Sri Lanka’s Coal Inquiry Gets More Time. The Public Now Needs the Evidence

A two-month extension gives the presidential commission investigating coal procurement room to finish its work. It should also raise the standard expected of the final report: names only where evidence supports findings, full responses from affected parties, and a public account of how costly procurement failures occurred.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has extended until 16 December 2026 the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry examining alleged irregularities in coal imports, coal-fired generation and procurement operations associated with Lanka Coal. The inquiry was created in April after concerns raised in audit material and Parliament, and its mandate reaches back to the beginning of coal-based power generation.

The extension matters because the financial stakes are substantial. Daily FT reported that an expert committee report tabled in Parliament calculated Rs. 15.7 billion in costs associated with substandard coal supplied to the Lakvijaya Power Plant between January and September 2026: Rs. 7.1 billion attributed to higher coal consumption and Rs. 8.6 billion to replacement power. It separately calculated a Rs. 2.3 billion premium connected with emergency coal procurement.

Those figures are findings reported from an expert committee, not proof that any particular official committed corruption or a criminal offence. Procurement failure, poor technical judgment, negligence and corruption are different propositions and require different evidence. Anyone facing an adverse finding must have a meaningful opportunity to answer it.

The inquiry should explain the system, not merely identify individuals

The Presidential Secretariat said when establishing the Commission that it would examine whether procurement irregularities or unlawful acts occurred and assess any resulting loss to the state. That mandate should produce more than a list of alleged wrongdoers. The public needs to know how specifications were set, who tested coal quality, what contractual remedies existed, whether penalties were enforced, how emergency procurement was authorised and which controls failed.

Former Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody resigned in April amid the controversy. Reuters reported at the time that the government said procurement procedures had been followed and denied fraud or corruption involving him, while the President ordered a broader investigation. His resignation does not establish culpability. The Commission’s job is precisely to separate political accusation from evidence.

Why publication matters

Sri Lanka’s recent history contains many commissions whose public impact depended on what happened after evidence was collected. The government should therefore commit now to publishing the final report, subject only to narrowly justified redactions, together with the evidentiary basis for major findings and a timetable for implementing procurement reforms.

If the Commission identifies evidence of criminal conduct, that material should be referred to the appropriate independent investigative or prosecutorial authority. If it finds administrative or technical failure rather than crime, those findings should still lead to procurement reform and recovery action where legally available.

Lanka Witness assessment: An extension is defensible if it buys a better investigation. It is not a substitute for an outcome. By 16 December, Sri Lankans should be able to see what went wrong, what it cost, who was heard, what evidence supports each finding and what the state will do next.

Image: Dennis Sylvester Hurd, Parliament of Sri Lanka, 4 March 2024, via Wikimedia Commons. CC0 1.0 public-domain dedication.