Sri Lanka Telecom chairmanship battle intensifies ahead of AGM as concerns grow over political influence, governance failures and leadership choices.
Sri Lanka Telecom chairmanship battle has turned the upcoming 29th Annual General Meeting of SLT-MOBITEL, scheduled for June 19, into the centre of a major political and corporate power struggle.
What should have been a routine official meeting of one of the country’s most strategically important and profitable state-linked corporations has now become a heated contest over control, governance, and political influence.
At the centre of the controversy is the move to remove current Sri Lanka Telecom Chairman Dr. Motilal de Silva and replace him with independent non-executive director Chandrasiri Kalupahana.
The political operation behind this proposed change has now intensified inside the company and across the wider political arena.
A serious question has also emerged over the political motive behind attempting to give Kalupahana the appointment through special resolution standards applicable to directors who have exceeded age limits.
The strong opposition now coming from employees and minority shareholders is mainly linked to controversial issues in Kalupahana’s past service record.
During his time as Group Chief Internal Auditor at Sri Lanka Telecom itself, concerns were raised over the Rs. 540,000 financial loss caused to the company after the cancellation of a Malaysian training program in 2018.
There were also allegations involving unauthorized foreign travel and claims that even minor restaurant expenses had been fraudulently reimbursed.
These issues, critics argue, point to a serious breakdown in corporate financial discipline.
The controversy does not end there.
The Auditor General has also concluded that during Kalupahana’s tenure as Chief Financial Officer of the Regional Development Bank, profits had been inflated by failing to properly make provisions for inactive loans amounting to Rs. 615 million.
That is not a matter that can be dismissed lightly.
Handing control of the country’s premier communications institution to a person surrounded by such allegations could also risk damaging international confidence in Sri Lanka’s wider stock market.
However, when these dark clouds surround Kalupahana’s proposed appointment, another question must also be asked.
Is the current Chairman, Dr. Motilal de Silva, a clean and successful administrator who must definitely be retained?
The answer to that question is also not positive.
During his tenure, Sri Lanka Telecom faced several major administrative and management failures.
Most notably, during the restructuring and privatization process, he failed to manage the strong resistance from employee groups and trade unions.
Instead of resolving employee concerns through negotiation, the management adopted a more repressive approach through court injunctions, work stoppages, and transfers.
That approach created deep emotional strain among lower and middle-level employees and caused serious damage to the institution’s internal culture.
There were also serious allegations over transparency in procurement processes and project priorities.
These concerns became sharper when large capital investments were made in 5G and fiber projects at a time when the country was facing a severe economic crisis.
As a result, the upcoming Annual General Meeting presents Sri Lanka Telecom with a tragic choice.
On one side stands a candidate accused of financial irregularities and administrative transparency issues, now attempting to reach the chairman’s seat through political arrangements.
On the other side stands the current chairman, who has been unable to manage institutional crises, failed to protect employee confidence, and struggled with strategic decision-making.
This is the reality behind the public rhetoric on good governance and state enterprise reform.
Political platforms may speak loudly about building strong public institutions, but in practice, the same old tragedies continue to unfold.
Instead of appointing professional leaders with proven competence and clean track records to manage national assets, the country is left choosing between deeply flawed options.
Ultimately, the question is simple.
Is this truly a country without deserving candidates?
