Former public-private partnership official Thilan Wijesinghe has rejected allegations linked to a list of 50 cases presented by Minister Bimal Rathnayake, seeking clarification of the evidence, relevant dates and legal status of the claims.
COLOMBO — Former National Agency for Public Private Partnership Chairman Thilan Wijesinghe has categorically denied corruption allegations associated with a list presented to Parliament by Minister Bimal Rathnayake on October 8, challenging the apparent connection between the accusations and his previous public-sector responsibilities.
Wijesinghe issued a statement on October 9 questioning why his name had been included in the parliamentary disclosure and maintaining that he was unaware of any pending legal proceedings or formal allegations against him.
The dispute has drawn attention to the evidentiary basis of public allegations, the distinction between complaints and established wrongdoing, and the responsibility of public officials to ensure that parliamentary disclosures accurately reflect the status of investigations.
Rathnayake, the Minister of Transport, Highways and Urban Development, presented a 10-page document detailing 50 corruption, fraud and criminal cases involving former ministers, politicians, senior State officials and businesspeople.
The Minister maintained that the cases originated from complaints and proceedings dating to the 2015–2019 period, rejecting accusations that the Government was pursuing political revenge.
Wijesinghe Challenges Allegations Linked to State Contracts
According to reporting on the parliamentary disclosure, Wijesinghe’s name appeared in connection with alleged violations of anti-corruption legislation concerning the award of State development project contracts outside approved procedures.
Responding the following day, Wijesinghe denied any involvement in the alleged wrongdoing.
He stated that he was unaware of any case or formal or informal allegations of that nature against him.
His principal objection concerns the period to which the accusations reportedly relate.
Wijesinghe said the allegations appeared to concern 2010, when he was serving as Group Managing Director of Overseas Realty Ceylon PLC rather than holding public office.
That distinction is relevant because the precise nature of the alleged misconduct, the authority exercised by the individual concerned and the dates of any disputed decisions would all be necessary to establish whether the accusation has a factual basis.
The available information does not identify the specific contract, public decision or official intervention allegedly involving Wijesinghe.
Nor does it independently establish what documentary evidence was relied upon when his name was included in the list.
Clarification is therefore needed on whether the allegation concerns conduct during his private-sector employment, a separate public appointment or another capacity not identified in the reports.
No Pending Case, Wijesinghe Maintains
Wijesinghe has further stated that no legal case is currently pending against him in connection with the reported allegation and that no State law enforcement agency has requested a statement from him on the matter.
He reportedly contacted Rathnayake’s office seeking clarification of the circumstances surrounding his inclusion in the parliamentary list.
Wijesinghe also indicated his willingness to cooperate should a formal investigation be initiated.
At the time of his October 9 statement, he said the relevant Hansard record had not yet been released and called for the allegations to be clarified and the parliamentary record corrected where necessary.
The absence of a pending prosecution does not conclusively determine whether an allegation has been investigated or whether a complaint exists.
Equally, inclusion in a parliamentary list does not amount to a judicial finding of wrongdoing.
These distinctions are particularly important where allegations are publicly associated with identifiable individuals whose professional reputations may be affected before the underlying facts have been formally examined.
Former Public-Private Partnership Role Comes Under Focus
Wijesinghe has also referred to his appointment as the first Chairman of the National Agency for Public Private Partnership (NAPPP), a position he held from 2017 to 2019.
He maintains that the appointment was honorary and that he received no State remuneration.
According to his account, the agency operated under the Ministry of Finance and did not possess legal authority to award or recommend State development contracts.
He further stated that no such contracts were entered into by the agency during his tenure.
These explanations form part of his response to the parliamentary disclosure. They do not independently resolve whether the allegation refers to his NAPPP appointment or to unrelated activities.
Nevertheless, identifying the institution, relevant period and decision-making authority is essential before a proper assessment can be made.
If the allegations concern decisions taken before his appointment, that chronology must be clearly explained.
If they concern his subsequent public-sector responsibilities, the relevant statutory powers, contractual records and official decisions should be identified.
Without those particulars, the precise basis of the allegation remains unclear.
Earlier BOI Proceedings Must Be Distinguished
The controversy also brings renewed attention to Wijesinghe’s earlier tenure as Chairman and Director General of the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka.
According to historical information contained in the source material, he resigned from those positions in March 2001 after the independent Bribery Commission initiated court proceedings over allegations that he had solicited a US$1 million bribe in connection with approval of a flour-mill project.
Wijesinghe maintained his innocence at the time.
The historical allegation is separate from the matter raised in Parliament on October 8, 2026.
The Morning Telegraph has not independently established the final legal outcome of those earlier proceedings from the available court records. Consequently, no conclusion about criminal liability or the disposition of that historical case can properly be drawn from the information examined.
It would also be inappropriate to treat an allegation associated with his tenure at the Board of Investment as evidence supporting a separate accusation involving State development contracts many years later.
Any examination of the earlier proceedings requires the relevant court filings, judgments and final case status.
Parliamentary Disclosures and the Burden of Evidence
The wider concern arising from the dispute is how allegations of corruption should be presented when individuals are publicly identified before guilt has been established.
Parliamentary scrutiny is an important mechanism for exposing suspected misuse of public resources and examining failures of governance.
Public officials are entitled to place matters of national importance before the legislature, including allegations that may warrant investigation.
However, responsible disclosure requires clarity over the status of the information being presented.
A complaint, an investigation, a criminal charge and a conviction represent different legal stages and should not be treated as interchangeable.
The distinction matters both for the credibility of anti-corruption enforcement and for the rights of individuals whose names appear in official disclosures.
Rathnayake has defended the Government’s wider approach, maintaining that the cases he presented were not newly manufactured allegations but arose from earlier complaints, investigations and legal proceedings.
He also said the administration was allowing investigators to perform their duties without political interference.
Those statements provide the Government’s explanation for placing the list before Parliament.
Nevertheless, the specific circumstances concerning Wijesinghe require examination on their own merits.
Clarification Needed on Allegations and Investigation Status
Several matters would help resolve the uncertainty surrounding Wijesinghe’s inclusion in the parliamentary list:
- What specific act or decision is alleged to constitute wrongdoing?
- Which State development project or contract is involved?
- What dates and public responsibilities are relevant to the allegation?
- Has a complaint been lodged with a recognised investigative authority?
- Is any formal investigation currently underway?
- What documents support the allegation, and what information can lawfully be disclosed?
- Has the Minister’s office responded to Wijesinghe’s request for clarification?
- Does the final parliamentary record accurately describe the allegation and its legal status?
These are questions that can be answered through appropriate official records and statements from the institutions concerned.
The objective should be to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to justify further investigation while avoiding any assumption that the person named is guilty.
Accountability Requires Accuracy and Due Process
The Government’s anti-corruption programme is intended to address allegations involving influential individuals and the misuse of public resources.
For such proceedings to command public confidence, allegations must be examined impartially, and the distinction between suspicion and proven wrongdoing must remain clear.
Wijesinghe’s denial does not, by itself, disprove any allegation. Equally, the parliamentary disclosure does not establish that he committed an offence.
What remains necessary is confirmation of the precise allegation, the documentary basis on which it was included in the list and the status of any investigation.
A substantive response from the relevant authorities would allow the controversy to be assessed against verifiable evidence rather than competing public statements.
Until those details are clarified, the unresolved issue is not simply whether Wijesinghe’s name appeared in Parliament, but whether sufficient evidence and accurate contextual information accompanied its disclosure.
