Sajith Premadasa alleges delays, conflicts of interest and unauthorised extensions at the Colombo Port project. The allegations now require answers from those responsible for the ECT
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has raised a series of serious allegations concerning the second phase of the Eastern Container Terminal development at Colombo Port, including delays, conflicts of interest, questionable payments and repeated extensions to the project timetable.
They are allegations and should be treated as such unless established by evidence.
But they are sufficiently specific to require an equally specific response from the Sri Lanka Ports Authority and the Government.
Premadasa raised the issues following discussions with engineers, claiming the second phase of the project began in January 2023 and was originally scheduled for completion by January 3, 2025.
More than a year and a half after that deadline, he says the work remains incomplete.
Among his most significant claims is that personnel are serving both within the Project Management Unit and the advisory team, although the two functions were intended to operate separately.
If correct, that raises an obvious governance question.
A system of project supervision works only if the people responsible for scrutinising decisions possess sufficient independence from those involved in making them.
Premadasa also alleges that the project still lacks a permanent project director and that its completion deadline has been repeatedly extended. He claims a third extension expired on July 7 this year and that a fourth extension is proceeding without proper authorisation from the Ports Authority.
He has further alleged irregularities involving payments and continuing advance payments that he says have caused losses.
No finding of wrongdoing follows simply because the Leader of the Opposition makes an allegation.
Equally, a major piece of national infrastructure cannot be insulated from scrutiny simply because the allegations come from the Opposition.
The Eastern Container Terminal matters enormously to Sri Lanka.
Colombo’s location along one of the world’s busiest shipping routes gives the country an advantage geography provided free of charge. Converting that advantage into transshipment business requires capacity, efficiency and confidence in the management of the port.
Delays cost money.
Poor governance can cost considerably more.
The appropriate response therefore need not be another political argument between Government and Opposition. The Ports Authority can answer the substantive questions.
What was the original completion date? Why was it missed? Who authorised each extension? What is the present cost? What payments have been made? Is there a conflict between project management and advisory functions? And when exactly will the second phase be completed?
If the allegations are wrong, the documents should demonstrate it.
If they are right, the country has a considerably bigger problem.
Premadasa made the allegations on September 2 after meeting engineers. The claims include incomplete work after the original January 2025 deadline, overlapping project-management and advisory roles, absence of a permanent project director, repeated extensions and alleged payment irregularities. They remain allegations at this stage.
