A former board member of Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited (AASL) has come forward to defend the practice of paying commissions to aircraft buyers, asserting that such payments are a widely accepted and standard component of international aviation procurement. Professor Sonal Fernando made these remarks during a press conference, shedding light on what he described as a commonly misunderstood aspect of aircraft purchasing that has recently drawn significant public and political scrutiny in Sri Lanka.
Commissions Built Into Aircraft Purchase Prices
Professor Fernando, who previously served on the AASL Board, was categorical in his explanation of how aircraft procurement transactions typically work at the international level. He stated that commissions paid to aircraft buyers are not separate, under-the-table payments but are instead factored directly into the overall purchase price of the aircraft. This means that the commission forms a legitimate and pre-calculated part of the financial structure of any given deal.
According to Professor Fernando, this is not a practice unique to Sri Lanka or to any single airline or aviation authority. Rather, it is a globally recognized norm within the commercial aviation industry, where brokers, intermediaries, and buyer representatives routinely receive compensation for facilitating large and complex aircraft acquisition transactions. These deals often involve hundreds of millions of dollars and require extensive negotiation, technical evaluation, and regulatory compliance work.
Refusing a Commission Could Cancel the Deal
One of the most striking points raised by Professor Fernando during the press conference was his warning that refusing to accept a commission in such transactions could actually lead to the cancellation of the entire deal. He explained that in many international aircraft procurement agreements, the commission structure is built into the contract terms from the outset. If a buyer were to reject the commission, it could signal a breakdown in the agreed financial framework, potentially causing the seller or the intermediary to withdraw from the transaction altogether.
This assertion adds a layer of complexity to the ongoing debate surrounding aircraft purchases in Sri Lanka, suggesting that what may appear on the surface to be irregular financial conduct could in fact be a necessary and contractually obligated element of standard aviation business practice. Professor Fernando's comments are likely to influence how investigators, policymakers, and the general public interpret the financial arrangements surrounding past aircraft acquisitions by Sri Lankan aviation entities.
Context: AASL and Sri Lanka's Aviation Sector Under Scrutiny
The Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) Limited is a state-owned enterprise responsible for managing the country's airports and related aviation infrastructure. Like many state institutions in Sri Lanka, AASL has faced heightened scrutiny in recent years as the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of its severe economic crisis. Questions surrounding the financial management of state enterprises, including decisions related to aircraft procurement, have become politically sensitive topics.
Professor Fernando's press conference appears to be a direct response to allegations or investigations related to commissions paid during aircraft purchase transactions involving Sri Lankan aviation entities. By speaking publicly, he seems intent on providing context and clarity to what he views as a mischaracterization of standard industry practices, potentially in defense of decisions made during his tenure or the tenure of colleagues on the AASL Board.
Industry Norms vs. Public Accountability
While Professor Fernando's explanations may hold weight within aviation industry circles, they also raise important questions about transparency and public accountability in state-owned enterprise procurement. Even if commissions are indeed a standard feature of international aircraft deals, critics may argue that Sri Lankan taxpayers and oversight bodies deserve full disclosure of such financial arrangements, particularly when public funds are involved.
The tension between accepted international business norms and the demand for transparent governance is not unique to Sri Lanka. Many countries have grappled with similar questions when state entities engage in large-scale procurement in industries where commission-based structures are commonplace. The challenge lies in ensuring that standard practices do not become a shield for potential financial misconduct or conflicts of interest.
What This Means Going Forward
Professor Fernando's public statements are expected to play a role in shaping the narrative around any formal investigations or inquiries into AASL's aircraft procurement history. His insistence that commissions are a built-in and unavoidable part of aircraft purchase agreements could provide a legal and procedural defense for those whose decisions are under review.
At the same time, aviation industry watchdogs, anti-corruption advocates, and parliamentary oversight committees will likely scrutinize these claims carefully. The key questions will center on whether proper disclosure was made at the time of the transactions, whether the commissions were proportionate and within industry norms, and whether all relevant approvals and documentation were in place.
As Sri Lanka continues its path toward economic recovery and institutional reform, the handling of this issue will serve as a significant test of the country's commitment to accountable governance in its state-owned enterprises. Professor Fernando's remarks have opened a wider conversation that goes beyond aviation and touches on the fundamental principles of public sector financial management.