The Kumara conundrum: Is Jayakody worth the political price for NPP?
By Kassapa
Consider this situation: a sitting Cabinet minister is indicted after months of speculation, protesting his innocence and surviving a vote of no confidence in Parliament. He then has to resign. That was Keheliya Rambukwella two years ago. Also, Rambukwella didn’t wait until he was found guilty.
Now, consider the present. The National Peoples’ Power (NPP) Minister for Energy, Kumara Jayakody, finds himself in the position that Rambukwella was in two years ago. He has already been indicted on charges related to a procurement he undertook when he was a government official many years ago. There are also many allegations regarding the purchase of low-quality coal, a subject under his purview, although these have not been proven yet. The opposition has been clamouring for his resignation, but he has not budged an inch; nor has he been sacked by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
To be fair, the offences Jayakody is accused of pale in comparison to what Rambukwella has been charged with. Also, Jayakody is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like any other citizen, until or unless he is found guilty in a court of law.
Jayakody – and the government – have explanations. They claim that the charges Jayakody has been indicted on date back many years – not that it is an excuse – and it relates to his actions as an official, not a minister. In fact, this was the excuse offered by Dissanayake when he was quizzed about Jayakody remaining as a Cabinet minister. It is a curious argument. For instance, would Jayakody still be retained in the Cabinet if he were charged with a more serious criminal offence committed while he was an official? If not, where does the President draw that line which says, ‘this is acceptable, this is not’?
As for the accusations regarding the much-maligned coal tender, the government’s position has been more consistent. It claims there was no irregularity in awarding the tender, but acknowledges that the coal delivered to them is of low quality, resulting in massive losses to the state. Even if Jayakody is not guilty of corruption in this instance, he could be found wanting in competency for not insisting on the necessary checks and balances in case of such a contingency. The crux of the matter is that the cost to the state is many times more than the alleged offence Jayakody has been indicted for.
The opposition is doing what it is supposed to do: asking for Jayakody’s resignation. With none forthcoming, they have resorted to the next step, a no-confidence motion. There is no doubt Jayakody will survive the vote on this, armed as he is with the NPP’s two-thirds majority. Lest we forget, so did Rambukwella. Is surviving the no-confidence motion a real victory, though?
Dissanayake and the NPP rode to power in late 2024 on a campaign promising to root out corruption, ensure transparency in government and enforce law and order without exception. They promised pristine governance where no one was above the law and pledged that not even a hint of corruption would be tolerated.
Their first test came not long after they assumed office, when then Speaker Asoka Ranwala could not prove that he had a doctorate. After days of dilly-dallying, Dissanayake reportedly cracked the whip. Ranwala had to go. He did not jump; he was pushed, insiders say. When he left, he fired a parting shot, saying he would return when his credentials are substantiated. Alas, we are still waiting for that day!
Jayakody’s alleged misdemeanours are on a whole new scale. They relate to alleged offences that could earn him a prison sentences if found guilty. Faced with this situation, the sensible course of action would have been for him to resign. It would have been a win-win situation. The government could have claimed that it was taking the moral high ground. If Jayakody was exonerated, he could make a triumphant return, saying ‘I told you so’. If not, the government would earn kudos for keeping to the high standards they had set for themselves.
This hasn’t happened. Insiders say the NPP hierarchy, at its highest levels, believes Jayakody when he says he committed no offence. Nevertheless, one faction is calling for his head to roll. Another faction sees a resignation as caving in to pressure from the opposition and as a sign of weakness and is therefore unwilling to yield. Faced with this conundrum, Dissanayake and others are reportedly working out a face-saving exit strategy. This could come in the form of a resignation, albeit after ‘winning’ the vote of no confidence. In other words, it will be the Rambukwella strategy all over again.
At what cost, we must ask. For a government that promised zero tolerance of corruption, such a course of action allows the opposition to engage in weeks of propaganda, tarnishing whatever goodwill the NPP has generated in the time they were in office. After all, the NPP’s main campaign slogan was a corruption-free political culture and ‘system change’. Jayakody remaining in the Cabinet while investigations against him are ongoing looks nothing like that, even if he is eventually found to be innocent.
Has the NPP been blinded by the arrogance of the power it wields in the form of the Executive Presidency and a two-thirds majority in Parliament? Already, opposition parties are going to town claiming that Jayakody ‘struck a deal’ in the coal tender not only for himself but for Dissanayake as well. Why else would Dissanayake shield him, they ask. Such questions may be part of a mud-slinging campaign, but if repeated often enough, some of it will stick.
Kumara Jayakody is no frontliner in the ranks of the NPP. If he is not being asked to step down because it is felt that would amount to yielding to the opposition, the NPP is making a serious miscalculation. Jayakody may survive, but in doing so, he will irrevocably damage the NPP’s reputation.
Saving Kumara Jayakody is not a price worth paying.
-counterpoint.lk
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.