COLOMBO, November 12, 2026 – The Samagi Jana Balawegaya has unanimously backed a proposal to seek parliamentary scrutiny of Rs. 104.6 million in tourism-promotion sponsorship granted to the Sirasa-affiliated MTV Channel for an international broadcasting summit. With S. M. Marikkar joining the criticism and Harsha de Silva tasked with pursuing the matter, the dispute is moving towards Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance, despite government assurances that the funding was lawful.
The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Executive Council has unanimously approved a proposal to seek an inquiry by Parliament’s Committee on Public Finance (COFP) into the tourism-promotion sponsorship provided to the Sirasa-affiliated MTV Channel for the 63rd General Assembly of the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU).
The decision was reached during the party’s Executive Council meeting at its headquarters on Wednesday, November 11, following allegations of financial irregularities surrounding the allocation.
Several SJB representatives, including Colombo District Parliamentarian S. M. Marikkar, supported the proposal to summon the company’s directors before the parliamentary committee.
The Executive Council subsequently assigned Parliamentarian Dr. Harsha de Silva responsibility for taking the matter forward and presenting the relevant information to COFP.
The allegations remain disputed. The government has defended the sponsorship, maintaining that the funds were approved through established procedures and intended to promote Sri Lanka internationally.
Padukka Demands Sirasa Directors Be Summoned
The Executive Council initially discussed the forthcoming Budget and the party’s membership promotion programmes before turning to concerns surrounding the tourism-promotion allocation.
National Convenor of the Anti-Corruption Force Niroshan Padukka criticised the circumstances in which the funds had been provided to the Sirasa-affiliated company and called for its directors to answer questions before COFP.
Padukka alleged that the arrangement involved serious irregularities and questioned the justification for providing such substantial financial support to a private broadcaster.
He also compared the expenditure with the cost of hosting an earlier broadcasting summit in Sri Lanka in 2017.
“The manner in which the Sirasa media institution obtained funds for tourism promotion is extremely fraudulent. The Board of Directors of Sirasa must definitely be summoned to the Committee on Public Finance regarding the irregularities that have taken place there,” Padukka told the meeting, according to the account provided.
“In 2017, this summit was held in Sri Lanka, and the Good Governance government spent only about Rs. 5.5 million for it. Even that money was earned by the Sales Department of the National Television Corporation from sponsors.”
The comparison concerns expenditure figures advanced by Padukka and does not, without a detailed examination of the respective events, establish that the 2026 sponsorship was excessive or improperly approved.
Padukka further alleged that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Tourism Minister Vijitha Herath had been directly involved in the transaction.
He characterised the allocation as a bribe and said he had already complained to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).
“But the President and the Minister of Tourism have been directly involved in this transaction, and this is clearly a bribe. I would like to remind that I have also lodged a complaint with the Bribery Commission in this regard.”
Padukka demanded that the company’s directors be questioned to establish the circumstances surrounding the expenditure.
“In order to inform the country about this very clear illegal transaction, all the directors must be summoned to the Committee on Public Finance and questioned. Through this, the political dealings, corruption and fraud that exist within Sirasa can be exposed to the country.”
These statements constitute allegations by Padukka. They do not establish that the sponsorship amounted to bribery or that the broadcaster’s directors, the President or the Tourism Minister committed an offence.
Kins Nelson Supports Parliamentary Scrutiny
Polonnaruwa District Parliamentarian Kins Nelson endorsed Padukka’s proposal and urged the party to pursue the matter through Parliament.
“I endorse this proposal. We must definitely file complaints with the Committee on Public Finance regarding this unclear and one-sided political manoeuvre of the Sirasa institution, and regarding this corruption.”
Nelson’s intervention strengthened support within the Executive Council for bringing the sponsorship arrangement before the parliamentary committee.
His remarks reflected the party’s position that the decision to provide substantial tourism-promotion funding to a private media organisation warranted closer examination.
Marikkar Joins Criticism Following Sirasa Coverage
Colombo District Parliamentarian S. M. Marikkar also supported the proposal, referring to recent criticism directed at him by the Sirasa television network.
Marikkar said the broadcaster had criticised him over his comments concerning flooding within the Colombo Municipal Council area.
“During the past few days, when speaking about the flooding of the Colombo Municipal Council area, the Sirasa media channel criticised me severely. This proposal being brought forward is very timely. This proposal should be taken forward without delay.”
His intervention introduced a further dimension to the dispute, given his acknowledgement of the broadcaster’s recent criticism of him.
Nevertheless, the question of whether tourism-promotion expenditure complied with applicable financial procedures must be assessed independently of disagreements between politicians and media organisations.
Rajakaruna Calls for Entire Board to Explain Funding
Parliamentarian Harshana Rajakaruna joined the discussion and insisted that the broadcaster’s entire Board of Directors should be called upon to provide explanations.
“The entire Board of Directors of the Sirasa institution must be summoned for this. They must be directly made to present explanations before the Committee on Public Finance in this regard, and steps must be taken to act as necessary in relation to it.”
Rajakaruna’s proposal focused on obtaining explanations from those responsible for the company’s governance and decisions concerning the event.
After extensive discussion, the Executive Council unanimously endorsed the proposal.
Responsibility for taking forward the matter and reporting the relevant details to COFP was assigned to Dr. Harsha de Silva.
The party’s decision is a request for parliamentary scrutiny. It does not, by itself, constitute a summons issued by COFP or a finding of financial misconduct.
Rs. 104.6 Million Sponsorship at Centre of Dispute
The disagreement concerns Rs. 104,603,876 in sponsorship approved through the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau (SLTPB) for the 63rd ABU General Assembly and associated activities.
The event took place in Colombo between October 30 and November 3, 2026.
MTV Channel (Private) Limited, which operates within the Maharaja media network, hosted the assembly.
The programme brought together approximately 350 delegates from international broadcasting organisations and included meetings, cultural activities and tourism-related events.
The ABU represents approximately 225 broadcasting organisations across 66 countries.
The government has argued that hosting the gathering offered an opportunity to promote Sri Lanka’s tourism industry through international media exposure.
Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa previously said the sponsorship was provided through the SLTPB using tourism-related levies rather than a direct allocation from the Treasury.
Tourism Minister Vijitha Herath also defended the expenditure, saying the proposal had passed through the Tourism Promotion Bureau’s board, the Department of Public Finance and the Cabinet approval process.
According to the government’s explanation, the sponsorship was intended to strengthen Sri Lanka’s international profile as a tourism and conference destination.
The SLTPB estimated that the event could generate promotional media value exceeding Rs. 250 million.
Those projected benefits remain distinct from independently verified returns on the expenditure.
An assessment of the programme’s effectiveness would require examination of the promotional material produced, its distribution through international media outlets and the measurable benefits obtained.
Funding Approval and Financial Accountability
The controversy has already attracted scrutiny outside the SJB.
A separate complaint concerning the sponsorship was lodged with CIABOC on November 3 by the Social Media Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka Collective.
That complaint sought an investigation into the allocation of funding for the event hosted by the private broadcaster.
The existence of a complaint does not establish that bribery, corruption or misuse of funds occurred.
The parliamentary scrutiny proposed by the SJB could examine the financial approval process, the contractual obligations associated with the sponsorship and the promotional benefits delivered.
Relevant records would include the original funding proposal, evaluation documents, board decisions, Cabinet approval, expenditure details and evidence of promotional services provided.
A comparison with previous ABU events would also require accurate information about their respective programmes, financing arrangements and expenses.
Harsha de Silva Tasked With Taking Matter Forward
Following the unanimous decision of its Executive Council, the SJB has placed responsibility for pursuing the matter with Dr. Harsha de Silva.
The next development will depend on whether the relevant information is formally submitted to COFP and whether the committee decides to examine the sponsorship arrangement or call witnesses.
Any such inquiry would need to consider the allegations advanced by the opposition alongside the government’s explanation and the relevant documentary evidence.
The original account does not establish that COFP has already issued summonses to Sirasa’s directors.
Nor does it establish that the committee has reached any finding concerning the sponsorship.
For the SJB, the immediate objective is to secure parliamentary examination of the expenditure.
For the government and the broadcaster, a documented review would provide an opportunity to demonstrate the basis on which the funds were approved and the services or promotional benefits delivered.
The next step rests with Harsha de Silva and the Committee on Public Finance, whose decisions will determine whether the dispute advances from political allegations to formal parliamentary scrutiny.
