At the same time, the Commission has also resolved to investigate a separate complaint lodged by an individual identified as R. Kannan, who has accused Mr Kularatne of committing acts of corruption. The complaint alleges that the procedure followed in appointing Mr Kularatne as Deputy Secretary General of Parliament was improper.
Both complaints were taken up for consideration when the Commission met on Thursday. Following deliberations, instructions were issued for the Director General of CIABOC to commence investigations into the two matters.
As an initial step, CIABOC is expected to request relevant documents from Parliament relating to both complaints. Upon examination of these documents, statements are to be recorded from Speaker Wickramaratne and Mr Kularatne.
Mr Kularatne was suspended by Parliament’s Staff Advisory Committee (SAC), chaired by Speaker Wickramaratne, after an internal inquiry. The inquiry, conducted by former senior administrative official S. K. Liyanage, concluded that Mr Kularatne did not meet the required qualifications for the post of Deputy Secretary General and that the appointment process was flawed.
Following his suspension, Mr Kularatne lodged a complaint with CIABOC alleging that the Speaker had engaged in a series of corrupt practices.
Meanwhile, Speaker Wickramaratne’s Private Secretary, Chameera Gallage, has sought a report from the Secretary General of Parliament regarding matters referred to in Mr Kularatne’s complaint. Opposition Members of Parliament have raised concerns over this move, claiming it could potentially interfere with the CIABOC investigation.
Mr Kularatne’s complaint against the Speaker contains eight allegations, including the alleged illegal receipt of two fuel allowances; misuse of official vehicles; misuse of parliamentary media equipment; obtaining meals from Parliament without settling the prescribed charges; the alleged illegal appointment of an investigating officer and payment of remuneration and meals using parliamentary funds; misuse of two official residences; obstruction of information release under the Right to Information Act; and unlawful interference in the administration of parliamentary staff.
