"SJB Alleges PUCSL Negligence: Regulatory Authority Accused of Forsaking Public Duty"

Former SJB MP, Mujibur Rahman, has leveled serious accusations against the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), claiming that the regulatory body is shirking its responsibilities to the public. Rahman emphasized that when the government proposes an increase in the electricity tariff, it falls upon the PUCSL to rigorously assess the reasonability of such hikes and grant approval accordingly. However, he contends that the commission is failing in its duty to safeguard the interests of the people.

Expressing concern over the approval process, Rahman highlighted a discrepancy wherein the PUCSL allowed an increase in the electricity bill despite the Cabinet's approval for revising the bill only twice a year. This perceived oversight raises questions about the alignment of the commission with the interests of the government, leaving the public at a disadvantage.

In no uncertain terms, Rahman criticized the PUCSL, characterizing it as a puppet that caters to the government's needs. He went on to suggest that the country could save financial resources by abolishing such commissions, advocating for decisive actions to dismantle the PUCSL.

These bold claims were articulated by Rahman during a press conference convened at the Opposition Leader's office in Colombo, adding fuel to the ongoing discourse surrounding the regulatory oversight of essential public services and the need for transparency in decision-making processes.

As the controversy surrounding the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) unfolds, the accusations brought forth by former SJB MP Mujibur Rahman cast a shadow over the regulatory body's commitment to its public duties. Rahman's assertion that the PUCSL is neglecting its responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize and approve electricity tariff increases raises critical questions about the commission's alignment with the interests of the people.

The press conference held at the Opposition Leader's office in Colombo served as a platform for Rahman to express his concerns, labeling the PUCSL as a puppet that seemingly prioritizes the government's needs over the welfare of the citizens. The assertion that the country could benefit financially from abolishing such commissions adds a layer of urgency to the call for decisive actions.

As the public awaits responses from the regulatory authority and the government, Rahman's claims contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the transparency and efficacy of regulatory bodies tasked with safeguarding essential services. The spotlight on the PUCSL underscores the delicate balance between governmental policies and the imperative to protect the interests of the public, shaping the discourse on the future of regulatory oversight in Sri Lanka.