Connect with us

Features

‘UN fudged Lankan casualty figures’ – Lord Naseby

Published

on

by Palitha Senanayake

The United Nations Human Rights Council at its 57th session adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Project on Sri Lanka Accountability by one year. Babu Ram Pant, Deputy Regional Director for South Asia at Amnesty International, has commented extensively on this resolution.

International perversion

The source of these allegations of human rights violations against Sri Lanka is the controversial report called the ‘Dharusman (UNPOE pr United Nations Panel of Experts.) report,’ which the UN Secretary-General commissioned in 2010 after Sri Lankan forces defeated LTTE terrorism. The Secretary-General justified the commissioning of this report, stating that ‘the report is for his personal knowledge.’ This is a strange move to start with because in the UN, HR violation investigations are commissioned by resolutions of the UN Security Council and never by the UN Secretary-General ‘for his knowledge’ in his personal capacity. However, since the report was published, it received authenticity and UN and international blessings to make a case against Sri Lanka.

This ‘international perversion’, however, does not end there. In its mandate, the report further maintained that its task was to look into the ‘accountability to the International Humanitarian and Human Rights law, on the final stages of the Sri Lankan conflict’. This, again, is twisted advocacy to suit one’s agenda as what logically applies to the situation is only international humanitarian law and certainly not Human Rights law.

Expert Opinion

Confronted by these allegations of the UNSG and his ‘experts’, the Sri Lankan government in 2012 hired a team of independent experts, whose expertise in international conflicts and international law was beyond question. This team comprised

Professor DM Crane
Sir Desmond De Silva QC
Rodney Dixon QC

Professor Michael Newton -Professor of the Practice of law, Vanderbilt University School of Law.

Major General Sir John Holmes DSO OBE MC- UN Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs 2007-2010

These eminent persons had served on various international investigation panels. After studying the issues in detail, they submitted their reports to the government of Sri Lanka. They were all in agreement that the Sri Lankan case should be viewed under International Humanitarian Law and not under International Human Rights law.

The applicability of IHRL and its relevance can be explained as follows. It is an accepted fact that the LTTE was the most organized terrorist unit in the world. This fact signifies that the conflict in Sri Lanka was an armed conflict between two sets of forces, namely the SL security forces and the LTTE.

In such a context, international law, as spelt out by the ICRC statute, is very clear in stating that the law that applies to an armed conflict is international humanitarian law, and not International Human Rights law.

Further, as the above experts on international law have pointed out, “International law provides civilian protection while simultaneously allowing for military objectives to be fulfilled, which is the central goal of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The death of civilians during a conflict, no matter how grave or regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. In particular, the three principals

1. Distinction

2. Military necessity and

3. Proportionality

should guide the legality of action under IHL.

Distinction means that no civilians should be targeted intentionally, Military necessity means that targeting of the particular object should be necessary for the advancement of the troops, and Proportionality is that, the collateral damage (civilian and property) should be justifiable to the military advantage anticipated to be achieved’ – Sir Desmond de Silva QC Page 23.

Therefore, if Sri Lankan forces are to be made guilty of war crimes, charges may have to be brought either on the grounds of intentionally targeting civilians, attacking with no military necessity or for disproportionate killings, over and above the military advantage.

Tendentious allegation

In addition to the above, the Darusman report, makes another tendentious allegation against the Sri Lankan forces. It says in paragraph 137:

137. In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. The number of credible sources has estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.

Now, this is the figure that is widely quoted to discredit Sri Lanka’s armed forces. Further a figure of 40,000 appears somewhat ‘disproportionate’ in a conflict of this nature and therefore it can be used to make the Sri Lankan forces out to be guilty under international law although the claims made by the UNPOE have not been substantiated.

The Darusman report contradicts the number of ‘dead persons during the conflict’ furnished by the UN country team stationed in the conflict zone for that specific purpose. The US State Department report says the number of deaths is 6,710 from January 2009 to April 2009. The UN’s Country team report prepared by Gordon Weise, the country team leader, states that the figure of casualties is 7,714 from January 2nd to 13th May 2009. The two reports have a basis on daily counts, and they were prepared on the current basis while the conflict was raging, whereas this Darusman report, having come after two years since the end of the battle, presents a figure of 40,000 casualties without a basis or naming a source for the same.

Here is how the Panel justifies its reasons for questioning the first COG (UN Country team) figure:

135.

The number calculated by the United Nations Country Team provides a starting point but is likely to be too low for several reasons. First, it only accounts for the casualties that were observed by the networks of observers who were operational in LTTE-controlled areas. Many victims may not have been observed at all. Second, after the United Nations stopped counting on May 13th, the number of civilian casualties likely proliferated. Due to the intensity of the shelling, many civilians were left where they died and were never registered, brought to a hospital, or even buried. This means that, in reality, the total number could easily be several times that of the United Nations figures.

The country team was stationed in the war zone to prevent and record violations of the international laws of conflict, and the most crucial part of that operation was recording the number of dead in the fighting. The members of this panel, before casting aspersions on the quality of the information found on the Country-Team report, should do well to re-examine the authenticity of their own information sources because their sources, such as the Tamil Diaspora and the ‘Peace’ NGOs, could be highly partisan since they have lost their relevance (and also contributions) since this conflict came to an end.

Lord Naseby

On 01 November 2017, Lord Naseby, a member of the British House of Lords, moved a resolution in the British Parliament to the effect that the number of civilians killed in the final stage of the Sri Lankan conflict was around 7,000 and not 40,000. Accordingly, he suggested to the Parliament that Britain should change its perspective towards the Sri Lankan issue at the UN Human Rights Commission.

Even though Lord Naseby’s assertion is based on the reports of the Defense Attaché of the British Embassy in Colombo at the time of the war, it needs loads of optimism to expect that the British Government will accept these statistics and change its official position towards Sri Lanka at international forums, especially at the UN Human Rights Council where they have co-sponsored the US resolution against Sri Lanka.

Lord Naseby, subsequently airing his views to Mandy Clerk of the British media, stated, “I went into the civilian factor of this war because the figures I had did not add up to the official figures. So, I applied under the freedom of information, requesting the reports of the Defense Attaché of our embassy in Colombo at the time of the war. I received 26 reports, but that did not include the final few days of the war situation. So, I made another appeal, and there I received a further 12 reports. These reports had enough evidence to prove that nobody in the Sri Lankan government ordered to kill people and that was not the intention. The reports said that the casualty figure is around 7,200 civilians and the report further mentioned that a quarter of those casualties could be the LTTE cadres because they did not wear a uniform towards the last stages of the conflict. Then I went to the University Teachers of Jaffna, which is a professional organization of Tamil University teachers, and they said, ‘ it is about 7000’.

Verified Official Statistics

The Department of Census and Statistics performs its customary population survey for the whole of Sri Lanka every 10 years, but due to the LTTE activity, it has not been able to collect data in the North and East since the 1981 survey. Thus, during these years, the officers of respective kachcheries have been issuing population estimates when required for official purposes. However, since the conflict ended in 2009, and given the conflicting claims made by interested parties, including the Catholic Church, the Department commenced an exclusive survey for the northern province in June 2011. This survey was specially designed to ascertain, with verification, the number of people living as well as those who have died, especially during 2009 so that death certificates could be issued on account of them to their next of kin.

This survey was spearheaded by the following officers for each of the regions as follows,

Jaffna – S Udayakumaran (Head of the District Statistics office)

Mannar – M. Vithiyananthaneshan (Head of the District Statistics offic)

Kilinochchi – K.Velupillai (Head of the District Statistics office)

Vavuniya – M. Thyagalingam (Head of the District Statistics office)

Mullaitivu – N. Gangatharan (Head of the District Statistics office)

Following are the results of this survey

Thus, the above schedule gives the death toll as 8,998 during the period, including 1,067 who died due to old age/sickness, and the numbers are enumerated on the house-to-house survey regarding the cause of death. Death certificates were issued to all persons in this schedule and even those that did not explain their cause of death and stated as ‘not stated.’ People do not disclose the cause of death for various reasons, and most of such undisclosed deaths fall into the category ‘other’, meaning deaths due to terrorism. Therefore, it is possible that the number of deaths due to conflict situation was 7,442 (6,858+ 584).

Now, these death counts are reported of persons who were born and lived in the five districts where the conflict raged and also in the districts from where the LTTE used human shields. Therefore, when the Darusman report claims 40,000 deaths, such additional deaths have to be of people who were not born or did not live in these districts.

In modern times, dominant nations do not have to use weapons to subjugate others. They could just as well ‘Weaponize human rights’ to achieve the same end. That way, they could wear the cloak as the “Champions of Human rights,” hiding their authentic characters as killers, decimators and dominators.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Digital Underground

Published

on

Illegal Foreign Exchange, Undiyal, Hawala and Money Laundering, A Four-Part Investigative Series

Forex Platforms, Cryptocurrency, AI and the New Financial Battlefield

THE INVISIBLE FINANCIAL EMPIRE – PART III

The Boyfriend Who Was Never Real

Priya, a 34-year-old professional in Colombo, met “David” on LinkedIn. He claimed to work in fintech in Singapore. For six weeks they exchanged messages daily, about work, about life, about a recent trip he had taken to the Maldives. Eventually, the conversation turned, gently and naturally, to money.

“I’ve been trading on this platform, let me show you,” he said, sharing a screenshot of a sleek trading dashboard showing consistent, impressive returns.

Priya invested a small amount first, $500. Within days, her dashboard showed it had grown to $650. She withdrew $100 successfully, just to test it. It worked. Encouraged, she invested more. Then more. Over two months, she transferred a total of $42,000 into the platform.

When she tried to withdraw her full balance, the platform demanded a “regulatory release fee” of $8,000 before funds could be unlocked. She paid it. Then another fee appeared. Then the platform stopped responding altogether. “David” vanished. The trading dashboard, the customer support chat, the entire brokerage, all of it had never been real.

This is what investigators now call “pig butchering”, and, in 2026, the most disturbing development is not the scam itself, which has existed for years, but what now powers it: artificial intelligence has industrialised the entire operation.

From Manual Fraud to Machine-Generated Deception

For most of the past decade, romance-and-investment scams, like the one that targeted Priya, required enormous manual labour. Scam operations, many of them staffed by trafficked workers held against their will in compounds across Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, needed real humans to build relationships with victims over weeks, manage fake trading platforms, and respond convincingly to questions.

That labour-intensive model has now been substantially automated. According to financial-crime researchers tracking this shift through 2026, threat actors are standing up entire AI-generated “brokerage” experiences end-to-end, complete with KYC onboarding, branded customer-service chat, animated portfolio dashboards, and falsified live market data feeds, and operating them at industrial scale against multiple victims simultaneously. Generative-AI relationship managers now front the WhatsApp and Telegram conversations that once required real human scammers. AI-cloned regulator letters are generated on demand to justify the fake “release fees” that drain victims a final time before the platform disappears.

What has changed is not the deception itself, it is the production economics. The cost of running a credible synthetic brokerage against one additional victim has collapsed, meaning a single criminal network can now run hundreds of “Davids” simultaneously, each one indistinguishable from a genuine fintech professional until it is too late. (Figure 01)

Sri Lanka: From Victim Pool to Operating Base

Sri Lanka’s relationship to this global scam economy has shifted in an alarming direction over the past two years. The country is no longer only a source of victims, it has become an operating base for the criminal networks themselves.

In April, 2026, Sri Lankan police raided a five-star hotel property, in Ambakandavila, and arrested 150 individuals, including 133 Chinese nationals, 13 Vietnamese nationals, and one Malaysian national, allegedly running a cyber fraud centre with links to international criminal syndicates, based in Myanmar and Cambodia. Investigators say the operation followed a now-familiar regional pattern: recruiters advertise “online marketing” or “data entry” jobs on social media to lure foreign workers to Sri Lanka, confiscate their passports on arrival, and force them to operate scam campaigns under threat.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka has formally flagged pig-butchering scams as a “developing threat,” warning that foreign scam networks are increasingly targeting overseas nationals through scam farms operating from Sri Lankan soil. A 2026 United Nations report estimated that at least 300,000 people have been trafficked into scam centres across Southeast Asia.

This is not an abstract international problem. It is unfolding in hotels and rented properties across the country, exploiting the same infrastructure, high-speed internet, affordable accommodation, accessible tourist visas, that Sri Lanka has built to attract legitimate digital businesses and tourists.

Where the Money Actually Goes: The Stablecoin Pipeline

Behind every successful pig-butchering scam sits a laundering pipeline that has been transformed almost as dramatically as the scams themselves, and the transformation has a single dominant feature: stablecoins.

According to the Financial Action Task Force’s March 2026, report, drawing on analysis from blockchain intelligence firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs, stablecoins accounted for 84% of the USD 154 billion in illicit virtual asset transaction volume recorded in 2025, the highest share ever observed, and a dramatic jump from just 15% only a few years earlier. TRM Labs separately found that illicit entities received USD 141 billion in stablecoins, in 2025 alone, the highest level observed in five years. (See Table 01)

The scale of state-level abuse is striking. A Russian sanctions-evasion network built around the ruble-pegged stablecoin A7A5 processed more than USD 72 billion in total volume in 2025.

Fighting Fire with Fire: AI on the Defensive Side

The same artificial intelligence reshaping financial crime is also, out of necessity, reshaping the defence against it. Legacy anti-money laundering systems, built on static, rule-based thresholds, have proven badly outmatched by AI-generated fraud operating at machine speed. Research cited by compliance technology analysts suggests that between 90% and 95% of alerts generated by legacy AML systems are false positives, consuming enormous investigator time while genuinely suspicious activity slips through.

This is not a frictionless transition. AI models are notoriously difficult to explain to regulators and examiners in the way traditional rule-based systems are. The practical compromise emerging across the industry is a hybrid model: AI handles the initial scoring and prioritisation of risk, while documented rule-based logic still governs the final decision that must be defensible to a regulator.

The Regulatory Response: Catching Up to the Digital Frontier

Regulators worldwide have begun moving to close the most dangerous gaps exposed by this digital transformation of financial crime. (See Table 02)

What Comes Next

We have now traced this investigation from the centuries-old mechanics of Hawala and Undiyal, through the three-stage architecture that turns criminal proceeds into apparently legitimate wealth, to the AI-generated frontier of digital financial crime reshaping all of it at machine speed.

In our concluding instalment, Part IV: “Sri Lanka at the Crossroads: Economic Consequences, Organised Crime and the Road Ahead”, we bring this series home. We examine precisely what all of this costs Sri Lanka in hard economic terms: lost remittances, exchange rate pressure, tax revenue forgone, and the 2026 FATF evaluation that will determine whether the country’s institutions can demonstrate, with evidence rather than legislation alone, that they are equal to this challenge. We close with a practical policy roadmap.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe.
Views expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Features

‘There are no private universities in Sri Lanka’ – some considerations for higher education reform

Published

on

Academics involved in education policy like to say that there is no such thing as a private university in Sri Lanka. The only ‘universities’ in the country are state universities; anything else offering degrees is a private higher education institution (HEI). This position is technically accurate. Yet, in the discourse and imagination of the public, private universities are very real – people teach in them, students register in them, families pay fees, and such degree holders enter job markets in Sri Lanka and outside.

For decades, activists concerned for public higher education have ignored or resisted looking at private HEIs, as if such scrutiny would taint them. Others have worked in both types of institutions, carrying practices from each to the other. The apex body governing state universities, the UGC, has, meanwhile, ignored the concept of conflict of interest and appointed individuals in private higher education in committees and leadership positions. It is unsurprising then that some of the ideologies informing private higher education appear in reform agendas in the state sector.

This is a good time then to consider the varying types of private HEIs around us, and to take a look at some of the issues within them in the hope that higher education reform agendas will include private, as well as state higher education.

What is a ‘private university’?

First, some clarifications. In the public imaginary, a ‘private university’ is typically an institution that provides a foreign or local degree for which the student makes a payment. But this broad classification encompasses a host of diverse institutions and types of degrees which I detail below.

The Non-State Higher Education Division (NSHE) of the Ministry of Education has recognised 295 degrees by 32 institutions. Most of these are private companies and include a handful of established, well-known private HEIs that are ‘university like’. The degrees are local degrees conferred by the institutions accredited by the NSHE Division. While private HEIs conferring local degrees must be accredited by the NSHE Division, there appears to be no legal consequence for not doing so. In addition, there are several permutations of the private degree that miss the net of this Division and the Standing Committee on Accreditation and Quality Assurance (SCAQA) that assists this Division.

For one, degrees conferred by foreign universities offered, via these same private HEIs, are not vetted by the NSHE Division. Secondly, there is a growing plethora of private HEIs which have either no physical presence locally or only a dubious presence. The University Grants Commission has notified the public, through their website, that foreign universities listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook and the World Higher Education Database are recognised, but refrained from giving any other details – which degrees? Offered by what modes? These details are not known. Some of the foreign universities in the lists may be legitimate entities in their own land but the degrees conferred locally, in their name, may not adhere to curriculum or teaching specifications of the NSHE Division or the UGC.

Another troubling phenomenon is the ‘top up degree’, which appears to work on the same principle as that of a pre-paid mobile connection: if I have a Diploma or an HND of a sort, I am eligible to complete a course of study which provides me with a degree, usually from a foreign university. The idea that someone who does not initially qualify for a degree programme should be able to work their way towards one is a progressive notion. This is the concept that open and distance learning (ODL) was based on initially, but which is now sadly exploited. ODL models are expected to provide opportunity for learning for those who may be excluded from traditional learning institutions. In Sri Lanka, however, we have seen ODL become a marketplace offering easy to obtain, for-fee qualifications by institutions with little commitment to superior teaching and learning.

Finally, a perusal of the many types of private HEIs and their varied degrees bring to mind another question – how should the private degrees, provided by state institutions (that are not educational institutions), be regulated? Who should do so?

All of these create a host of problems for the public – for hopeful students and parents and trusting employers. For the higher education sector, recruitment of academic staff, too, has become difficult due to this plethora of ambiguous higher education qualifications, as I discussed in a previous Kuppi article (‘Recruiting academics to state universities’).

Some issues in private HEIs – a bellwether for change in state universities

In this second part of this article, I will discuss some aspects of work in private HEIs – albeit the more established institutions – given that such issues may appear in reform agendas in future.

Across state universities, all permanent staff of a specific category are paid according to the same criteria. The picture is not so clear when it comes to private HEIs since they are different entities legally, typically companies. Private HEIs have salary scales and financial incentives that are different to each other. The more established private HEIs reportedly have attractive renumeration packages, possibly a reason for academics of state universities migrating eagerly to such institutions during sabbatical years and on retirement. This may not of course be the case with other less established, or improperly registered HEIs of which we know little. Academic staff of these more accepted private HEIs seem to value the high financial remuneration they receive (in comparison to state universities) as something that makes their work rewarding.

Attractive remuneration is important to sustain the good life and is at times seen as the institution’s way of encouraging good work. Yet, this has implications for the future of the institution: to continue to deliver on promised financial packages, institutions must continue to have large profit margins. One strategy has been to enroll multiple cohorts of students per year, even up to three or four intakes per year. This can result in exploitative work conditions, since staff must cater to all these cohorts in that same year. If there is inadequate staff, employees are further burdened. On the other hand, if there is a sudden drop in enrolments (degrees can go out of fashion) unexpected layoffs occur. Similar to other sectors that employ short-term contract staff – including state universities – in private HEIs, too, individual teachers, who are on short term contracts that need regular renewal, can feel pressured to work under difficult or exploitative conditions.

At the same time, even in the more established private HEIs, work norms differ from those of state universities in that they include promotional work that keeps the institution’s name in the eye of the public. The Marketing (or similarly named) unit comes up in conversations as one of the most important departments. It appears to weigh in on decision-making related to the number of staff, the amount of re-sits per exams, and other pedagogically important matters. This is a worrying example of how financial rationales interfere with pedagogically or academically sound processes, resulting in problematic results in the classroom. On the plus side, junior colleagues, who had experience in both state and private HEIs, also felt that they faced less harassment in private HEIs – primarily due to the private HEIs ability to take swift action in reported cases of harassment. This is a real indictment on state institutions and their reluctance to address chronic issues of harassment in our universities.

Yet, while we hear much about problems in state universities, we hardly hear of problems that staff in private HEIs face. One rationale for a lack of public expressions by staff is that expressions of discontent might lead to trouble given the importance of reputation for private HEIs. The worry about reputational damage is a growing concern in state universities, too, as evidenced by social media policies and internal conversations on reputational damage, consequent to negative publicity. Institutional worries of reputational damage are harmful in the long run since these impact not only freedom of expression by student and staff, but also research that is possible in and about the education sector.

Some thoughts at the end…


A close look at the private higher education sector is important given its strong presence in the country. Impending reform needs to regulate this diverse array of higher education offerings in the private sector, as well as the state institutions that offer privately-funded options of higher education (a topic for a separate Kuppi on its own). It is time we carefully considered how to build a whole system of higher education out of this broken mess.

Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer at the University of Colombo.

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading

Features

Ready for solo spotlight

Published

on

Nish Peiris: Excited about future plans

Singer Nish Peiris is set to take the next big step in her music journey.

The talented vocalist, who has been seen and heard in the scene here for a short while, and was also featured with the now-defunct band, Inner Vision, has announced that she will be fully committing to her solo career, after completing her degree this year.

“I’m finishing my degree this year, and after that I’ll be fully committing to my solo music career,” Nish told The Island.

“I’ve already got a few tours lined up for next year, so I’m really excited for what’s ahead.”

Fans, no doubt, will remember Nish for her smooth voice and stage presence, and the good news is that she is now ready to chart her own path and bring new music to audiences at home and abroad.

With tours already planned for 2027, the year 2026 promises to be an exciting year for the young artiste as she steps into the spotlight on her own.

We wish Nish every success in this new chapter!

Continue Reading

Trending