There was no official body to scrutinize the decision making of the Public Debt Department and the Tender Board prior to 2015, the Presidential Commission to Investigate and Inquire into the Issuance of Treasury Bonds observed yesterday.
The decisions were brought to the limelight following the questioned Treasury bond issuance on February 27, 2015, it was also observed. The observation was made following a statement given by the Director of the Macro Prudential Surveillance Department of the Central Bank, D. Nanayakkara who was a former Superintendent of Public Debt at the Public Debt Department.
The former SPD D. Nanayakkara was explaining to the Commission on the Tender Board meeting he attended while he was appointed as the acting SPD for a week during March 2016.
“I saw a big difference when I went for the Tender Board committee meeting that day. There was a great sense of fear in the members. Everyone was thinking their decisions will be scrutinized by COPE or other investigating agencies. On that particular occasion, I realized they spend more time preparing minutes,” Nanayakkara said.
“They were saying, with added humour, that the explanatory minutes will ‘save them’ from the scrutiny of the agencies such as COPE,” he said.
The Commission then questioned Nanayakkara if the decision-making process and minute keeping were done with more priority to do what will ‘save’ them rather than the government’s interest, to which the testifier replied; “That is exactly the understanding that I got at that meeting.”
“Even I had a fear to serve as the acting SPD for that particular week itself,” Nanayakkara explained.
Nanayakkara answered in the affirmative when asked if it did seem that the Tender Board exercised much more care in keeping minutes and decisions, assuming their decisions may be submitted for scrutiny in other forums such as the COPE.
“So by that same token, does it mean that there was no supervision on the decisions of the Public Debt Department or the Tender Board committee by any other organization prior to 2015?” Supreme Court Justice P. Jayawardane questioned.
“The Auditor General peruses us but other than that, we have never been summoned before any parliamentary body such as the COPE at that time,” Nanayakkara replied.
In the backdrop of a fear psychosis, the Tender Board members took extra effort to keep minutes, Nanayakkara added.
The statement was followed by Supreme Court Justice K.T. Chitrasiri who asked: “does that mean prior to 2015, the Tender Board was not very committed to maintain explanatory minutes?”
Nanayakkara differed stating that it does not imply they were not worried about the borrowing cost of the government or any other priority. Reasoning out the fear psychosis that prevailed in the PDD and Tender Board committee members, Nanayakkara said, “the Public Debt Department was in the limelight when the public and the press started to talk about the Treasury Bond issue. Everyone feared they will be scrutinized.” The Commission once again pointed out that it mirrors the fact that there was much more scrutiny of the PDD and the Tender Board decision-making after the Treasury Bond issue in 2015.
The Senior State Counsel Dr. Avanti Perera led the evidence.
Add new comment