerships, adding that the Hambantota Port is managed under a different model. He said the government is also seeking private investment for the operation of new terminals in the future.
The High Commissioner highlighted the Port of Colombo as a facility with world-class resources, noting that its existing 15-year development plan is highly attractive. He also welcomed the long-term planning approach being taken for airport development projects.
In addition, he pointed out that while the Port of Colombo functions primarily as a commercial hub, it also holds potential to support tourism-related activities.
Concluding the discussion, Minister Karunathilaka reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s willingness to expand partnerships with foreign investors, including those from Europe, with the aim of strengthening international cooperation and boosting economic growth.
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has triggered a sharp rise in global airfares, with the cheapest economy tickets now costing an average of 24% more than a year ago, according to new research by consultancy Teneo.
The report attributes the increase to widespread airspace restrictions, forcing airlines to reroute flights and significantly increase fuel consumption. At the same time, disruptions to oil supplies have driven up jet fuel prices, which have surged from around $85–$90 per barrel to between $150 and $200 in recent weeks.
Fuel accounts for up to a quarter of airlines’ operating costs, making it a key factor behind rising ticket prices.
The conflict has also reduced capacity on long-haul routes, particularly those typically served by Gulf carriers, many of which have scaled back operations. Although some rival airlines have expanded services, overall seat availability remains below normal levels.
The steepest fare increases have been recorded on routes between Europe and East Asia. A flight from London to Melbourne in June now costs 76% more than last year, while fares from Hong Kong to London have risen by 72%.
Meanwhile, geopolitical developments continue to add uncertainty. Reports indicate that U.S. Vice President JD Vance may travel to Pakistan for peace talks, while President Donald Trump has extended the ceasefire with Iran until a broader settlement is reached.
Airlines, particularly in the UK, have warned that a prolonged conflict could lead to further fare hikes and flight reductions. Industry representatives have urged governments to provide support measures, including tax relief, regulatory flexibility, and contingency plans to secure fuel supplies.
Proposals include easing restrictions on flight operations, adjusting passenger taxes, and prioritising jet fuel production if shortages emerge. However, authorities have indicated that there is currently no immediate shortage of jet fuel.
Governments say their priority remains de-escalating the conflict, reopening key trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, and minimising disruption to global travel and trade.
A fleet of buses imported for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and left idle for several years is now being refurbished for re-entry into service, Deputy Minister of Transport and Highways Prasanna Gunasena said.
In a social media post, the Deputy Minister noted that 15 buses have already been fully repaired and deployed, while work is ongoing to restore the remaining vehicles.
Of the 38 buses yet to be returned to service, 18 are expected to be operational within the next one and a half months, with the rest scheduled for deployment before the end of the year.
He added that the government has procured 30 new engines and 30 gearboxes to support the refurbishment programme.
Gunasena also visited the site to review the progress of the work and assess the requirements of staff involved in the project.
