Nagananda Kodituwakku Challenges Ali Sabry to Public Debate on Gotabaya Citizenship, Ministerial Conduct and IMF Debt Deal

Colombo — A fresh political and legal controversy has emerged with lawyer and former Customs investigative officer Nagananda Kodituwakku challenging former Justice Minister and former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry to a public debate on a wide range of issues surrounding Sri Lanka’s recent political and economic history.

Kodituwakku has called on Sabry to come forward for a live television debate, proposing that the discussion be broadcast on a Sri Lankan television channel, including Sirasa TV. He has also indicated that the debate could be held at any public venue or forum chosen by Sabry if a television appearance is not acceptable.

The proposed debate, according to Kodituwakku's challenge, would not be limited to one political controversy. Instead, he wants to discuss several issues involving Sabry's political career, his conduct while holding ministerial office, questions surrounding the 2019 presidential election, the citizenship controversy involving former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and aspects of Sri Lanka's negotiations on debt restructuring and the International Monetary Fund programme.

Kodituwakku has also offered to conduct the debate in whichever language Sabry considers most appropriate. He has reportedly indicated that the discussion could be held in English, Sinhala or Tamil, removing language as a possible obstacle to a public exchange.

The Gotabaya citizenship controversy

One of the central issues Kodituwakku wants to bring to the debate is the controversy surrounding Gotabaya Rajapaksa's eligibility to contest the 2019 presidential election.

The citizenship issue became one of the most contentious legal and political questions of that election period. Questions were raised over Rajapaksa's United States citizenship and the timing and legal validity of his renunciation of US citizenship before he contested the Sri Lankan presidency.

Kodituwakku has repeatedly taken an interest in constitutional and electoral questions, and his proposed debate with Sabry would provide an opportunity for both sides to publicly explain their respective interpretations of the legal and constitutional issues involved.

Rather than exchanging accusations through statements, social media or press conferences, Kodituwakku is challenging Sabry to sit opposite him and answer questions in a live and publicly accessible forum.

The challenge therefore places the emphasis on direct accountability and public examination.

Questions over political appointments

Kodituwakku's proposed debate would also address allegations and questions concerning appointments made during the period when Sabry was a senior government minister.

Among the matters he wants discussed is the appointment of Sabry's brother to the chairmanship of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation.

The issue raises a broader question that has repeatedly surfaced in Sri Lankan politics: whether relatives or close associates of senior political figures should receive important appointments in state institutions.

Any discussion of the appointment would necessarily have to distinguish between a legally permissible appointment and questions of political ethics, transparency, merit and public confidence.

Kodituwakku wants Sabry to explain publicly the circumstances surrounding the appointment and the considerations that influenced the decision.

Cambridge University visit

Another issue included in Kodituwakku's challenge concerns Sabry's visit to Cambridge University.

The former minister has had an international public profile and has participated in discussions involving Sri Lanka's legal, diplomatic and economic affairs. Kodituwakku wants the circumstances and public expenditure associated with the Cambridge visit examined as part of the wider debate over ministerial conduct.

Questions concerning official overseas visits can attract public attention when taxpayers' money is involved. Such expenditure can be justified where there is a clear official purpose and public benefit, but citizens are entitled to ask what the objective was, who authorised the expenditure and what tangible outcome resulted.

Kodituwakku appears to be demanding precisely that type of public explanation.

How was public money spent?

A wider component of the proposed debate concerns allegations about the use of public funds during Sabry's time in government.

Kodituwakku has challenged Sabry to respond to questions about expenditure connected with his ministerial responsibilities and to explain whether public money was properly and efficiently used.

These are serious allegations and should not be treated as established facts without documentary evidence or findings by a competent authority. However, the principle of public accountability is straightforward: ministers who exercise executive authority should be prepared to explain major decisions and public expenditure.

A live debate could provide an opportunity for Sabry to put his side of the story directly before the public.

IMF negotiations and Sri Lanka's debt restructuring

Perhaps the most consequential part of Kodituwakku's proposed discussion relates to Sri Lanka's debt crisis and the restructuring process undertaken with international creditors and the International Monetary Fund.

Sri Lanka's economic collapse created one of the country's most difficult political and economic challenges in decades. Debt restructuring required negotiations with bilateral creditors, private creditors and international financial institutions, while the IMF programme imposed a series of economic and fiscal conditions.

Kodituwakku wants Sabry to explain his role, responsibilities and decisions concerning Sri Lanka's economic diplomacy and debt restructuring efforts.

The debate could potentially address difficult questions: What decisions were made? What alternatives were considered? Were the interests of ordinary Sri Lankans adequately protected? How were negotiations conducted? And did the government obtain the best possible outcome for the country?

These are not merely political questions. They concern billions of dollars in public debt and the long-term economic future of Sri Lanka.

From political statements to face-to-face accountability

Kodituwakku's challenge is significant because Sri Lankan political debate often takes place through press releases, parliamentary statements, social media posts and interviews in which opposing figures rarely confront each other directly.

A live debate would be different.

If accepted, Sabry would have the opportunity to challenge Kodituwakku's allegations, correct what he considers inaccurate, present documentary evidence and explain decisions taken during his time in government.

Likewise, Kodituwakku would be required to substantiate the issues he raises and defend his interpretations when questioned by Sabry.

That is the essential value of a genuine public debate: both sides have an equal opportunity to speak, challenge and respond.

English, Sinhala or Tamil

Kodituwakku has reportedly attempted to remove another potential barrier by offering Sabry the choice of language.

If English is preferred, the debate can be conducted in English. If Sinhala is preferred, it can be conducted in Sinhala. If Tamil is preferred, Kodituwakku has indicated his willingness to participate in Tamil.

The message is therefore clear: according to Kodituwakku, the venue, language and format can be negotiated, but he wants the former minister to come forward and engage publicly.

Will Ali Sabry accept?

The central question now is whether Ali Sabry will accept the challenge.

Kodituwakku's supporters are urging people who know Sabry to forward the challenge and encourage him to participate.

For Sabry, however, accepting such a debate would carry both risks and opportunities. A live confrontation could expose him to difficult questions, but it would also give him an unfiltered platform to answer allegations and explain his position.

Declining the challenge, on the other hand, could leave unanswered questions in the public domain — although refusal to debate should not itself be interpreted as an admission that any allegation is true.

Ultimately, the proposed confrontation is about more than two individuals.

It raises a broader question about political accountability in Sri Lanka: Should former ministers and public officials be willing to face difficult questions in an open forum and defend the decisions they made while exercising public power?

Kodituwakku has put that question directly to Ali Sabry.

Now the public will be watching to see whether Ali Sabry accepts the invitation to debate, — and, if he does, whether the proposed confrontation can provide answers to some of the most controversial questions surrounding Sri Lanka's recent political and economic history.