Questions concerning senior recruitment, legal oversight and administrative accountability at the Colombo Port City Economic Commission remain unresolved following parliamentary scrutiny of the institution’s decision to combine commercial and legal responsibilities.
The Colombo Port City Economic Commission (CPCEC) continues to face questions over its senior recruitment procedures and the allocation of legal responsibilities to its Director of Commercial and Operations, Radika Obeyesekere.
The controversy has persisted despite an earlier inquiry directed to Commission Director General Revan Wickramasuriya and subsequent examination of the arrangement by Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance (COPF).
At issue is whether the Commission followed its published recruitment criteria when filling senior positions and whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure independent legal scrutiny of commercial and regulatory decisions.
The questions are particularly significant because the Commission administers a special economic zone intended to attract substantial international investment.
Director General’s Response Remains a Focus of Scrutiny
According to correspondence described in earlier reporting, the editor of Hari Deshaya contacted Director General Revan Wickramasuriya on 2 October 2026 seeking clarification about Obeyesekere’s appointment and her responsibilities concerning the Commission’s legal function.
The inquiry reportedly followed earlier attempts to obtain information about the qualifications required for senior recruitment and the decision not to appoint a separate Director of Legal Affairs.
Wickramasuriya responded that the Commission did not generally comment directly on media reports.
However, he also indicated that the questions would be brought before the Commission’s administration for consideration.
As of 2 November, the supplied account states that no further written clarification had been received in response to that particular inquiry.
The absence of a subsequent response to the journalist should be distinguished from the explanations the Commission has already provided during parliamentary proceedings.
Nevertheless, the outstanding questions concern matters that can reasonably be addressed through official documentation.
They include the criteria used to evaluate applicants, the authority under which legal functions were reassigned and the safeguards governing commercial decisions.
Radhika’s Absurd Drama: Certifying Her Own Commercial Decisions as Legal, Revealed at COPF
Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance has questioned why the Colombo Port City Economic Commission assigned legal responsibilities to its Commercial Operations Director instead of appointing a separate Legal Affairs Director, amid complaints concerning the recruitment process.
READ FULL ARTICLERecruitment Criteria Under Examination
The controversy initially centred on the Commission’s recruitment process for the Director of Commercial and Operations position.
The Commission advertised the position in February 2025.
Earlier reporting on the recruitment advertisement identified a postgraduate qualification in business administration, or a recognised equivalent, alongside substantial senior operational experience, among the advertised criteria.
Questions have since been raised about how Obeyesekere’s qualifications and professional experience were assessed against those requirements.
Publicly available information identifies her as having a background in law, marketing and investment-related work.
Earlier government records also identify Radika Natalie Obeyesekere in connection with admission to the legal profession.
It would therefore be inaccurate to characterise her simply as an individual possessing only a marketing diploma without examining her full professional qualifications and career record.
The decisive issue is whether the Commission’s recruitment panel applied the advertised criteria consistently and documented its assessment.
That question can be answered through the recruitment advertisement, evaluation criteria, interview records and formal appointment decision.
No finding has been established that Obeyesekere was appointed unlawfully.
Why Does the Legal Affairs Position Remain Unfilled?
A separate concern involves the Commission’s decision not to appoint a dedicated Director of Legal Affairs.
Both the commercial and legal positions had previously been advertised.
However, during COPF proceedings on 8 October, Commission Chairman and President’s Counsel Harsha Amarasekera explained that the institution had decided to continue relying on the Attorney General’s Department for significant legal matters.
As a result, the Director of Legal Affairs position remained unfilled.
Obeyesekere, who had been selected for the commercial role, was assigned additional responsibilities involving coordination of legal matters.
Amarasekera said the Commission considered her legal background relevant to that arrangement.
Her duties reportedly include communicating with the Attorney General’s Department and the Ministry of Finance and signing certain documents in the capacity of Director of Legal Affairs.
This explanation establishes the Commission’s stated rationale for the arrangement.
It does not, however, answer every question concerning how independent legal scrutiny is maintained within the institution.
COPF Questions Combined Responsibilities
The arrangement was discussed during the COPF meeting held on 8 October under the chairmanship of Dr. Harsha de Silva.
De Silva questioned the decision not to appoint a separate legal director, particularly given the Commission’s regulatory responsibilities.
These responsibilities include matters connected to investment approvals, licensing, business operations and the implementation of regulations within Colombo Port City.
He noted that government institutions commonly obtain advice from the Attorney General’s Department, making it important to examine whether that arrangement adequately substitutes for dedicated legal expertise within the Commission.
Amarasekera maintained that significant legal matters were referred to the Attorney General’s Department and that the arrangement had not obstructed the Commission’s work.
MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam also raised questions about whether referrals to the Attorney General’s Department could result in delays.
The Commission’s representatives indicated that they had not encountered undue delays affecting their operations.
The parliamentary exchange confirmed that the combined responsibilities were a matter of institutional governance requiring examination.
It did not establish that Obeyesekere had improperly approved her own commercial decisions or acted without legal authority.
The Importance of Independent Legal Oversight
The distinction between commercial management and legal review is important for any public institution responsible for investment-related decisions.
Commercial officials are generally tasked with facilitating transactions, managing operations and advancing institutional objectives.
Legal officers are expected to examine the legal framework governing those activities, identify compliance risks and provide appropriate advice.
Where responsibilities overlap, the institution must be able to demonstrate that necessary checks remain in place.
A combined administrative role is not automatically unlawful.
Nor does coordinating legal matters necessarily mean an officer has unrestricted power to determine the legality of every transaction.
The relevant questions concern the actual authority delegated, the procedures for independent review and the circumstances in which advice must be sought from qualified legal professionals.
These issues are particularly important in Colombo Port City, where regulatory decisions can have substantial financial and commercial consequences.
Parliamentary Questions About Salaries and Public Spending
Concerns over the Commission’s administrative arrangements have also been accompanied by questions about salaries, allowances and public expenditure.
MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam previously called for greater transparency regarding remuneration paid to senior Port City Commission officials.
During parliamentary scrutiny, questions were also raised about the financial relationship between the Commission and the State.
Official parliamentary reporting confirms that COPF examined investment progress, regulatory arrangements and the financial returns associated with Port City development.
These discussions included the value of leased land, the status of investment projects and the benefits expected from the development.
The question of whether individual salary information must be disclosed requires consideration of applicable financial reporting obligations, parliamentary powers and any relevant privacy protections.
Providing aggregate salary expenditure does not, by itself, establish that information has been unlawfully concealed.
However, the Commission should be able to explain its remuneration policies and demonstrate appropriate oversight of expenditure.
What Should Happen Next?
The controversy presents an opportunity for the Commission to provide a clear account of its administrative arrangements.
Several steps would help resolve the outstanding issues.
Clarify the Recruitment Process
The Commission could disclose the selection criteria and relevant procedures used to assess candidates for the Director of Commercial and Operations position, subject to lawful confidentiality requirements.
This would help establish whether the advertised qualifications were consistently applied.
Publish the Basis for Delegated Legal Responsibilities
The Commission could explain the formal decision under which legal coordination responsibilities were assigned to the Commercial and Operations Director.
It should also identify the limits of those responsibilities and the processes used to obtain independent legal advice.
Explain the Vacancy in the Legal Division
A clear statement could establish whether the Commission intends to recruit a dedicated Director of Legal Affairs or retain the current arrangement.
The explanation should address how the institution ensures appropriate legal oversight in either case.
Strengthen Parliamentary Accountability
COPF can continue examining matters within its public-finance mandate, particularly where staffing arrangements affect regulatory decisions, fiscal concessions or the management of public resources.
Other parliamentary and institutional oversight mechanisms may be relevant to issues falling outside COPF’s direct responsibilities.
Clarify Remuneration and Financial Reporting
The Commission could provide a breakdown of relevant staffing expenditure and explain the policies governing senior remuneration, while respecting applicable legal requirements.
A Test of Institutional Transparency
Colombo Port City has been promoted as a major international investment destination intended to compete for business with established regional centres.
Its credibility depends not only on attractive commercial incentives but also on transparent administration, predictable regulation and sound institutional governance.
Questions over recruitment and overlapping responsibilities should therefore be addressed through records and clear explanations rather than speculation about individual motives.
The Commission has already presented its justification for combining commercial and legal functions during parliamentary proceedings.
What remains is to establish whether the arrangement complies with the applicable recruitment procedures, delegation requirements and governance safeguards.
A transparent response from the institution would help resolve legitimate questions without prejudging the conduct of the officials concerned.
For an economic zone seeking international investor confidence, the ability to explain how important decisions are made is itself an essential part of good governance.
SOURCE:- HARI DESHAYA
