Connect with us

Features

Anura Kumara is ready to lead, Sajith asks the government to leave, Rajapaksa mulls referendum, and Sirisena calls it silly

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

The title is a mouthful. But that is the state of Sri Lankan politics now. Nonetheless, some saw a spark, and others a specter, when in December JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake told his Party convention and the country at large: “We are ready to take up the leadership of the country”. There is a swagger about the JVP now, justifiably after Mr. Dissanayake’s relentless probing in parliament, his exposé of the New Fortress Energy Agreement, and the growing media interest in the JVP and its electoral front, the NPP. But their detractors are questioning if what the JVP/NPP is showing is enough to vault it from three percent of the vote and three seats to even 30% and 75 seats, let alone 50% and 125 seats.

That is a fair question to ask. But it should not be difficult to see, except for those who are stuck with anti-JVP beams in their eyes, that the present JVP is not the same JVP of the 1970s and 1980s. Unlike in 1971, there is no Left in Sri Lanka for the current JVP to go far or ultra-Left. And unlike during its second coming in the 1980s, there is no Right in Sri Lanka for the JVP to go far-right and chauvinistic. Now, there is only the Rajapaksa regime that it is neither Left nor Right, but downright corrupt, incompetent to the core, and civilizational when convenient. The present regime is the singular marker on the political landscape that defines the relative positions of all its detractors and contenders, including the JVP.

As for Sajith Premadasa, he has higher numbers – 42% of the vote in 2019 and 54 seats in parliament; and so, goes the argument, he and his Party have greater entitlement than the JVP to reach 50% and 125 seats. Sajith’s proponents assert his paternal name recognition and take his readiness for granted, even though the younger Premadasa has not declared his readiness the way his father did, or Anura Kumara is doing now. He has, however, while celebrating “his 55th birthday in the North”, on January 12, has “urge(d) the present government to resign,” as Sri Lanka “needs new rulers who can take the nation out of the economic crisis.” Among the “many things to be done to get rid of the current national tragedy”, Mr. Premadasa has added, “the most important thing is to handover the nation to an able leader.” Who would it be?

Election, which election, or Referendum?

 Where does all this leave the incumbent President, Gotabaya Rajapaksa? His term in office so far can only be described as “terrible two” (years). Even though he is not shying away from his record, the President blames everyone else other than himself for the state of his presidency and the plight of the country. He told newspaper editors when he met them before Christmas that he has three more years to helm the ship, or the situation, around. Since then, he has got wiser and wants two more years added to his term to compensate for the alleged loss of two years due to Covid-19. A simple question is how have Bangladesh and Vietnam, and other comparable countries who too have had Covid-19, been able to manage their economies well? In the case of Bangladesh, it is cash-rich enough to offer Sri Lanka currency swaps to tide over its forex shortfalls.

The President is now mulling over, as headlined by The Island on Monday (January 10), a proposition put to him by an anonymous young Sri Lankan at the Dalada Maligawa, “why a referendum couldn’t be conducted to ascertain whether the electorate approved him extending his first term by two years as Covid-19 deprived him of 2020 and 2021.” The President, according to his Media Division, complimented the young citizen that “he should be appointed an advisor to the President”! But even before the President could have the referendum idea clairvoyantly vetted by Gnanakka in Anuradhapura, his predecessor from Polonnaruwa has poured cold water on the referendum idea.

Indeed, the very next day after The Island’s main story, former President Maithripala Sirisena told the Daily Mirror that “it would be unrealistic for anyone to imagine the extension of the term of the present government by approval of people by referendum.” In his view, “the next parliamentary election would come first,” and given the country’s long history of government by alliance, the next government would be a different alliance with his SLFP playing a major role in it. All signs are the SLFP is on the way out of the Rajapaksa alliance, and it is no secret that alliance-brokers are trying hard for a Sajith-Sirisena political front. They have been together before in spirit, now they can be in person.

Now it is also different. Everything is different for that matter, and to some the Easter Sunday retribution clock is ticking on Maithripala Sirisena more than on anybody else. Mr. Sirisena would want a different government that includes him sooner than later. This present government gives him no protection. And he has zero prospect of being President again. A PM position in a new Premadasa presidency will be a good outcome, and he could do better than being a ‘name board’ PM, as the old Premadasa dig goes. But every plan has a snag. The preferred election for the Premadasa camp is not the parliamentary election but the presidential election. The brokers will have their work cut out. But they cannot quite determine which election would come first.

The JVP’s preferred election is also the parliamentary election. Sunil Watagala, the JVP Central Committee Member and Legal Advisor, told the Sunday Island (January 2) that the government has proved to be a failure and it should hold elections after dissolving parliament. That might lead to a new parliament and a different majority, but the President will remain until his term is over. That is the vicious cycle of the JRJ Constitution. For his part and for the SLPP, President Rajapaksa would have no election rather than any election. Hence his curiosity about the referendum option.

If only a referendum can postpone all elections with the people exercising their sovereignty in one fell swoop. But isn’t the President on course to have a different referendum for his new constitution? That, of course, is unless he evades it by amending the present constitution that requires only a two thirds majority and no referendum without going for a totally new constitution as promised. So, which election or referendum will it be? Parliamentary or presidential? A constitutional referendum or a ‘terminal’ one? Or two referenda in one and no election? Back to the 1982 future? President Jayewardene used to wish that Sri Lanka would have its own Kemal Ataturk – the founder of modern Turkey after the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire. The wag would say Sri Lanka has got its own Gotaturk.

Crazier and Crazier

Talking about the President’s new constitution, no one knows if it is still on track or has gone off the rail. The President’s constitutional project is not unlike his fertilizer fiasco in thought (or lack of it) and in action. But, fortunately, there is no physical devastation in the constitutional project. To put this in perspective, the 2019 presidential election was the first election in 25 years, since the 1994 presidential election, when the presidential system or the constitution were not on the ballot. Yet, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the first elected political leader without any prior familiarity with anything about the constitution, set himself up to deliver a new constitution wholesale, not just routine retail amendments. But like everything else about this government, the President’s constitutional project has turned into a spectacle. And this one in a court room.

Two prominent lawyer members of the Experts Committee that the President gazetted up to draft his new constitution, namely, Romesh de Silva and Manohara de Silva, are pitted on the opposite sides in the Yugadanavi fundamental rights case before the Supreme Court. Manohara de Silva is appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the government’s LNG contract with the American company, New Fortress Energy, while Romesh de Silva is representing one of the government respondents, the Ceylon Electricity Board. In a case that is shaking the very stability of the SLPP caucus and the Rajapaksa cabinet, not to mention the hallowed sovereignty of the country.

There is nothing wrong in two lawyers taking opposite sides in a court case. What is wrong is in the President’s appointment of lawyers from the unofficial bar to officially draft the country’s constitution. In times past, when propriety was premium, lawyers from the unofficial bar who worked on constitutional drafting or government business would take leave of absence from their private practice and accept temporary appointments in government. Not in the present regime. And stuck as he is on every front, the President is hardly in a position to present whatever draft that his committee may have prepared, let alone pursue its passage in parliament and a referendum.

While there is a great deal of esoteric chatter about constitutional changes, the people are agitated about their hardships and the very strong likelihood of their getting even harder. There is Covid-19 and the concern that the current calm might turn into another infectious storm, the way it happened in the last cycle. There is imminent food shortage and there are fears of mass starvation. Power cuts are looming and there is no crude oil to refine. There is no foreign exchange for anything and the Pied Piper of the Central Bank is fooling the entire cabinet that he can cash-swap Sri Lanka out of indebtedness without even saying IMF. The mystery of misfiring gas cylinders has become mysterious after the same-day firing and rehiring of the Chairman of Litro Gas. Things are no longer getting curiouser and curiouser. They are only getting crazier and crazier.

Resistance and protests have already surfaced across the country in every cross-section of society. There is no indication that the government is capable of providing any redress to the people on any matter that is hurting. All indications are that the government is clueless about anything and everything that come before it. The expectations are that people’s frustrations will spill over into street protests and agitations. The fears are also that the government might use mass agitations as excuse for a military crackdown. On the other hand, calling on the military might be a step too far and precipitate government collapse. There could be early elections, or there might be attempts to have term extending referenda. This is the backdrop in which Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa are staking their claims to take charge of the country. They have a long way to go, even though the present government is running out of road.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I

Published

on

The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill  was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026.  Harshana  Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make  dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly,  but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.

The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a  court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all  circumstances and if considered appropriate.  The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.

The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred  to mediation.  These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem.  A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However,  matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.

The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain  key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the  confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the  rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention  (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.

The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family  and  business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation,  is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.

 Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –

*    Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;

*    Given that mediating disputes requires  very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;

*    Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;

*    Mediation  Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone.  Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.

*    Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.

*    The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.

*    Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in  skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.

*    Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.

*    A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018  as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector.   In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide”  is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.

*    Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;

*    The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.

The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the  Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).

Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the  International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its  Mediation  Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022.  UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming  ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.

(To be continued)

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.

Continue Reading

Features

A Testament to the Sri Lankan family

Published

on

The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.

In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.

At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family.  I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan.  These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.

Practical Solution

In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.

At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan.  This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed.  Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.

Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.

Rational Empathy

Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.

My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.

The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.

That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.

I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo

Published

on

Enroute

If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.

The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.

What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:

Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments

One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.

With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.

Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.

Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.

Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders

The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.

Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.

And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.

Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.

In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.

The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”

So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.

Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.

Top Hats

Continue Reading

Trending