The recent proposal by the Government to “lease” 20 kilograms of rice to public servants is more than an unusual administrative measure. It is, in many ways, a revealing symbol of a deeper economic and social reality: that the burden of adjustment is no longer being carried at the macroeconomic level alone, but has now penetrated into the dinner tables of ordinary households.

For months, the Government has defended its IMF-backed reforms as difficult but necessary “national adjustments” designed to stabilise the economy, restore confidence, and rebuild fiscal discipline. Yet, what is now becoming increasingly evident is that these adjustments have translated into something far more immediate and painful for the average citizen — a steady compression of welfare, purchasing power, and household security.

Rice, the staple food of the nation, occupies a unique place in Sri Lankan life. For a Government to devise a mechanism by which employees may obtain rice today and presumably pay for it later is a stark indication that incomes have failed to keep pace with living costs. It is an acknowledgement, whether intended or not, that many working families are struggling to meet even their most basic nutritional needs.

Thus, this is not merely an economic issue. It is a political signal. Governments that begin to mediate access to staple foods are often confronting the visible consequences of policy failure. Instead of addressing the structural causes of rising living costs — weak production incentives, tax burdens, supply inefficiencies, and stagnant wages — such stopgap arrangements appear to treat symptoms rather than causes.

Even more troubling is what this says about policy direction. If after years of taxation increases, subsidy cuts, tariff hikes, and shrinking welfare support, the answer to household distress is a deferred-payment rice scheme, then serious questions must be asked about the wisdom of the decisions that brought the country to this point.

Temporary relief cannot substitute for sustainable solutions. Public frustration is therefore understandable. What was sold as a pathway to economic recovery is increasingly being felt as a pathway to household deprivation. And when deprivation becomes normalised, confidence in governance begins to erode.

A Government’s success is not measured solely by reserve accumulation, fiscal targets, or debt restructuring milestones. It is measured by whether ordinary citizens can live with dignity, feed their families without assistance, and look to the future with confidence. If rice itself must now be “leased,” it may well be a sign that the economic model being pursued requires not merely adjustment, but serious reconsideration.

Sri Lanka used the global platform of MWC Shanghai 2026 to introduce itself as an emerging player in artificial intelligence infrastructure rather than merely another consumer of global technology. The message delivered by Deputy Digital Economy Minister Eng. Eranga Weeraratne was ambitious: Sri Lanka intends to leverage its strategic geography, digital connectivity, renewable energy ambitions and skilled workforce to become a trusted regional platform for AI development.

It is a compelling narrative.

However, the document itself reveals a familiar policy dilemma—strong vision accompanied by limited evidence of immediate implementation.

Throughout the presentation, Sri Lanka positions itself as an enabling platform instead of competing directly with technology giants. It highlights its network of international submarine cable systems, its role as South Asia’s first submarine cable depot and its geographical location along major East-West digital routes.

These are long-term structural advantages that few countries possess. Yet infrastructure potential alone cannot establish an AI ecosystem.

 The proposal extends well beyond connectivity. Sri Lanka aims to develop integrated computing infrastructure, hyperscale data centres, trusted governance frameworks, cybersecurity capabilities and local-language AI solutions. It also proposes sovereign AI not as technological isolation, but as maintaining control over national data while encouraging international collaboration.

The policy vision is broad and comprehensive.

What remains less clear is how these objectives will be translated into coordinated national programmes.

The presentation outlines what Sri Lanka hopes to become rather than what has already been achieved. Phrases such as “seeks to create”, “believes it can become” and “working towards” dominate the narrative. They reflect policy intent but also underline that much of the agenda remains aspirational.

International investors are being invited to finance advanced computing infrastructure, AI research and cybersecurity partnerships. Governments and development partners are encouraged to join future AI forums and digital economy initiatives hosted by Sri Lanka.

These invitations demonstrate confidence but also highlight a dependence on external collaboration before several core ambitions can materialise.

The renewable energy agenda further illustrates this gap. Sri Lanka’s target of generating 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and carbon-neutral electricity by 2050 supports the country’s aspiration to host environmentally sustainable data centres. Yet these goals remain future commitments whose success depends on consistent policy delivery.

Equally significant is the emphasis placed on trusted governance. In the AI era, regulatory certainty, cybersecurity resilience and institutional capacity often matter as much as digital infrastructure itself. The document identifies these priorities but stops short of explaining the implementation architecture required to achieve them.

Sri Lanka’s presentation succeeds in positioning the country within an important global conversation about artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. It presents a persuasive strategic case built around geography, connectivity and collaboration.

The greater challenge now lies beyond international conferences. Transforming Sri Lanka into the regional AI hub described in Shanghai will require sustained execution, institutional coordination and timely implementation. Until those elements become visible, the country’s AI vision risks remaining an impressive policy narrative searching for practical delivery.

The Port of Colombo has delivered another impressive performance in 2026, recording double-digit growth in container volumes and reinforcing its status as South Asia’s leading transshipment hub. However, behind the encouraging statistics lies a more complex story—one that raises important questions about sustainability, dependence on transshipment cargo, infrastructure readiness and intensifying regional competition.

According to the latest operational figures, Colombo handled 3.7 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) during the first five months of 2026, marking a 13.5 percent increase compared with the same period last year. The numbers demonstrate the port’s continued resilience despite global shipping uncertainties and geopolitical tensions affecting international trade.

The strongest contributor remains transshipment cargo, which accounted for approximately 84.5 percent of total container throughput while growing by 14 percent year-on-year. Domestic container volumes also rose by 10.7 percent, reflecting a gradual improvement in Sri Lanka’s own import and export activity.

Ship arrivals increased by 4.7 percent, while ancillary maritime services—including bunkering, ship repairs, crew changes and ship chandelling—registered an impressive 48 percent growth, signalling Colombo’s expanding role beyond traditional cargo handling.

However industry observers caution that the headline figures also expose a structural vulnerability.

The overwhelming dependence on transshipment means Colombo remains heavily reliant on cargo originating from neighbouring countries, particularly India. While Sri Lanka enjoys a strategic location on major East-West shipping lanes, much of the cargo passing through Colombo is ultimately destined for Indian ports. Any shift in shipping patterns, policy changes or infrastructure improvements across the Indian coastline could significantly affect Colombo’s volumes.

Capacity expansion presents another challenge. Although investments in infrastructure and digitalisation are ongoing, container growth is steadily consuming available capacity. Shipping analysts argue that future competitiveness will depend not only on larger terminals but also on faster customs clearance, improved hinterland connectivity and advanced digital logistics systems.

Another concern is pricing competitiveness. Global shipping lines increasingly seek ports offering quicker turnaround times and lower operating costs. Colombo’s ability to maintain efficiency while managing rising operational expenses will become increasingly important as regional alternatives mature.

The Sri Lanka Ports Authority has continued to work with terminal operators to improve productivity and attract additional shipping services. Nevertheless, analysts note that maintaining market leadership requires continuous investment rather than reliance on geographical advantage alone.

Global shipping alliances are also becoming more selective in determining their regional hub ports. Factors such as automation, environmental compliance, port reliability and integrated logistics ecosystems are now playing a larger role in route planning than ever before.

Colombo’s current performance undoubtedly reflects strong international confidence. However, sustaining this momentum will require strategic planning that extends beyond handling larger cargo volumes. Diversifying maritime services, improving value-added logistics and strengthening supply chain resilience may ultimately determine whether Colombo retains its leadership position in an increasingly competitive Indian Ocean shipping landscape.

While SriLankan Airlines has been cleared over the high-profile UAE cyber payment incident, the national carrier continues to confront another serious financial investigation involving alleged internal fraud at its regional office in Chennai, India, even as it completes one of the country’s largest state-backed debt restructuring programmes.

According to airline officials, an internal audit uncovered a long-running scheme in which locally recruited finance employees at the Chennai office allegedly misappropriated approximately INR 22 million. Investigators believe the suspects manipulated invoices, altered payment records and forged management authorizations to divert company funds over an extended period.

The irregularities were first detected by SriLankan Airlines’ head office in Colombo after unusual payment patterns triggered internal financial monitoring systems. A detailed investigation followed, during which the employees allegedly linked to the scheme stopped reporting for duty and are believed to have fled before disciplinary action could be initiated.

The matter has now been referred to Indian law enforcement authorities, who are conducting investigations aimed at identifying those responsible and recovering the missing funds. Airline officials have indicated that cooperation between Sri Lankan and Indian authorities will continue as inquiries progress.

The fraud investigation has unfolded alongside a significant financial restructuring designed to restore the airline’s long-term viability.

One of the most significant milestones involved resolving USD 175 million in International Sovereign Bond obligations. Under the restructuring agreement, the existing debt was replaced with new government-backed amortizing bonds maturing in 2028. Bondholders accepted a 16 percent reduction in value, while approximately 99 percent of investors supported the settlement, enabling the debt to be fully resolved.

In addition, the government completed the restructuring of Rs. 91.3 billion in state bank borrowings by transferring repayment obligations to a Treasury-supported mechanism. Scheduled repayments will now be made twice annually during April and October under a structured programme funded through national budget allocations.

The government has committed Rs. 20 billion to meet the remaining legacy interest and principal obligations arising from these historical liabilities. However, officials have stressed that future financial support will not extend to day-to-day operations.

The Ministry of Finance has directed that SriLankan Airlines must now operate as a commercially sustainable enterprise capable of financing its own operational requirements without recurring government bailouts. Responsibility for improving profitability and strengthening governance has been placed squarely on the airline’s new leadership and board of directors.

Together, the Chennai fraud investigation and the completion of major debt restructuring illustrate the contrasting challenges confronting SriLankan Airlines as it seeks to rebuild public confidence. While historic financial burdens are being resolved through government-backed reforms, strengthening internal controls and preventing future fraud remain essential to securing the airline’s long-term stability and restoring trust in its financial management.

Fresh pressure is mounting on Sri Lanka’s financial regulators after former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake called for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into what has been described as one of the country’s largest alleged foreign exchange frauds, raising questions over whether warning signs were ignored by institutions responsible for financial oversight.

Writing to Committee on Public Finance (CoPF) Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva, Karunanayake urged lawmakers to investigate not only the companies and individuals accused of orchestrating the alleged fraud but also the conduct of regulatory agencies entrusted with safeguarding the nation’s banking and financial systems.

The appeal comes in the wake of statements made in Parliament by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala detailing investigations into suspected fraudulent overseas remittances. According to figures cited by the President, Sri Lanka may have suffered losses approaching US$1 billion since 2024 through advance payments and telegraphic transfers made for imports that allegedly never arrived.

Separately, investigations disclosed by the Public Security Minister reportedly uncovered Rs.12.89 billion transferred overseas through 953 suspected fraudulent transactions involving more than 100 shell companies, intensifying concerns over the effectiveness of existing financial safeguards.

Karunanayake argues that these developments expose what he described as a significant gap in regulatory supervision. Although the Government has introduced emergency measures under the Imports and Exports (Control) Regulations No. 06 of 2026 and the Repatriation of Export Proceeds Rules No. 2 of 2026, he believes these steps do not answer the more fundamental question of how such large-scale financial movements escaped scrutiny in the first place.

Central to his concerns are reports that over 26,000 allegedly fraudulent telegraphic transfer transactions passed through 227 accounts maintained at 13 commercial banks over a two-year period. He questioned whether anti-money laundering systems, transaction monitoring software and Know Your Customer procedures functioned effectively, arguing that transactions of this scale would ordinarily trigger automated compliance alerts.

The former Finance Minister also pointed to the responsibilities of the Central Bank’s Bank Supervision Department and Financial Intelligence Unit, both of which possess legal authority to monitor banking activity, identify suspicious financial flows and enforce compliance standards. According to Karunanayake, the alleged fraud suggests either significant supervisory failures or serious weaknesses in institutional enforcement.

He further urged CoPF to revisit concerns he raised in January 2025 regarding cryptocurrency regulation, claiming he had warned that the absence of clear oversight could enable capital flight, tax evasion and movement of funds beyond Sri Lanka’s regulatory reach. Investigators, he said, should examine whether digital currencies were used alongside alleged trade-based financial fraud.

Karunanayake has recommended that CoPF summon senior Central Bank officials, the heads of Sri Lanka Customs and the Department of Imports and Exports, together with chief compliance officers representing the 13 commercial banks reportedly connected to the transactions.

Maintaining that accountability must extend beyond individual suspects, he argued that Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to determine whether regulatory institutions fulfilled their legal obligations. He has called for the proposed inquiry to be given priority at the committee’s next meeting as pressure builds for answers over the alleged billion-dollar foreign exchange scandal.

There are moments in the life of a nation when its greatest dangers are not immediately visible.

Such dangers do not arrive in the form of bombs from the air, or tanks on the streets, or constitutions torn apart. They do not announce themselves dramatically. They enter far more quietly. They emerge through habit, practice, or a gradual reshaping of institutions that once stood as safeguards of liberty.

That is how democracies weaken. Not in explosions. But in slow erosion, and slow motion. It is this kind of erosion that Sri Lanka must now confront.

At first glance, nothing appears fundamentally broken. The Executive continues to govern. Courts continue to sit. Judges continue to hear cases. Police continue to investigate. Prosecutors continue to indict. Parliament continues to debate. The machinery of government remains intact, and the outward form of constitutional democracy appears undisturbed. Yet anyone who studies institutions carefully knowthat constitutional strength cannot be measured by appearances alone.

A law and order system is not judged merely by whether it functions, but by how it functions. It is not enough that arrests are made. It matters how they are made. It is not enough that investigations commence. It matters against whom they commence. It is not enough that prosecutions are filed. It matters whether similar conduct is treated similarly.

Above all, it is not enough that courts remain open. It matters whether the citizen continues to believe that justice within those courts is impartial. That belief is the true foundation of the Rule of Law.

More than a century ago, A. V. Dicey, in his seminal work “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” (1885), described the “Rule of Law” as the essential absence of arbitrary power. Its central promise was elegantly simple: that no person, however powerful, should stand above the law, and equally, no citizen, however vulnerable, should be denied its equal protection.

That principle lies at the heart of modern democracy. It is also the principle most easily damaged. Not because governments sometimes openly reject it, but because inequality in law rarely appears openly. It arrives camouflaged as procedure. It hides within discretion. It wears the clothing of legality. This is why the erosion of justice is so difficult to detect. For the law may remain in place even as justice begins to depart.

Sri Lanka’s Constitution itself reflects these principles with admirable clarity. Article 12 promises equality before the law. Article 13 protects against arbitrary arrest and punishment. Article 4(c) vests judicial power in the People. These are not ornamental provisions. They are the moral spine of the Republic. Yet constitutional guarantees are only as strong as the conduct of those entrusted to uphold them. That is where the present concern lies.

Over the past several years, Sri Lanka has witnessed a pattern of legal and institutional conduct that has caused growing unease among citizens, lawyers, academics, journalists and public observers alike. Some of these concerns are visible; others are structural. Some may be explainable; others remain deeply troubling.

What links them together is not necessarily illegality. It is inconsistency. Inconsistency in justice is often the first signal of deeper institutional strain.
One of the most striking features of this modern landscape has been the rise of what may be described as the public spectacle of law enforcement.

There was a time when arrest was treated as a solemn and restrained legal act. It represented the beginning of an inquiry, not the conclusion of guilt. It was an exercise of state power that carried great responsibility with it, because the liberty and reputation of a citizen were at stake. That understanding appears to be changing.Increasingly, high-profile arrests have taken on the character of a theatrical performance. The pattern is now familiar. A residence is surrounded at dawn. Cameras appear, often before the public even knows what has occurred. The individual is bundled into vehicles under heavy public attention. Within hours, images spread through television, online media, and social platforms. Commentators discuss guilt. Political interpretations multiply. By nightfall, the individual has already been judged in the court of public opinion. The legal process has barely begun. Yet the punishment has already commenced.

The arrest of the son of prominent politician in January 2016 in connection with Sports Network investigation remains one of the earliest and clearest illustrations of this phenomenon. The investigation, was heavily publicized and became a major political event. Whatever the eventual merits of the case, the public choreography surrounding the arrest itself became part of the punishment. Years later, the arrest of a prominent Minister over the alleged procurement of substandard medicine raised similar questions. Here too, media coverage was immediate and extensive. 

The issue is not whether either of the two arrests was lawful. The issue is whether all comparable cases attract similar urgency, similar visibility and similar institutional determination. The issue is also not whether those arrests were justified. That is for the courts to decide. The issue is whether such methods are uniformly applied. Would every person accused of comparable conduct be subjected to the same urgency, the same publicity, the same spectacle? That is the question constitutionalism requires an answer.

Justice is not measured only by what is done. It is also measured by whether it is done equally. This principle becomes even more fragile when investigations begin on the basis of allegations made by compromised actors. Criminal law has long accepted the use of tainted witnesses. Accomplices, informants, political detractors, even convicted offenders may make accusation. That is not unusual. 
But law has always recognized the danger in such evidence. It must be acknowledged that a compromised witness always carries compromised incentives. He may speak to save himself. He may accuse to reduce punishment. He may fabricate to gain favour.He may exaggerate to get a political advantage. He may lie to settle scores.

Sri Lanka’s recent criminal investigations have increasingly relied on information emanating from underworld figures and narcotics traffickers, including known mass murderers whose names have frequently surfaced in law enforcement narratives. The problem is not that such persons may possess useful information. Indeed, criminal networks are often best exposed by insiders. But where their allegations trigger high-level prosecutions or political consequences without visible corroboration, public confidence is placed under strain. Justice may use dirty hands to uncover crime. But justice itself must remain clean.

When serious public investigations increasingly begin on allegations attributed to underworld figures, narcotics offenders or fugitives, and when those allegations trigger immediate (but selective) state action, the public naturally begins to ask whether the threshold for intervention has shifted. This concern does not arise because such witnesses are inherently worthless. It arises because institutional credibility depends on visible restraint.

That old equitable principle that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” contains a broad truth. It reminds us that process matters as much as outcome.A dirty process cannot reliably produce clean justice. This problem is magnified when evidence itself begins to leave the courtroom and enter the public arena.

The release of the recorded conversations involving a prominent actor cum politician remains one of the most extraordinary examples of this in Sri Lanka’s legal history.Thousands of private conversations, many involving judges, lawyers and police officers, entered public circulation before judicial examination. The country became absorbed by them. But the deeper question was not merely what was continued in those recordings. The deeper question was how they were released. Who controlled the recordings? Who selected what should become public? Who determined the timing?Who benefited from their disclosure?

These questions matter because selective disclosure is itself a form of power. It shapes narrative. It frames public perception. Once perception hardens, judicial neutrality faces immense pressure. A courtroom may still function. But it now functions inside a public climate already contaminated by partial information.

Time and again, Governments have demonstrated how swiftly the machinery of investigation can move when there is a Government will. Commissions can beappointed, parliamentary inquiries can commence, media scrutiny can intensify, the required narrative can be promoted, and prosecutions can be quickly followed.Whatever may be a person’s view of the merits, the State has the ability to displayspeed, focus and determination. That fact is important, because it establishes capacity.Nevertheless, the gravest institutional danger is not what is pursued. It is what is ignored. Selective prosecution is visible, but selective silence is invisible, and therefore harder to challenge.

That is why inconsistency becomes more difficult to justify. Repeated reports of the Auditor General have documented irregularities, losses, procurement concerns and administrative failures across multiple sectors. Many of these reports carry serious implications. Yet comparatively few appear to produce the same urgency seen in politically charged cases. This is where public suspicion takes root. Not in law itself, but in its uneven activation. The citizen begins to notice patterns, and once patterns become visible, trust is the casualty. 

Institutional trust also depends on who occupies positions of influence and power. In any democracy, appointments matter. Not simply because of competence, but because of perception. A retired police officer appointed to a strategic enforcement role may be entirely qualified. A former judicial officer appointed to an anti-corruption institution may be entirely capable. But when such appointments repeatedly align with political loyalties and expectation, public confidence weakens.

This is not because misconduct has been proven. It is because proximity to influence and power creates doubt, and doubt is sufficient to weaken institutional legitimacy.Institutions require independence. But they also require visible independence. Without that visibility, even honest institutions will struggle to maintain public trust and confidence.

The judiciary occupies an even more delicate position. Judges do not command armies. They do not control budgets. Their authority rests almost entirely on the confidence of the citizens. The citizen obeys a judicial order because he believes it emerged from impartial reasoning. That belief is precious, but is easily damaged. This is why delays in judicial appointments are not merely administrative matters. Where promotions remain pending, vacancies remain open, and executive action appears paralyzed, an invisible architecture of dependency emerges. No direct interference is required. No instruction need be given. The structure itself creates tension.

Judges awaiting promotion continue to hear politically sensitive cases. The Executive retains the power of providing the elevation to the Judges. If such promotions are delayed and the allowed to accumulate, the public may begin to wonder. Such a perception may be claimed to be unfair, but, it is constitutionally significant. Justice must not only be done. It must appear to be done as well. 

This is not a uniquely Sri Lankan concern. Across the world legal institutions have shown how gradual politicization can hollow out constitutional order without any formal constitutional change. The lesson is universal. Democracy does not die only through illegality. It can die through tolerated selectivity. Sri Lanka must recognize this universal truth while there is still time.

What then must be done? The answer is not institutional destruction. It is institutional restoration. The law must recover visible equality.

Investigations must proceed by evidence. Not convenience, nor fear, nor favour. Major complaints must be acted upon with consistency. Evidence must remain within judicial process until lawfully tested. The use of criminal informants must be subjected to strong corroborative standards. Judicial appointments must be time-bound and timely.Strategic appointments to enforcement bodies must be transparent.

None of the above conditions are radical or extraordinary. They are simply the common-sense disciplines of functioning democracies. Perhaps that is the deepest irony. What is required to restore trust is not innovation. It is discipline.

The discipline to prosecute fairly. The discipline to investigate equally. The disciplineto appoint independently. The discipline to acknowledge that the law belongs to the People, not to governments. That is the constitutional promise, it is a promise worth defending.

Once a citizen is pushed to believe that justice depends on who he is, whom he knows, or whether he is useful to power, the Republic begins to weaken. Not loudly. Not suddenly. But steadily. That is how institutions die.

That is why this moment matters. Sri Lanka stands today at one of those quiet turning points in history. The choice before it is simple, though its consequences are profound.To preserve law as principle, or to permit it to become theatre.

Remember, when law becomes theatre, the audience may cheer. But, justice has already exited the stage.

The Government has announced the guaranteed prices at which it will purchase paddy from farmers during the 2026 Yala cultivation season, Minister of Trade Wasantha Samarasinghe said.

Under the programme, the Government will purchase:

• Nadu paddy at Rs. 120 per kilogram
• Samba paddy at Rs. 130 per kilogram
• Keeri Samba paddy at Rs. 140 per kilogram

The Minister also said the Government has launched a programme to accelerate the release of existing rice stocks to the market in order to ensure an adequate supply for consumers.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says Sri Lanka’s economic reform programme has helped the country withstand the impact of the Middle East conflict, while warning that maintaining reform momentum will be essential to safeguard the recovery and ensure long-term economic stability.

In a statement issued at the conclusion of an IMF staff visit to Colombo from June 24 to 30, the Fund said the conflict had affected Sri Lanka’s economy by increasing inflation, slowing tourism growth and reducing the pace of foreign reserve accumulation.

The IMF noted that headline inflation rose from 1.6% in February to 5.5% in May, following increases in energy prices.

According to the Fund, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka responded by raising policy interest rates by 100 basis points and introducing macroprudential measures, while the Government implemented temporary relief measures, including subsidies for fuel, electricity and fertilizer, as well as cash transfers for vulnerable households.

The IMF said Sri Lanka should continue implementing key reforms to maintain fiscal and external sustainability. These include improving tax compliance, broadening the tax base, strengthening public financial management and accelerating reforms of state-owned enterprises.

It also emphasised the importance of maintaining cost-recovery energy pricing, strengthening social safety nets, improving debt management and ensuring that monetary policy remains prudent and data-driven.

The Fund further called for continued governance reforms, trade liberalisation, labour market reforms and improvements to the business environment to attract investment, generate employment and reduce poverty.

The IMF said Sri Lanka’s progress under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme will be formally assessed during the Seventh Review Mission, which is expected to take place later this year. The dates of the mission will be announced in due course.

The IMF staff delegation, led by Evan Papageorgiou, met President and Finance Minister Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Central Bank Governor Dr. P. Nandalal Weerasinghe, and other senior government officials during the visit.