“No one is above the law; wrongdoers will be punished regardless of their status.”
COLOMBO — Filmmaker Ajith Dharmasuriya has raised allegations concerning a senior appointment, earlier public-sector salary payments and possible administrative irregularities. Official records leave important questions about the appointment and the individual’s employment status unresolved.
Allegations involving a senior appointment at Sri Lanka’s National Film Corporation have prompted demands for an investigation into whether a former naval officer received overlapping salaries from two state institutions and was subsequently appointed to a senior public position despite alleged disciplinary irregularities.
Award-winning filmmaker Ajith Dharmasuriya has raised the allegations through social media, questioning the role of Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs Hiniduma Sunil Senevi and the National Film Corporation’s administration.
Dharmasuriya alleges that the appointment was facilitated despite earlier concerns about public-sector employment and that relevant information was not properly disclosed during the approval process.
He has also raised questions about the response of government institutions after complaints were reportedly submitted.
The allegations have not been established by an independent judicial or investigative finding made available for this report.
Official National Film Corporation records identify Ruwan Premaweera as General Manager, but the supplied allegations refer to K. R. Premawira. The relationship between these names, the relevant service records and the individual’s current employment status requires documentary clarification.
Allegations of Overlapping Salaries at Two State Institutions
According to Dharmasuriya’s account, the official named in his complaint had previously served in the Sri Lanka Navy and subsequently joined the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI).
He alleges that the officer obtained pre-retirement leave from the Navy on August 2, 2021, and assumed duties as Director of Administration at the SLFI on August 5.
Formal retirement from the Navy reportedly took effect on November 5, 2021.
The dates are central to the complaint because they suggest a period during which the officer remained attached to the Navy while holding another state-sector appointment.
Dharmasuriya alleges that salaries and allowances were received from both institutions during that period without the necessary authorisation.
He further claims that the officer was subsequently removed from the SLFI position under Section 6.2 of Chapter V of Volume I of the Establishments Code.
These claims require examination of the relevant employment contracts, leave approvals, salary records and termination documentation.
Receiving payments from two public institutions does not, by itself, establish a criminal offence. The legality of any arrangement depends on the applicable service regulations, permissions obtained and the circumstances of the payments.
If unauthorised remuneration was received, investigators would need to establish whether the circumstances warranted recovery of public funds, disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation.
Minister’s Role in Film Corporation Appointment Questioned
Dharmasuriya has also questioned the circumstances surrounding a subsequent appointment to the National Film Corporation.
His account alleges that Minister Hiniduma Sunil Senevi presented a special Cabinet memorandum in late 2025 seeking approval for the appointment.
The filmmaker claims that material concerning the officer’s earlier SLFI employment was omitted from the submission.
He further alleges that the appointee had a personal association with the Minister and had served as a coordinating secretary.
These are serious accusations because they concern the integrity of Cabinet decision-making and the use of ministerial authority in public appointments.
However, the original Cabinet memorandum, any accompanying disclosures and the relevant Cabinet decision have not been independently examined.
Nor has evidence establishing improper political influence been produced in the material available for this report.
The National Film Corporation’s own publications confirm that Minister Senevi, Chairman Sudath Mahaadivulwewa and General Manager Ruwan Premaweera have participated together in official government and industry activities.
A September 11, 2026, Corporation announcement identified Premaweera as General Manager.
A government statement issued in July also listed him in that position.
These records establish his publicly reported official status, not the legality or circumstances of his appointment.
Questions Over September Departure and Official Records
The supplied allegations claim that the official concerned relinquished the General Manager’s position in September 2026 following complaints to oversight institutions.
That account has not been reconciled with the Corporation’s published information.
Its official directory continues to identify Ruwan Premaweera as General Manager.
Such a listing may not necessarily reflect the latest personnel changes, but the discrepancy prevents any definitive conclusion that the individual resigned or was removed.
The matter could be resolved through the relevant appointment letter, resignation or termination notice, personnel records and any subsequent appointment announcement.
Until those documents are available, the allegation of a September departure should not be presented as an established fact.
Three Bribery Commission References Cited
Dharmasuriya’s account states that complaints concerning the alleged irregularities were submitted to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).
The supplied complaint references are:
- AC/0087/2026
- AC/1597/2026
- AC/1783/2026
The filmmaker claims that the complaints concern possible misconduct involving public-sector appointments, salary payments and administrative decisions.
He refers to Section 41 of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, in connection with the complaints.
The reference numbers have not been independently authenticated, and no official confirmation has been obtained that formal investigations have commenced under all three files.
A complaint submitted to CIABOC does not establish that the allegations are true or that the persons named have committed offences.
The Commission’s findings, if any, would be necessary to determine whether further legal action is warranted.
Allegations of Pressure on Film Corporation Employees
Separate concerns have been raised about the treatment of National Film Corporation employees following the circulation of information concerning alleged irregularities.
Dharmasuriya alleges that Chairman Sudath Mahaadivulwewa and the Corporation’s administration have subjected certain employees to internal scrutiny because they were suspected of providing documents to complainants.
The source also refers to Supreme Court proceedings concerning allegations that the Chairman interfered with filmmakers’ projects.
The case number, pleadings and present procedural status have not been provided or independently verified.
Consequently, neither the existence of unlawful intimidation nor misconduct amounting to contempt of court can be treated as established.
Employees who provide information lawfully to investigative institutions must be protected in accordance with applicable law.
Equally, any allegation that managers threatened witnesses or retaliated against staff requires specific supporting evidence.
The Corporation and its Chairman should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Questions About Government Accountability
The controversy has prompted comparisons with proceedings involving former Presidential Secretary Sugishwara Bandara, whom the original commentary identifies as facing allegations concerning salary payments from more than one state institution.
Dharmasuriya questions whether public officials accused of comparable conduct are being treated consistently.
However, whether two cases are legally comparable depends on their specific facts, applicable regulations, evidence and procedural status.
A distinction in investigative or judicial treatment does not automatically establish political interference.
The filmmaker has also referred to alleged correspondence sent to the relevant Ministry on January 20, 2026, and a further written communication dated June 17 from Sri Lanka Foundation Chairman Professor Seetha P. Bandara.
The contents, recipients and official responses to those communications should be checked against the original letters.
Parliamentary records independently confirm that Professor Bandara held the chairmanship of the Sri Lanka Foundation during 2026.
Three Questions That Require Official Answers
The original complaint identifies three central matters requiring clarification:
1. Did the Minister submit an appointment proposal without disclosing material information about the appointee’s previous employment, and, if so, what administrative action is warranted?
2. Did the official concerned receive unauthorised salary payments from two state institutions, and have relevant investigative authorities applied the law consistently?
3. If public funds were improperly paid, will the responsible institutions pursue recovery and determine whether any person involved in approving the payments bears legal responsibility?
These questions can be answered through employment records, Cabinet documents, salary information and independent investigative findings.
They should not be resolved through allegations alone.
Official Documents Needed to Establish the Facts
The allegations raise issues extending beyond a single appointment.
Public confidence in government appointments depends on transparent eligibility requirements, accurate disclosures, proper approval procedures and consistent enforcement of financial regulations.
If the allegations are substantiated, the consequences could include administrative action, recovery of unauthorised payments or other proceedings permitted by law.
If they are not substantiated, the individuals accused are entitled to have the record corrected.
The immediate priority is to establish the relevant officer’s identity and employment history, authenticate the purported Cabinet and SLFI records, and confirm the status of the complaints submitted to CIABOC.
The Ministry, National Film Corporation, Sri Lanka Foundation and the individuals named in the allegations should be given an opportunity to provide their responses.
Until that evidence is available, the matter remains a series of serious but unresolved allegations concerning public-sector appointments and accountability.
