A confidential SEC Notice of Summons asking Dilith Jayaweera to assist with a verbal statement has sparked controversy after details reportedly surfaced through pro-government YouTube voices before recipients received their letters.
In a development now raising serious questions over regulatory confidentiality, details of letters marked confidential appear to have reached selected YouTube commentators before some of the intended recipients had formally received them.
The controversy erupted after online voices, widely viewed by sections of the public as pro-government YouTube commentators, began discussing a Notice of Summons issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka. The issue has now shifted beyond the notice itself, with growing concern over how confidential correspondence entered the public domain ahead of official delivery.
According to information received, businessman and political figure Dilith Jayaweera was issued a letter dated 29 April, which was reportedly received on 8 May. The notice required him to appear before the SEC on 12 May at 10.00 a.m. to assist by providing a verbal statement, not a written one, regarding certain trades recorded in the CDS account of Divasa Equity (Pvt) Limited.
Importantly, the letter is understood not to state anywhere that Jayaweera himself was under investigation.
YouTube Knew Before the Recipients
What has made the matter explosive is the allegation that some recipients became aware of the notice through YouTube and social media before the official letters reached them.
If accurate, this raises an obvious question: how did information from confidential regulatory letters reach online commentators before the recipients themselves had received them?
Such correspondence is normally expected to remain confidential unless officially disclosed, lawfully reported, or released by the recipient. When the matter first appears through politically aligned commentary channels, it creates the perception that sensitive information may have been leaked to shape public opinion before due process could take place.
Not a Court Summons
Jayaweera was not summoned before a court of law.
The notice was a regulatory Notice of Summons issued by the SEC. Under its statutory powers, the Commission can require a person to appear before it or an authorised officer to provide information, give evidence, or assist an inquiry. Such a notice should not automatically be interpreted as a criminal charge, a court summons, or proof of wrongdoing.
Jayaweera Cites Short Notice and Seeks Clarification
Jayaweera did not attend the scheduled meeting on 12 May.
According to sources, he responded by letter, stating that he was unable to attend due to short notice, as overseas travel arrangements had already been made before he received the communication. He is also understood to have requested further clarification so that he could assist the SEC at a future date.
Sources further state that Jayaweera informed the SEC that he was not a director of Divasa Equity (Pvt) Limited and that, to the best of his knowledge, he had not executed any trades from the said account for over a decade and a half.
Timing Triggers Political Suspicion
The timing of the notice has added another layer to the controversy.
The communication reportedly came shortly after Jayaweera delivered a fiery speech at the Sarva Jana Balaya May Day rally, prompting political observers and supporters to question whether the matter was routine or politically loaded.
At present, there is no confirmed evidence to establish that the SEC notice was politically motivated. However, the timing, combined with the alleged leak to YouTube commentators, has intensified public suspicion.
Other Prominent Names Also Said to Have Received Letters
It is also understood that Rayynor Silva of Hiru TV, Ashok Pathirage of Softlogic, and Tharanga Thoradeniya had also officially received similar letters.
However, the mere receipt of such a letter does not mean the recipient is accused of wrongdoing. A request to provide a verbal statement may form part of a regulatory fact-finding process. That distinction is important because public commentary can easily turn a regulatory request into a public trial before the facts are known.
The Leak May Be Bigger Than the Notice
The central issue now is whether confidential regulatory correspondence was selectively leaked before it reached the people named in the letters.
If that happened, it would raise serious concerns over confidentiality, fairness, regulatory discipline, and the possible use of official communication to create political theatre.
The key facts remain clear: Dilith Jayaweera was not summoned before court. He was issued a regulatory Notice of Summons by the SEC to assist with a verbal statement regarding certain trades recorded in the CDS account of Divasa Equity (Pvt) Limited. The letter, according to available information, does not state that he is being investigated.
Until the SEC clarifies how details of confidential letters appeared in the public domain before formal delivery, the alleged leak may remain more politically explosive than the notice itself.
