Port City legal appointment concerns are set for COPF scrutiny as questions persist over recruitment, qualifications and combined commercial and legal duties.
COLOMBO — The Colombo Port City Economic Commission is expected to address questions over its recruitment and legal oversight arrangements after Director General Revan Wickramasuriya indicated that concerns raised over the allocation of senior legal responsibilities would be considered by the Commission’s administration.
The controversy centres on Radika Obeyesekere, who is publicly identified as a senior commercial official of the Commission and is alleged to have also been carrying responsibilities associated with its legal function following the absence of a permanent Director of Legal Affairs.
Questions have been raised over whether the qualifications prescribed when senior posts were advertised were followed, whether combining commercial and legal responsibilities creates an institutional governance risk, and what formal process authorised the present arrangement.
Responding to an inquiry by the Hari Deshaya website, Wickramasuriya said it was not the Commission’s policy to respond directly to media reports. He nevertheless indicated that the matter would be considered at an upcoming administrative meeting, after which appropriate guidance or a decision was expected.
No finding of misconduct has been made against Obeyesekere, and the concerns surrounding her appointment and responsibilities remain matters requiring clarification from the Commission.
Questions Over Recruitment and Qualifications
The scrutiny initially focused on the recruitment process for the Commission’s Director Commercial and Operations position.
Previous reporting on the appointment cited a Commission recruitment advertisement that sought an MBA or equivalent qualification together with high-level commercial management experience.
Publicly available information identifies Obeyesekere as holding legal and marketing qualifications. Government records also show that Radika Natalie Obeyesekere gave notice in 2013 of her intention to be admitted and enrolled as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court.
She has subsequently held senior investment-promotion and marketing positions connected with Port City Colombo and has represented the project at investment and business events.
The central question is therefore not whether she possesses professional qualifications, but whether the qualifications and experience she held matched the formal criteria established for the particular Commission position to which she was appointed.
That question can only be settled conclusively by examining the recruitment advertisement, applications, evaluation criteria, interview records and the Commission’s formal appointment decision.
MBA Demanded, Marketing Diploma Hired: Radhika’s Port City Mystery
The Port City director appointment faces scrutiny over recruitment qualifications and claims that commercial and legal functions have been combined.
Read MoreLegal Duties Create a Separate Governance Question
A second and potentially more significant concern relates to the Commission’s legal function.
Earlier official records identify Vindhya Weerasekera as Director of Legal and Corporate Affairs, while Obeyesekere has been publicly identified in more recent records as a commercial director.
Reports now allege that Obeyesekere has also been performing duties connected with the legal division while the permanent legal post remains vacant.
Combining the two areas does not automatically establish an unlawful conflict of interest.
It does, however, create a legitimate governance question.
A commercial division is ordinarily expected to promote transactions, investment and economic activity. A legal function, by contrast, is expected to identify legal exposure, scrutinise transactions and ensure that decisions comply with legislation, regulations and contractual requirements.
Where the same senior official exercises influence over both functions, the institution must be able to demonstrate how independent legal review is preserved.
The key issue is therefore not the individual officer alone, but whether the Commission has adequate internal safeguards separating commercial objectives from independent legal scrutiny.
Revan Wickramasuriya Says Matter Will Be Considered
Director General Revan Wickramasuriya has not publicly endorsed the allegations concerning the appointment.
In his response to Hari Deshaya, he said the Commission does not ordinarily comment directly on media reports.
The communication nevertheless indicated that the matter would be taken up within the Port City administration and that an appropriate response or guidance would follow.
That makes the Commission’s eventual explanation important.
A clear response should establish what position Obeyesekere formally holds, whether she is performing legal duties in an acting capacity, what authority permits that arrangement and whether the qualifications prescribed for each post were satisfied.
It should also clarify whether recruitment for a permanent legal director remains pending.
COPF Chairman Rejects Suggestion of Inaction
The matter has also drawn the attention of Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance.
COPF Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva was criticised in some media commentary over what was described as an initially limited response to the recruitment controversy.
Some reports went further by suggesting that a personal school connection between de Silva and the Chairman of the Port City Commission might influence scrutiny of the issue.
No evidence has been presented establishing that any such personal connection affected COPF’s work.
De Silva subsequently rejected suggestions that the committee had acted to justify an inappropriate appointment.
He explained that COPF does not have authority to determine who the Port City Commission recruits internally.
Its mandate, he said, extends instead to matters affecting public finance, including the approval and operation of fiscal incentives within Port City.
That distinction is important.
Parliamentary financial oversight should not be confused with authority to recruit or appoint the Commission’s employees.
Port City Expected Before COPF
De Silva has nevertheless said the Commission is expected to appear before COPF, giving members an opportunity to seek clarification over concerns that may affect its governance and public-finance functions.
He has previously stated that although COPF cannot determine who heads the Commission’s legal affairs, it expects suitably knowledgeable and experienced officials to occupy positions involving decisions with implications for public finance.
COPF has already intervened in several Port City matters involving regulations and fiscal incentives.
De Silva has cited an instance in which real-estate companies advertised incentives for Port City apartment purchases before obtaining the required parliamentary approval.
He also referred to an earlier dispute over a gazette concerning duty-free purchases, saying COPF refused to accept the measure without parliamentary approval.
These examples demonstrate why legal competence within the Commission has implications beyond ordinary human-resources management.
Article 148 and Parliamentary Control of Finance
Article 148 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution places control of public finance in Parliament.
That principle does not give COPF authority to manage every staffing decision in a statutory institution.
It does mean, however, that decisions involving tax concessions, duty exemptions, fiscal incentives and other measures affecting State revenue can properly fall within parliamentary scrutiny.
Port City operates under a specialised statutory framework designed to attract international investment through regulatory and fiscal arrangements.
Errors in interpreting or applying that framework could therefore have consequences for investors, State revenue and the credibility of the Special Economic Zone.
The governance question is consequently wider than whether a particular employee meets a job description.
Parliament has a legitimate interest in whether the Commission has the institutional capacity to make legally sound decisions where those decisions affect public finance.
Former Legal Director Had Extensive Experience
The contrast with the Commission’s previous legal leadership has also contributed to the debate.
Public records identify Vindhya Weerasekera as having served as Director of Legal and Corporate Affairs.
Independent professional information states that she was called to the Bar in 1997, holds an LLB from the University of Colombo and an LLM in International Trade Law from the University of Wales, and has more than two decades of legal and corporate experience.
The original commentary claims that her departure followed a dispute concerning a Port City gazette that had not obtained parliamentary approval.
De Silva has separately referred to an earlier COPF dispute over a duty-free gazette, saying the disagreement eventually resulted in the gazette being rescinded and the departure of the then head of legal operations.
That history adds weight to calls for the Commission to explain how its present legal function is structured.
Conflict of Interest Must Be Tested, Not Assumed
The phrase “conflict of interest” has been used extensively in commentary surrounding the current arrangement.
It should be applied carefully.
Having commercial and legal responsibilities assigned to the same person may create a potential institutional conflict or weaken the appearance of independent review, but that does not automatically prove an actual conflict in any particular transaction.
Determining whether an improper conflict exists would require examination of the Commission’s organisational structure, delegation of powers, internal approval processes and safeguards.
A strong governance model would ordinarily ensure that officials promoting commercial transactions cannot simply determine the legal acceptability of those same transactions without independent scrutiny.
That principle becomes especially important in an institution responsible for a sophisticated Special Economic Zone operating under its own statutory and regulatory framework.
Commission Has Major Economic Responsibilities
The debate comes at a time when Port City is attempting to position itself as a major international investment centre.
Wickramasuriya said in June that the project had already attracted approximately USD 1.4 billion in foreign development capital and was expected to attract a further USD 12 billion to reach its full potential.
According to the Commission, Port City could contribute approximately USD 24 billion to Sri Lanka’s economy during its development phase and around USD 13 billion annually once fully operational.
Figures of that scale make institutional credibility particularly important.
International investors considering long-term commitments need confidence not only in tax concessions and commercial opportunities, but also in the quality of regulation, legal interpretation and decision-making.
What COPF Should Establish
When Port City officials appear before COPF, several questions can be answered without the committee attempting to take over the Commission’s recruitment powers.
The Commission can be asked to clarify:
- Who currently holds formal responsibility for the legal division?
- Whether a permanent Director of Legal Affairs has been appointed.
- Under what authority legal duties have been allocated in the interim.
- Whether the qualifications specified in recruitment advertisements were followed.
- How commercial decisions receive independent legal scrutiny.
- Whether any legal or regulatory decisions were approved while the permanent legal post was vacant.
- What internal mechanisms exist to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest.
Answers to those questions would move the debate away from personal accusations and towards verifiable institutional facts.
Accountability Requires Documents, Not Speculation
The allegations surrounding the appointment should ultimately be resolved through documentation.
Recruitment notices, qualification requirements, appointment records, delegations of authority, organisational charts and Commission minutes can establish what actually occurred.
If the prescribed criteria were satisfied, the Commission should be able to demonstrate that clearly.
If exceptions were made, it should explain who authorised them and under what legal or administrative power.
The same standard applies to the assignment of legal duties.
The controversy should not become a trial of an individual employee through media reporting. Nor should legitimate questions about governance be dismissed simply as an internal human-resources matter.
With Port City exercising regulatory powers over a Special Economic Zone intended to attract billions of dollars in investment, the stronger public-interest question is whether its institutional structure provides the independence, competence and accountability required for decisions carrying significant legal and financial consequences.
The expected COPF hearing gives the Commission an opportunity to answer that question with records rather than rhetoric.
