Sri Lanka’s Honorary Consul in Guinea, Dr. Anuruddha Shanaka, has hit back at the Foreign Ministry’s response to his proposal to promote tourism and broader economic cooperation with the West African country, arguing that the Ministry’s reliance on the lack of direct air connectivity and tourist arrivals was “fundamentally misplaced” and irrelevant to the strategic merits of the initiative.

In a strongly worded letter, he argued that connectivity is a challenge to be solved not an excuse to abandon an emerging market in the African region. The letter has been addressed to the Director General – African Affairs of   the Foreign Ministry.  Daily Mirror is in possession of a copy of the letter.

The Honorary Consul also challenged the Ministry’s statistics, citing approximately 11 high-value Guinean visitors to Sri Lanka during 2025–26 and a recent high net worth delegation he accompanied that reportedly spent USD 40,000–50,000 during a week in Colombo staying at the top hotel.He said the absence of historical arrivals does not demonstrate the absence of opportunity—it demonstrates that Sri Lanka has yet to develop the marketn ,He   pointed to Guinea’s rapidly expanding mining and infrastructure economy, including the multi-billion-dollar Simandou project, arguing that Sri Lanka should move now to capture opportunities before competitors do.The letter also contained a pointed dressing-down over diplomatic protocol. Shanaka insisted that correspondence concerning his functions as Honorary Consul must be channelled through the High Commission in Nairobi, whom he said is his reporting authority and concurrently accredited to Guinea.Shanaka expressed concern that the Africa Division’s Director General had failed to follow what he described as the basic diplomatic procedure of communicating with an Honorary Consul through the responsible High Commission.

“It is regrettable that the established diplomatic reporting procedures do not appear to have been fully followed,” the Honorary Consul said in his response, stressing that adherence to the appropriate channels was important not merely as a matter of procedure, but also to uphold institutional discipline, accountability and respect for the diplomatic chain of command.