Sivagnanam Shritharan, Jaffna District MP representing the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) and a sitting member of Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Council (CC), is facing a formal parliamentary privilege inquiry following allegations that he failed to disclose a pending bribery complaint and misused his position on the Council to shield himself from accountability.
Raising the matter under privilege, MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake (New Democratic Front, Badulla) told Parliament that Shritharan had “failed to disclose bribery allegations pending against him” and accused him of repeatedly siding with the government on key Constitutional Council decisions. The Speaker subsequently ruled that the matter be referred to the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges for further examination.
According to parliamentary sources and documents reviewed by opposition MPs, Shritharan is alleged to have supported government-backed nominations for key public offices instead of maintaining the independent oversight expected of a Constitutional Council member. He is also accused of helping the government appoint several of his own associates to a compensation committee dealing with Tamil war victims — a body he reportedly helped establish shortly before the privileges complaint was filed. Opposition MPs further allege that Shritharan signed documents on behalf of what they describe as “government-aligned” Council members, sidelining his own party representatives.
Credible sources have claimed that Shritharan’s cooperation with the government within the Council was aimed at preventing deeper scrutiny of bribery complaints against him, including allegations that he used his parliamentary influence under the previous administration to secure three bar permits in Kilinochchi.
Opposition legislators have alleged a serious conflict of interest, noting that the Constitutional Council is responsible for recommending appointments to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) — the very body where a complaint has reportedly been lodged against Shritharan. In his privilege motion, Dassanayake alleged that Shritharan sought to obstruct proper scrutiny of the complaint.
Shritharan and ITAK had not publicly responded at the time of filing.
