Thursday 7th May, 2026

A government move to assign some Clean Sri Lanka representatives to Divisional Secretariats countrywide as coordinators has run into stiff resistance. The Sri Lanka Association of Divisional Secretaries and Assistant Divisional Secretaries (SLADA) has written to the Secretary to the President, urging the government to revoke its decision and warning that the proposed move will seriously undermine the independence of the public service.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, too, has taken exception to the government plan to assign some JVP cadres to Divisional Secretariats as Clean Sri Lanka coordinators. He told the media yesterday the JVP was trying to infiltrate the state service, and the Opposition would oppose that move tooth and nail.

The SLADA has argued that Sri Lanka already has a long-established administrative framework to ensure effective public service delivery, spanning ministries, departments, provincial councils, district and divisional secretariats down to Grama Niladhari divisions. This system is supported by internal audit units, the National Audit Office, and coordination committees at divisional, district and national levels, which oversee and review programme implementation. While acknowledging some isolated instances of politically influenced conduct of a small number of officials, the SLADA has stressed that the overall administrative structure has functioned as an independent, professional system and its independence must not be compromised.

The government decision to appoint Clean Sri Lanka representatives to Divisional Secretariats should also be viewed against the backdrop of the JVP’s overall strategy to create conditions for establishing what is described in some quarters as a parallel state. JVP stalwart, K. D. Lalkantha, created quite a stir in 2024 by claiming that under a JVP-NPP government legislative and judicial powers would be devolved to villages.

The JVP/NPP is working according to a plan to expand its powerbase through the Constituency Councils or Kottasha Sabha, which remind us of the Citizen Committees or Janatha Committees (JCs) set up by the SLFP-led United Front government (1970-77) purportedly to bring administration closer to the people. The JCs were established in government departments, public corporations, and local administrative units to monitor state administration, advise public officers, help eliminate corruption, delays and waste, encourage public participation in governance and facilitate the implementation of development initiatives. But, in reality, they became highly politicised, with their members undermining the authority of state officials. They clashed with administrators, trade unions and ended up as mere appendages of the government. They were also responsible for the downfall of the UF government. The JVP/NPP is apparently repeating that disastrous experiment.

Old habits are said to die hard. The JVP is accused of using the Clean Sri Lanka programme to infiltrate vital state institutions in a bid to arrogate to itself the powers of the state instead of exercising them through the NPP government for five years. This is something it failed to achieve through extra-parliamentary means for about six decades. Speaking at a recent May Day rally, JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva stated that the JVP-led government would remain in power indefinitely. Some other JVP bigwigs have said they would not let go of power. Given the JVP’s violent past, such utterances cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric.

It is possible that in a bid to perpetuate its hold on power, the JVP is trying to emulate the Soviet model and set up its cells in state institutions like those established by the Communist party in the USSR to function as its “eyes and ears”. The Soviet system functioned on the principle that the party was the “leading and guiding force” of society. It has been reported that by the late Soviet period, there were hundreds of thousands of such primary organisations, covering nearly every sphere of public life. Those cells did not survive the collapse of the USSR.

Ordinary people are not well disposed towards the state service, characterised by inordinate delays, malpractices and arrogance, and it needs a radical shake-up. What needs to be done is to depoliticise and revitalise the public service, and therefore the ongoing efforts to politicise it further must be defeated. One cannot but endorse the SLADA’s demand that the government revoke its decision to infiltrate the Divisional Secretariats, allowing the existing administrative mechanisms to handle programme implementation lest such precedent should have long-term adverse implications for the independence of the public service.

Wednesday 6th May, 2026

The tragic death of Assistant Director of the External Resources Department of the Ministry of Finance, Ranga Rajapaksha, 50, has given rise to doubts, suspicions and various conspiracy theories. It has become an issue reminiscent of the complex plot twists and tropes found in classic whodunits such as Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express and modern murder mysteries like Knives Out. Not even a postmortem examination has helped put the matter to rest. Two schools of thought have emerged about Rajapaksha’s death. One asserts that he committed suicide after being suspended over the diversion of USD 2.5 million from the Treasury to a rogue account, and the other insists that foul play cannot be ruled out.

No sooner had Rajapaksha been found dead, on 30 April, than a four-member panel of forensic experts was appointed to conduct a postmortem examination, and its report was submitted fast. The experts reportedly concluded that the victim had committed suicide. But their conclusion has been challenged in some quarters.

Prominent Opposition politicians and legal experts are among those who argue that Rajapaksha’s death was not properly probed, and the postmortem report is therefore not acceptable. They have gone to the extent of alleging that Rajapaksha’s death was part of a grand cover-up, the implication being that they suspect murder. Some of them have claimed that Rajapaksha, who was reportedly the first to complain of the fund diversion at issue, faced the same fate as Dan Priyasad, who made a formal complaint of the questionable release of red-flagged freight containers without mandatory Customs inspection from the Colombo Port. Priyasad was shot dead in 2025.

As for Rajapaksha’s death, there is no evidence to prove the allegation of foul play, but doubts and suspicions being expressed about it could have a corrosive effect on the integrity of the legal and judicial processes, and should therefore be cleared forthwith. After all, anything is possible in this country, where governments have earned notoriety for subverting the legal and judicial processes to protect their political interests.

There have been allegations that narcotics samples sent to the Government Analyst’s Department for testing were replaced with kurakkan flour. The JVP/NPP politicians are among those who have questioned the validity of a DNA test that revealed that Sarah Jasmine, the widow of Muhammadu Hastun, who carried out the Katuwapitiya Church massacre, in 2019, had been among the National Thowheed Jamaath members killed in a suicide bomb blast in Sainthamarathu a few days after the Easter Sunday terror attacks. So, the government cannot fault those who have refused to accept the official version of Rajapaksha’s death.

In an article published on the opposite page today, Prof. Susirith Mendis has mentioned several instances where JMO reports were found to have been erroneous or even falsified. Arguing that postmortem examinations are prone to error, negligence and falsification, Prof. Mendis mentions a fourth possibility, a legitimate academically defensible difference of opinion and points out that neither medicine nor forensics is an exact science. He says that whether the four-member expert panel looked into all aspects of the death of Rajapaksha is a moot point.

Some legal experts have called for a psychological autopsy to find out Rajapaksha’s mental state at the time of his death. They are right in having asked for an investigation into the victim’s life, behaviour and mindset in the period leading up to his death, as it is alleged that he may have been driven to suicide. Psychological autopsies are common in other countries, where they are conducted by forensic experts, clinicians and legal authorities. They may not provide absolute proof but can help courts, investigators and victim families understand what may have happened.

Given the serious doubts and suspicions expressed by experts, politicians and others about Rajapaksha’s death, the need for a fresh postmortem examination cannot be overstated.

Tuesday 5th May, 2026

The JVP-NPP government turned its recent May Day rallies into a propaganda counteroffensive against the Opposition, which has effectively targeted its good governance credentials. The ruling party leaders, including President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, went ballistic, condemning their rivals as utterly corrupt politicians. Claiming that 2026 would be remembered as the year when the corrupt and thieves were sent to jail, President Dissanayake said 15 high-profile cases would come up in the current month itself.

The Executive President can have himself briefed on cases to be filed and the progress therein, but it is unbecoming of him or her to leverage privileged access to such information for political expediency. Lashing out at President Dissanayake for having told his supporters, at a public rally, that they will be able to hail a judgement to be delivered in a corruption case later this month, the Joint Opposition yesterday said at a media briefing that by saying so, the President had undermined the integrity of the judiciary. Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris told the media yesterday that by claiming to have prior knowledge of the judgement to be delivered on 25 May, the President had assailed the very foundation of the Constitution. One cannot but agree with Prof. Peiris that in the civilised world, judicial decisions are not meant to entertain a third party, and the President’s statement at issue is tantamount to exerting political pressure on the judiciary. Prof. Peiris said the Opposition would make representations to the Chief Justice on the matter. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka must also take it up.

The political undertone of the aforementioned presidential declaration is disturbing, for it betrays a vested interest in the cases the President has referred to, and it is therefore only natural that he is seen to be ramping up pressure on the judiciary to be mindful of the government’s desire to have its political opponents incarcerated for corruption somehow or other. When he insists that the government politicians are not corrupt, and corruption cases would come up against their Opposition counterparts, the subtext of his statement is that he believes that the Opposition members concerned deserve punishment and expects them to be jailed. This can be considered a thinly veiled message intended to influence the judiciary.

The JVP/NPP came to power partly resorting to a false dichotomy. It divided politicians into two broad categories––clean individuals who supported it and others it portrayed as deserving imprisonment for corruption. One may argue that the government’s vested interest in prosecuting its political opponents, and its public declarations that they must be jailed, hang over the judiciary like the sword of Damocles.

The presidential declarations with the potential to erode public trust in the judiciary should be viewed against the backdrop of a controversial claim made by a Minister that the JVP-NPP government would devolve judicial powers to some committees to be set up at the village level. Is the JVP/NPP working according to a plan to undermine the judiciary and reduce it to a mere appendage of the government?

The JVP was critical of the Executive Presidency, while out of power, and even launched aggressive campaigns, seeking its abolition. The JVP/NPP promised to introduce a new Constitution, inter alia, “abolishing the executive presidency and appointing a president without executive powers by the Parliament” (A Thriving Nation: A Beautiful Life, NPP Election Manifesto, p. 109). Today, the JVP/NPP is silent on this solemn pledge which enabled it to garner favour with the public to win elections, and President Dissanayake is accused of undermining the cherished constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. Worse, JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva has declared that the incumbent government will be in power indefinitely. Senior public administrators have protested against a government move to plant JVP cadres in the District and Divisional Secretariats on the pretext of implementing the Clean Sri Lanka programme. One can only hope that the unfolding events are not ominous signs of an Orwellian nightmare.