Shanakiyan Rasamanickam questions the Port City Legal Director vacancy, salary transparency and oversight of public finances.
The Port City Legal Director vacancy has come under intense parliamentary scrutiny after MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam questioned why the post remained unfilled for two years.
Despite advertisements being published from time to time to recruit a Legal Director for the Colombo Port City Economic Commission, Rasamanickam questioned why the position remained vacant.
He also raised concerns about who provided legal oversight during that period and whether decisions proceeded without the Commission having a dedicated legal head.
His questions in Parliament placed the leadership of Colombo Port City Economic Commission Chairman President’s Counsel Harsha Amarasekara, as well as the Commission’s transparency, under scrutiny.
Two Years Without a Port City Legal Director
Rasamanickam questioned how a Commission controlling one of Sri Lanka’s largest investment zones could operate for two years without a Legal Director.
The Commission carries significant regulatory and legal responsibilities. The MP argued that the absence of a Legal Director raised serious questions about the legality and oversight of decisions made during that period.
He described the situation as paving the way for what he called a “massive illegal racket.”
Rasamanickam directly asked:
“How can a Commission like this operate for two years without a Legal Director? If the Commission is making decisions and carrying out its functions, who provides the legal advice and oversight to ensure those decisions are legal?”
His questioning also placed attention directly on Amarasekara.
As a President’s Counsel chairing the institution, Rasamanickam questioned how Amarasekara could guarantee the legality of decisions, agreements and regulatory approvals made during those two years without a legal head.
Port City’s Dollar Wages and Tax Breaks Are a THREAT to Sri Lanka’s Economy
Colombo Port City tax haven concerns grow over tax breaks, dollar salaries and regulatory advantages that may widen Sri Lanka’s economic divide.
The Morning Telegraph • September 6, 2026 • 5 min readSalary Transparency Also Questioned
Rasamanickam also challenged the Commission over salaries and privileges received by its officers.
According to the MP, he specifically requested individual salary details. However, authorities provided only the total salary expenditure rather than a breakdown for each officer.
“I specifically requested the salary details of each individual officer. But what has been provided is only the total salary expenditure. That is not a direct answer to the question I raised. If the individual salary details of the officers are not revealed, and there has been no Legal Director for two years, then fair questions arise regarding the transparency of the Commission. The government must clarify what happened during this time and what provisions have been made to provide the necessary legal oversight.”
The MP therefore linked the Port City Legal Director issue with broader questions about transparency and institutional accountability.
State Bank Loans and Parliamentary Oversight
Rasamanickam also raised concerns over billions of rupees in loans within the state banking system.
He alleged that loans had been written off without recovery under restructuring arrangements. He further questioned whether “banking secrecy” was preventing Parliament from properly exercising its financial oversight responsibilities.
“I accept that there are instances where secrecy should be protected. But the financial power of the country belongs to Parliament. Therefore, at least the main documents and information related to these transactions should be provided to the relevant parliamentary committees.”
Rasamanickam argued that unrecovered loans ultimately involve public resources and taxpayers’ money.
“These unrecovered loans are directly connected to the people’s tax money. Therefore, the people have a right to know how state banks grant loans, how large loans are recovered, and how restructuring or write-offs occur.”
He stressed that his argument was not simply about publicly revealing confidential information belonging to individual borrowers.
“The question here is not merely whether the confidential information of a particular debtor should be revealed to the public. The question is whether Parliament has sufficient information to determine whether state institutions have acted properly and protected public resources.”
He also questioned accountability when large loans remain unrecovered.
“If billions of rupees in loans have not been recovered, what happened to that money, who are the responsible parties, what steps were taken to recover the loans, and whether the necessary legal action has been taken, Parliament must be able to question.”
Rasamanickam Claims Banks Sent Threatening Letters
Rasamanickam recalled questioning similar matters before the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) in 2021 and 2022.
He claimed certain state banks subsequently sent him letters warning that legal action could be taken against him.
The MP presented his actions as part of his responsibility as a people’s representative to scrutinise the management of public money.
“The people have a right to know how public money is used and how state institutions manage those resources. As a people’s representative, it is my responsibility to question the government, question state institutions, and request the information necessary to hold them accountable.”
His remarks have therefore placed renewed attention on the Commission and its governance arrangements.
The questions directed at Chairman Harsha Amarasekara centre particularly on why the Legal Director position remained vacant, who provided legal oversight during that period, and why individual salary information was not provided as requested.
With recruitment advertisements having been issued for a Legal Director, Rasamanickam’s parliamentary intervention has increased pressure on the Commission to explain the two-year vacancy and clarify the legal oversight arrangements that operated during that period.
The allegations concerning state bank loans also raise a separate but wider question about Parliament’s access to information when scrutinising public financial institutions.
The claims and questions raised by Rasamanickam remain allegations and matters requiring answers from the relevant institutions. The Commission and its Chairman now face calls to clarify the issues raised in Parliament and explain how legal oversight, transparency and accountability were maintained during the period in question.
