How was the draft of Auditor General’s report leaked, asks SLC President

• Nowhere in the report does it say that the travel of celebrities or family members of those in the Ex-Co was funded by SLC

By Shehan Daniel  

Questioning how a draft of the Auditor General’s special report into Sri Lanka Cricket’s (SLC) expenditure for the T20 World Cup 2022 was leaked, SLC President Shammi Silva denied that the local governing body for cricket in Sri Lanka had funded celebrities and family members of its Executive Committee to travel to Australia for the tournament. 

In a hurriedly organized press conference in the middle of the second day of the second Test against Pakistan, with play cut short after rain in the morning session, Silva made a bold claim in the face of criticism SLC is facing following the leaking and widespread circulation of the draft. 

Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP Hesha Vithanage expounded on the report in a media conference on Sunday, highlighting SLC’s expenditure of approximately Rs. 68 million on travel to Australia for the T20 World Cup last year.  

“MP Hesha Vithanage doesn’t seem to know the difference between an Auditor’s Report and a draft report. This is a confidential draft report that was sent (from the National Audit Office) to the Sports Ministry, which has been leaked. It was sent from the Sports Ministry to SLC to give our answers to certain questions in the draft report. Nowhere in the report does it say that the travel of celebrities or family members of those in the Ex-Co was funded by SLC,” Silva said.  

“Yes, we gave letters (for Australian Visas) to certain actors and celebrities who have come for matches in the past. But we did not spend a cent on their travel,” he reiterated adding that the Sports Minister had approved the travel of Ex-Co members with SLC funds.   

In the letters supporting Visa applications of those not in the Ex-Co, SLC had specified that they would only be assisting with match tickets, SLC Treasurer Sujeewa Godaliyadda said.   
The draft report had been sent on June 14 to SLC, who were given 14 days to respond to queries raised in the report, however SLC had sought an extension of a month and have been given time until August 22 to reply.