Connect with us

Midweek Review

A dilemma like no other!

Published

on

Indian leader Modi greets President Dissanayake

Two contentious issues that may never be resolved are disagreement between India and Sri Lanka over granting police and land powers to Provincial Councils, arm twisted by New Delhi into establishing them here along with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord following the infamous parippu drop over the North in 1987 and organized poaching by Tamil Nadu fishers, a problem that can be addressed only by India deploying its powerful Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, to prevent violation of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka is in a tight spot. Joint statements issued by India and Sri Lanka on Dec, 16, last year, and China and Sri Lanka on January 16, this year, following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visits to New Delhi and Beijing, respectively, underscored the daunting foreign policy challenges faced by the new Sri Lankan leader whose National People’s Power (NPP) secured a landslide victory at the Nov. 2024 parliamentary election, promising a literal sea change.

Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a once rabidly anti-Indian political movement that waged two unsuccessful insurrections, in 1971 and 1987-1990. Under the JVP’s leadership, the NPP was formed in 2019, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.

Against the backdrop of an unprecedented political environment that had been created by the routing of existing major parties and the emergence of the NPP as the dominant political force here, the Asian giants are determined to consolidate their own separate position here. The joint statements emphasized their agenda.

The issues at hand cannot be examined without taking into consideration the strong and growing US-India relationship, in spite of the latter playing safe in the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China conflict, as well as the US and India teaming up against Beijing. It appears, however, neither the US nor India trust each other. Their game plan is to try use the other for one’s own benefit in their current marriage of convenience. Washington, without doubt, considers both China and India are a threat to US hegemony.

Whether hapless Sri Lanka likes it or not, or regardless who wields political power here, the major powers won’t change their strategies. That is the unpleasant reality.

In the wake of President Dissanayake’s four-day visit to Beijing (January 14 to 17), a section of the Opposition engaged in the usual criticism of the NPP government, though they generally remained silent on the outcome of his New Delhi visit. China and India dominate major political parties represented in Parliament and the continuing political-economic-social turmoil facilitated their agenda. Our treacherous political party system is obviously incapable of addressing developing challenges. They have pathetically failed to reach consensus on national response to external interventions thereby allowing major powers to manipulate the country.

Having perused the two joint statements, the writer is of the view that in spite of Sri Lanka being party to both, they are contradictory and seem unrealistic to a certain extent. The bottom line is Sri Lanka cannot play ball simultaneously with China and India suspicious of each other. They are hell-bent on undermining each other and Sri Lanka is caught up in an utterly dangerous game. Sri Lanka is stuck in the China-India conflict and obviously there is no way out. Whatever Sri Lanka does may antagonize either party and Colombo seems helpless. The joint statements highlight Sri Lanka’s predicament. Nothing can be as absurd as Sri Lanka declaring a shared future with both India and China. In fact, the 34-point Indo-Lanka joint statement was headlined ‘Fostering partnerships for a shared future.’

While India based its relationship with Sri Lanka on the basis of Premier Narendra Modi’s ‘Neighborhood First Policy’ (read India first policy) and ‘SAGAR’ vision (Security and growth for all in the Indian Ocean region) meaning our giant neighbour is primus inter pares, China focused on what the joint statement described as deepening traditional friendship and advancing high-quality Belt and Road cooperation widely discussed as a massive China-led infrastructure project.

But unlike China, India being our giant neighbour she is overbearing and it would be wise of us to handle India with extreme care. Therefore allowing her to have a monopoly position in any part of our economy is asking for trouble to say the least.

Launched in 2013 the China project is also known as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) and ‘New Silk Road.’ The US and its allies are strongly opposed to the Chinese project, originally called ‘One Belt One Road’.

India strongly opposes any Chinese initiative here hence the joint statement issued following President Dissanayake’s visit must have disappointed New Delhi greatly. The truth is that the statement from Beijing questions the very basis of the joint statement issued on Dec. 16th last year. Regardless of Western and Indian pressure, Beijing has constantly advanced its own project here and elsewhere.

India’s main grouse is the sea and land-based China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that may give China a strategic advantage over India.

Key points in Jan. 16 statement

President Dissanayake’s delegation to Beijing included two Ministers – Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Vijitha Herath, and Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation Minister and Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake. Both are senior JVPers who stood by Dissanayake during the internal turmoil within that party during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President (2005-2014).

President Dissanayake met President Xi Jinping, Premier of the State Council Li Qiang and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji.

In line with the overall Chinese approach, their focus was on Belt and Road cooperation. Against that background, the joint statement emphasized the pivotal importance of advancing what the Chinese called ‘high quality Belt and Road cooperation.’

They reiterated unwavering commitment to what the joint statement described as expanding China-Sri Lanka strategic cooperative partnership.

Then they also decided to sustain ‘close high-level exchanges in keeping with ‘strong strategic guidance’ given by the Chinese and Sri Lankan leaders.’

Sri Lanka repeated its longstanding commitment for ‘One-China’ policy or principle in line with the United Nations general assembly Resolution 2758 passed on Oct. 25th, 1971. In other words, that Resolution accepted Taiwan as an inalienable part of China. It would be pertinent to mention that India, too, accepted the ‘One-China’ principle but over the years refrained from reiterating its position. According to the joint statement, Sri Lanka fully backed all efforts by China to achieve national reunification.

Sri Lanka also assured that the country wouldn’t be a platform for anti-China activity and also backed Beijing in respect of issues related to Xizang (Tibet) and the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang regions where China is under Western fire over purported human rights violations.

The UN that often echo Western line saw its Human Rights Chief Volker Turk jumped to criticise Chinese actions in the above-mentioned regions and the Chinese alleged that the UNHRC strategy is meant to undermine China.

In the fifth paragraph of the joint statement with Colombo that dealt with the contentious Xizang and Xinjiang issues, China reiterated its ‘commitment to an independent foreign policy of peace’ whereas Sri Lanka repeated its pledge for ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy.’

Having been trapped in Chinese, Indian and Western machinations, declaration of ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy, ‘seemed ridiculous.

The focus on Belt and Road cooperation was underscored with Sri Lanka’s acceptance of President Jinping’s flagship project key to economic and social development. Therefore, the reiteration of the pivotal importance of the Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port, both built by China, didn’t surprise anyone. However, eyebrows were raised that China and Sri Lanka entered into a Belt and Road cooperation plan meant to upgrade/strengthen the Chinese flagship project.

Once Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer how Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval pressed him to cancel major Chinese projects here. Responding to queries raised by the writer in Dec., 2016, Gotabaya Rajapaksa explained the dissimilarity between Doval and his predecessor Shivshankar Menon (January 2010 to May 2014) who had served as Foreign Secretary before receiving the appointment as NSA.

The former Defence Secretary said Menon, in his memoirs, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy had acknowledged the understanding between the Mahinda Rajapaksa government and India during the war and post-conflict period. However, Menon’s successor Ajit Doval had taken an entirely different stand vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa said.

Rajapaksa said Doval called for the cancellation of the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project, the Colombo Port City. In addition to that demand which Rajapaksa said was very unfair, India demanded that Sri Lanka take over the Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT), a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPH) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).

CMPH holds 85% of the partnership whilst the balance 15% is with the SLPA.

Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him that India wanted all Chinese funded infrastructure projects stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota Port. Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him: “Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects.”

Maritime issues, etc.

In addition to Sri Lanka seeking early implementation with China of what the joint statement called an agreed debt restructuring plan and early conclusion of a comprehensive free trade agreement, they dealt with maritime cooperation. They agreed to conduct regular bilateral consultations on maritime matters.

China and Sri Lanka decided to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Ocean Cooperation to pave the way for what the joint communique called Blue Partnership. The Blue Partnership is obviously an integral part of the Belt and Road Cooperation.

The joint statement conveniently refrained from making reference to the contentious issue of Chinese research vessels’ visit to Sri Lanka. Repeated Indian and US protests during the early phase of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency (2022 July-Nov 2024) compelled the beleaguered leader to declare a moratorium on such foreign vessels. That decision was meant to prevent Chinese research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters. The Indian media had routinely categorized all Chinese research vessels as spy ships.

President Dissanayake’s government is yet to announce its stand on Wickremesinghe’s moratorium on such foreign ship visits. In spite of Minister Vijitha Herath’s declaration on Dec., 20, 2024, that a special committee would be established to implement a national policy in respect of foreign vessels seeking to enter Sri Lankan waters nothing has been heard so far of the proposed committee.

Regardless of repeated assurances that Sri Lankan territory won’t be used against India’s security interests, the Modi government is seriously concerned over Chinese moves here. India hardened its stance after the Yahapalana government (2015 January to 2019 November) leased the strategically located Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease to China in 2017. That increased Indian concerns as China consolidated its position here. It would be pertinent to mention that China secured what it wanted in spite of the Yahapalana government initially taking an extremely hostile position towards Beijing. The Yahapalana government went to the extent of suspending the Colombo Port City project in March 2015. But, China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) resumed the project in August 2016 after China and Sri Lanka settled differences over the project that was finalized in Sept. 2014 in the presence of President Jinping in Colombo.

Chinese leader Jinping with President Dissanayake

In addition to the USD 1.4 ban Colombo Port City project, China invested USD 1.2 bn in the Hambantota Port. But, President Disanayake’s Office claimed that it secured a fresh investment of USD 3.7 bn for a state-of-the-art oil refinery in Hambantota. That investment declared as the single largest FDI by the President’s Office is part of the Belt and Road cooperation.

However, the UNP has challenged the President’s claim, emphasizing that the agreement on an oil refinery with China was finalized in Nov. 2023 by President Wickremesinghe’s administration.

According to the UNP, Sri Lanka reached consensus on Chinese investment due to the delay in construction undertaken by a consortium that included Silver Park International (Private) Limited of Singapore (controlled by India’s Accord Group) and Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas. Interestingly, that agreement had been signed in March 2019 during Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency.

China hasn’t allowed domestic politics here to derail their plans. The Chinese strategy is on track. The Hambantota Port agreement and the proposed oil refinery at Mirijjawila are cases in point. Having signed a deal on the construction of a brand new international port at Hambantota during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency, China secured the port for a mere USD 1.2 bn from the Wickremesinghe regime.

Later President Gotabaya Rajapaksa found fault with the Yahapalana administration for leasing the port to China. Declaring that the leasing of the Hambantota Port was a mistake, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his first interview as President with Nitin A. Gokhale, Editor-in-Chief of Bharat Shakti.in and SNI, in late Nov. 2019, said he wanted to renegotiate the deal. The Yahapalana deal covered the port and approximately 15,000 acres around it. China simply dismissed that notion about an agreement concluded with the previous Yahapalana regime. Since then no one dared to take up that issue. China obviously intends to consolidate its position in the South around Hambantota, just as India tightens its grip around Northeast Sri Lanka, which includes the world’s fourth largest natural harbour at Trincomalee earlier coveted by the US.

Post-Aragalaya developments

In the run-up to the presidential election last Sept, India indicated what it desired from the new President. On behalf of India, Pathfinder Foundation presented a comprehensive proposal meant to consolidate Indo-Lanka partnership to all presidential candidates.

During President Disanayake’s visit, India built up on the agreement Premier Modi finalized with President Wickremesinghe in July 2023. Like China, India, too, since the successful conclusion of the war in 2009, advanced its strategy, here, meticulously.

However, China never matched Indian financial assistance during the unprecedented crisis here. India provided assistance posthaste. According to Premier Modi, India extended grants and Lines of Credit worth USD 5 bn to Sri Lanka during the presidencies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In fact, NPP leader Disanayake in the run-up to the presidential election thanked India for unprecedented assistance provided in the hour of Sri Lanka’s need.

New Delhi also paid USD 20.66 mn to settle payments due from Sri Lanka for Indian projects here completed under operational Lines of Credit.

A major difference between India-Sri Lanka joint statement and China-Sri Lanka communique is the former’s focus on defence relations. During a joint media briefing with President Dissanayake in New Delhi Premier Modi declared that he and President Dissanayake decided to quickly finalize the Security Cooperation Agreement. However, the Indo-Lanka joint statement differed from Premier Modi’s declaration in respect of the proposed Security Cooperation Agreement.

According to the joint communique, India and Sri Lanka agreed to explore the possibility of concluding a framework agreement on defence cooperation. Under a section headlined ‘Strategic & Defence Cooperation’, the communique dealt comprehensively with Sri Lanka’s needs. India addressed the issues at hand while assuring backing for defence needs. But, entering into a Security Cooperation Agreement /Defence Cooperation Agreement as mentioned in the joint communique, cannot under any circumstances be taken by the government without having consensus with all political parties represented in Parliament.

India’s offer should be examined keeping in mind Sri Lanka never sought a defence agreement with any particular country, even during the difficult war to defeat LTTE terrorism that lasted for about 30 years, but somehow procured arms, ammunition and equipment as well as training from a wide range of suppliers, including China, Israel, Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine as well as Russia. The matter is definitely bone of contention for obvious reasons.

Although India caused terrorism here in the ’80s and should be held responsible for massive death and destruction caused, the war couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without New Delhi’s silent, but invaluable backing to defeat the LTTE during the final Eelam War (2006 Aug. to 2009 May). That is the hard truth. Many people may find that hard to accept. With the LTTE getting too big for its shoes, with subtle backing from the West, especially by turning a blind eye to its terror infrastructure like drug running and arms smuggling from their countries, India, too, was left with no other option, especially after it daringly assassinated its beloved former Premier Rajiv Gandhi on its own soil.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Govt. failure to fill top two courts’ vacancies leaves Judiciary in a conundrum

Published

on

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

The ruling NPP is in a deepening dilemma over a hotly disputed move to extend the retirement age of superior courts judges. The party is also under heavy fire for delaying fresh appointments to the superior courts consisting of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. 

A section of the Opposition wants Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne to take up the inordinate delay in filling vacancies in the superior courts. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo High Court lawyers, Lawyers Collective, as well as the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Union have criticised the government’s move.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauff Hakeem, MP, recently expressed concern over the alleged way Balachandran Prabhakaran, 12-year-old son of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed, in cold blood, on 19 May, 2009.

A section of the Tamil media highlighted Kandy District lawmaker Hakeem’s comments regarding the alleged way Balachandran, the youngest of the three children of Tiger Supremo, met his end. Prabhakaran himself was also killed on the same day.

What prompted MP Hakeem to raise a contentious but now largely forgotten issue! Both the Sinhala and English print and electronic media failed to report the SLMC leader’s comments. Some questioned the purpose in lawmaker Hakeem raising Balachandran’s death. Some even suggested a Tamil Diaspora hand in Hakeem’s unexpected interest in Balachandran’s death.

The Island obtained the video, released by the Parliament, of the SLMC leader’s 10-minute speech, delivered on 10 June. Reference to Balachandran’s killing had been made towards the tail end of his fiery speech that primarily dealt with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s continuing failure to fill existing vacancies in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The deliberate and utterly contemptible holding up of judicial promotions, for whatever reasons, cannot be discussed without examining a disputed bid to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to increase the retirement age of the Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the leader of two registered political parties, namely the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the National People’s Power (NPP), seems to be on a collision course with the Opposition. With a commanding 159 MPs in Parliament, meaning a 2/3 majority, Dissanayake can easily introduce the required amendment, regardless of protests. But, the electorate won’t like that dictatorial attitude. Those who exercised their franchise for Dissanayake and the NPP at the September 2024 and November 2024 national polls, respectively, wouldn’t expect them to adopt, what can be safely described as, a dogmatic approach.

Attorney-at-law and one-time Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem castigated the President and the ruling party, ahead of the joint Opposition action, to pressure the President to fill the vacancies. Their appeal to Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne in this regard can be also interpreted as a collective opposition to the proposed amendment to increase the retirement age of judges.

The SLMC group in Parliament consists of five MPs. Of them, three had been elected under the SLMC symbol (two elected and one on the National List) and two through the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), one of them on the latter’s National List.

Lawmaker Hakeem, who had served the Parliament for over 30 years, at the onset of his speech, questioned the sudden decision to bring in regulation to compel exporters to convert their export proceeds into USD. The SLMCer declared that such panic action was taken by the government in view of the rapid deterioration of the Rupee against the USD.

Commenting on the extension of the Emergency continuously, MP Hakeem alleged that it was done for the NPP’s own parochial purposes and the Opposition expected the government to discontinue the practice.

Then he dealt with the alleged move to extend the retirement age of top judges. Referring to Chief Government Whip Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa’s shameless declaration that the issue hadn’t been even discussed among the government. The ex-justice Minister, however, disputed Jayatissa’s claim made at the post-Cabinet media briefing, while highlighting the statements issued by the Bar Association, Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association. In addition, the Lawyers’ Collective and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association strongly opposed the alleged move. In spite of the Cabinet spokesman’s denial, Justice Minister and Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, in his comments on the issue, indicated that the matter was under discussion. In fact, Nanayakkara mentioned a comparatively higher retirement age of top judges in other countries to support the NPP’s controversial and unnecessary move.

Obviously, the NPP is not talking in one voice.

Rauff takes a strong stand

Emphasising that he addressed the issue at hand as a member of the BASL, Hakeem pointed out that there were four vacancies, each in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, for the past six months. The SLMC leader said: “The President has failed in his constitutional duty to nominate judges for promotion. From the High Court to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. By denying the rights of the judges, undue pressure is being brought on them. What will happen? This very President, when he was in the Opposition, when the previous Presidents failed to gazette the names decided on by the Constitutional Council, he made a big protest. Several times he spoke about this very vociferously in the House. But, since becoming the President, he has not nominated any names. Very clearly, the 21 Amendment provision was made to prevent Presidents from delaying the decisions taken by the Constitutional Council. He is doing the reverse by not nominating anyone to the top two courts. This is much worse. As a consequence, even our fundamental rights are impacted. Because we as litigants or lawyers or public, our right for the expeditious disposal of cases is being impacted by the delay in appointing judges to the Superior Courts.

Moreover, you are frustrating the judges who served years in the judiciary. What happens to the minor judiciary and others? There are heavy concerns among the judiciary about extending the retirement age. That’ll block their path. That’ll deprive many suitably qualified individuals the right to get onto the bench or the superior bench. High court judges will now await their chances of being promoted. Undue pressure will be brought upon them.”

Hakeem alleged that the Constitution was being deliberately violated by the President. Having directed serious allegations at the President, Hakeem emphasised the responsibility on the part of the Speaker to take up this matter with the President on their behalf. Hakeem questioned as to why the President unduly delayed the promotions. The President’s deliberate failure has caused unnecessary frustration among the judicial ranks in the country and deprived those who served the judiciary of their due rights.”

Hakeem explained how even senior officers of the Attorney General’s Department had been affected by the President’s inaction. Those officials have been deprived of the opportunity to move onto one of the superior courts, Hakeem alleged, accusing the President of, what he called, deliberate inaction and a constitutional violation.

Then Hakeem made a very serious allegation. The ex-Justice Minister alleged that the NPP was delaying the process until a favoured person is eligible to get onto the bench, “You are picking and choosing people by that thereby undermining the judiciary.”

MP Hakeem also dealt with the vexed issue of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) that had been opposed by many political parties, civil society as well as organisations such as Amnesty International. The Sttorney-at-Law took up the issue in the wake of the controversial arrest of Maj. Gen. (retd.) Suresh Sallay, Director of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI/2012-2016) and Director, State Intelligence Service/2019-2024) in terms of the PTA.

MP Hakeem chided the NPP for proposing to bring in a new anti-terrorism law, under a different title, to replace the existing PTA. Declaring that the new Act would be definitely far worse than the current law, the lawyer faulted the police and the Attorney General’s Department for abusing the PTA. The former Minister said so while alleging the continuous deterioration of the standards of the police and the Attorney General’s department, due to their dependence on the draconian PTA.

Killing of Balachandran

Referring to Tamil media reports regarding the new UK Channel 4 video that dealt with the killing of Prabhakaran’s 12-year-old son, lawmaker Hakeem discussed how the military dealt with the families of the LTTE leader and that of the JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera, killed on the night of 13 November, 1989.

Pointing out that Wijeweera who had been apprehended, along with his family, by the military, was killed, Hakeem stressed that the family members weren’t harmed. They lived under the protection of successive governments but in Prabhakaran’s case the situation was entirely differently.

Hakeem scorned the JVP/NPP government for conveniently forgetting its leaders, though an annual ceremony was held in Colombo in memory of those who perished during the insurgency. Hakeem said that even the daughter of Zahran Hashim, who led the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, was spared. But, if Prabharatan’s daughter, Duwaraka, had been killed, as alleged, that should be investigated, Hakeem said. Hakeem ended his speech addressing the Parliament in Tamil.

Prabhakaran’s wife Mathivathani, too, had been killed during the final phase of the ground offensive. Prabhakaran’s eldest son, Charles Anthony, was killed in the Karayamullavaikkal area of the Mullaitivu district, the day before Prabhakaran, wife Mathivathani, daughter Duwaraka and younger son Balachandran were killed.

Acknowledging the SLMC leader’s right to rake up the controversy over the alleged manner the deaths of the LTTE leader and his family, while in government custody, took place. It would be pertinent to mention that Hakeem, in his capacity as the Justice Minister, from November, 2010, to December, 2014, could have pushed the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to inquire into the incident.

In fact, the writer once sought a meeting with the then Minister Hakeem to discuss accountability issues and the failure on the part of the government to address them. Although the Minister gave a patience hearing and acknowledged the urgent need to take remedial measures, the war-winning Rajapaksa government, instead of taking tangible measures, played politics. By late 2014, the SLMC switched its allegiance to the UNP-led coalition, formed with the US blessings to back the candidature of another political turncoat, Maithripala Sirisena, at the 2015 presidential election.

Hakeem received the Urban Development, Water Supply and Drainage portfolio in the succeeding Yahapalana government. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), that had been an integral part of that alliance, served the Yahapalana interests well, though it refrained from accepting any Cabinet portfolio. The JVP, too, refrained from joining the Cabinet but their role in the Yahapalana operation is in the public domain.

The Yahapalana government betrayed the armed forces at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in October, 2015, but the extent of their treachery was highlighted two years later when that administration unceremoniously dismissed Lord Naseby’s revelations pertaining to the final phase of the war.

What made the SLMC leader Hakeem to compare three incidents – the killing of Wijeweera, and government protection for his family, in November, 1989; killing of Prabhakaran and his family on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, in May, 2009; and the rescue of Zahran Hashim’s daughter, following the Sainthamaruthu blasts in April, 2019. Whatever the SLMC leader’s motive in highlighting the LTTE’s case now, the need for collective response on the part of the Parliament to address the concerns of the loved ones of those who engaged in terrorism cannot be overemphasised.

The circumstances of Prabhakaran, his wife and their daughter and youngest son remained mired in controversy. Like over 11,000 LTTE cadres, both men and women, including suicide cadres who surrendered to the advancing troops on multiple fronts, Prabhakaran and his family could have given themselves up to the Army on the Vanni front. They ignored that opportunity believing in a US operation to evacuate them.

Critically important combined stand

As mentioned by the SLMC leader during his 10 June speech in Parliament, a group of Opposition MPs handed over a letter expressing their concerns over the inordinate delay in filling the vacancies in the superior courts. Pointing out that the President, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Constitutional Council, had failed to fill those vacancies, the Opposition MPs stressed the responsibility on the part of the President to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. They also reminded the Speaker that it would be his responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary, which is an important part of the sovereignty of the people.

Kandy District MP Anuradha Jayaratne, represented the new Democratic Front (NDF) in the SJB-led effort, while NDF MP Ravi Karunanayake, too, joined, though he is in logger heads with the UNP over taking the National List slot won by the NDF at the last parliamentary election. Former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe threw his weight behind the NDF, at the November, 2024, General Electio, but could not achieve the anticipated results. The NDF managed to secure just five seats, two of them National List slots.

All Ceylon Tamil Congress leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, representing the Jaffna electoral district, signed the petition, along with the Sarvajana Balaya leader Dilith Jayaweera. Unfortunately, the SLPP hadn’t been part of that grouping. Responding to The Island queries, SLPP sources assured that though they didn’t sign the petition handed over to Speaker Wickremaratne, they wholeheartedly supported the initiative.

Whatever efforts by political parties/governments in power to interfere with the judiciary should be opposed at every level. The Rajapaksas went to the extent of impeaching Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and removing her under the most despicable circumstances. Belligerent Rajapaksas reacted, as expected, following the Supreme Court rulings, including one against the then SLFP/UPFA strongman Basil Rajapaksa.

The ruling UPFA directed a series of unsubstantiated allegations against her, including financial impropriety and interfering in legal cases. SJB MP Dayasiri Jayasekera recently made reference to the impeachment of Dr. Bandaranayake when he censured the NPP move to extend the retirement age of judges of the superior courts. MP Jayasekera questioned whether the NPP wanted to retain Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena beyond the stipulated retirement age.

Although there had been a spate of interventions, the 2013 impeachment of CJ 43 was undoubtedly the worst case ever and the appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris as her successor made matters worse.

The UPFA hit back hard at Dr. Bandaranayake following unprecedented controversy over The Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill and Divi Neguma, gazetted in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The UPFA abandoned the first Bill and then amended the second to avoid a referendum and the required 2/3 approval. By then, the cocky UPFA had decided to impeach Dr. Bandaranayake who stood up to outright political intimidation.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, during his tenure as the President (July, 2022, to September, 2024) reacted angrily to the Supreme Court ruling that he, in his capacity as the Finance Minister and the Election Commission, violated voters’ rights by arbitrarily delaying the Local Government polls in 2023. Wickremesinghe had been also angered by his failure to secure Supreme Court endorsement for his bid to appoint Dehabandu Tennakoon as the IGP in the run-up to the 2024 Presidential Election.

There had been so many other instances when the political party/coalition, in power, felt that the judiciary undermined its agenda. There cannot be better examples of the daunting challenge faced by the UPFA due to the Supreme Court stand during Dr. Bandaranayake’s tenure as the Chief Justice.

But post-Aragalaya period, no one expected President Dissanayake to pursue an agenda that compelled the BASL to issue hard hitting statements. Since May Day 2026, there had been two such statements from the BASL that should have triggered alarm bells. The NPP is obviously on the wrong path, believing that it can proceed with a 2/3 super majority unhindered in Parliament.

The first BASL statement dealt with President Dissanayake’s controversial May Day prediction of a court ruling in a high profile case. The second one responded to a move to extend superior court judges’ retirement age.

The government should rethink its strategy. With the national economy experiencing severe difficulties and the government under pressure to abolish fuel and electricity subsidies at the behest of the IMF, the NPP should concentrate on saving the economy instead of creating fresh issues that it cannot just brush aside just because of its steamroller majority in Parliament.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

The Legacy Lost

Published

on

Gladdening was the sight at morn,

For the folk of the invisible village,

Of mirthful children trekking to school,

And refuge did they take in the thought,

That at least their young would be spared,

The crushing ordeals of tenant farming,

Since they would come by some erudition,

But our elders are now up against the truth,

That all is not well at the humble school,

Since even the morsel of education,

Painstakingly dished out there,

Comes with scary price tags attached;

Making dropping out the best thing to do.

 

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

July 09: An inexcusable overall security failure and exceptional contingency plan

Published

on

A massive throng of people inside the President's House after mobs forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee on 09 July, 2022

Ulugetenne

The Sri Lanka Navy, on 04 June, commissioned SLNS Samudravijaya, formerly United States Coast Guard Cutter Decisive. It is the fourth mothballed US Coast Guard cutter transferred to the SLN through the US Excess Defence Articles Programme. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake attended the ceremony at the Colombo Port. The US Embassy in Colombo, in a statement issued on the same day, quoted Defence Attaché Lieutenant Colonel Matthew House as having said: “Few partners have demonstrated the commitment to maintaining and operating these vessels as successfully as the Sri Lanka Navy. The outstanding condition and operational performance of SLNS Samudura, SLNS Gajabahu, and SLNS Vijayabahu are a testament to the professionalism and technical expertise of Sri Lankan sailors. Their stewardship of these vessels helped build the confidence that made this fourth transfer possible.” The first of the four vessels SLNS Samudura was commissioned on 19 February, 2005, during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. Milinda Moragoda, Economic Reforms and Science and Technology Minister of the previous UNP-led UNF government, played a significant role in acquiring that vessel. SLNS Samudura boosted SLN and participated in numerous operations, including the high profile hunt for LTTE floating warehouses, during the Eelam War IV. But, the US refrained from transferring any more big ships during the war though on the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Wsantha Karannagoda’s request to provide intelligence and Washington obliging, made the successful hunt for LTTE floating arsenals in the last stages of the war possible. The transfer of the second vessel took place 19 years after the end of the war. Ex USCG Sherman was commissioned 06 June, 2019, as SLNS Gajabahu (P626). The third vessel was transferred to the Sri Lanka Navy on October 26, 2021, as the country was heading towards an unprecedented economic crisis. That vessel was commissioned as SLNS Vijayabahu at the Colombo Port with the participation of President Ranil Wickramasinghe and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung on November 20, 2022. Ironically SLNS Gajabahu, one of the ex-US vessels prominently figured in the contingency plan to save President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but whose downfall was engineered by the US.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The moment President Gotabaya Rajapaksa decided to take up residence at the President’s House (Janadhipathi Mandiraya), Fort, in the first week of April, 2022, the Navy had no option but to prepare a thorough contingency plan, in case the regime change project posed a realistic threat to the life of the President.

The President, in consultation with senior military officers, made his move within 48 hours after violence erupted outside his private residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, on the night of 31 March, 2022. That decision seemed realistic and sensible at that time.

But, in the wake of the disastrous overall armed forces response to the coordinated violence unleashed by the regime change project on 09 May, 2022, in the aftermath of the Temple Trees ordered attack on Galle Face protesters, the top brass must have recognised the urgent need for total overhauling of security strategy. But, unfortunately, that hadn’t been the case. With violent crowds overwhelming the armed forces, deployed to block them, rapidly approaching the President’s House, those who had been at the makeshift Operations Room there were stunned.

In hindsight, the President’s decision to remain at the President’s House, regardless of the near failure on the part of the armed forces to repulse the raid on Temple Trees, on 09 May, seemed unwise. The rescue operation could have gone wrong and the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa could have ended up in the hands of an angry mob.

Perhaps, the conspirators envisaged the President’s move, from Pangiriwatte to the President’s House, situated walking distance away from the Galle Face protest site, where they could draw additional strength.

The failure on the part of the government to take tangible measures, in the wake of the President’s House becoming the sole target on that fateful day, is a contentious issue that needs to be properly investigated. Don’t forget that the court case filed over the 09 May attacks on the residences and properties belonging to SLPP politicians, and some supporters ,was later withdrawn. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government never investigated the 09 May incidents.

Exactly two months after the mobs almost succeeded in breaking through defences at Temple Trees, on the night of 09 May/10, where Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was residing, they mounted the assault on the President’s House.

In the wake of the 09 May mayhem, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage as the Commander of the Army. He succeeded General Shavendra Silva who served as the CDS but was out of the country when all-out mayhem was unleashed by the Aragalaya mobs on 09 July, 2022, to oust the sitting government.

In spite of a direct and growing threat to the President’s House, on 09 July, 2022, the President felt confident in meeting the challenge. The President issued a directive to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, General (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne, to shift the Operations Room from the Defence Force Headquarters, at Akuregoda, to the President’s House. Having shifted the Operations Room on 08 July, 2022, to the President’s House, as directed by the President, the top brass prepared to face the challenge.

Maj. General K.B. Egodawela, who served as an Additional Secretary (Administration) to the President, from the day the President moved to the President’s House, till he vacated on 09 July, 2022, in his memoirs ‘Aragalaya: Adarayen Prachandathwayata’ (From Love to Violence) revealed that though the top brass opposed the shifting of the Operations Room they carried out the directive. While the President felt that the top brass could collectively work at the President’s House to bring the situation under control, Gen Gunaratne proposed that the President should move to Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters, according to Egodawela. In fact, Gunaratne, who had been with Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the very beginning of the sinister campaign, strongly opposed the President’s decision to remain there.

Obviously, the President’s House pathetically failed to ascertain the scale of the protest and the rapidity with which protesters overwhelmed troops deployed outside the President’s House stunned the top brass. Had they swiftly reached consensus on Gen. Gunaratne’s suggestion, perhaps the 09 July regime change operation could have been thwarted. The armed forces could have resorted to tougher measures to prevent a march on Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters had the President agreed to move there.

Within two hours after the protest, targeting the President’s House began, video footage provided by drones indicated that troops couldn’t hold the rampaging mobs any longer. According to Egodawela, the top brass had been prepared to remove the President, even without his consent, by landing a helicopter in the Colombo harbor or by ship. Finally, they resorted to the second option. As the President and First Lady Ayoma got into a vehicle and took the rear exit into the adjoining former Navy Headquarters, mobs entered the President’s House. Another vehicle carrying several other persons followed.

The then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne who had been with the President at the President’s House got into the vehicle carrying the President. Had they stayed at the President’s House for 10 more minutes, the consequences could have been devastating. https://island.lk/gotabayas-escape-from-aragalaya-mob-in-rti-spotlight/

Egodawela, who had been with the President from the very beginning of the presidential term, alleged that the raiders planned to kill the President and several others and display their bodies. The author quoted an unidentified intelligence officer as having told him that the raiders wanted to display the bodies the way LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s body was shown.

Perhaps shifting the Operations Room from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters to the President’s House had been a risky move that, in a way, facilitated the regime change operation. The rationale in bringing those who had been tasked with countering the impending threat to one place (President’s House) to be with the target (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) seems unbelievably a dicey move. The President had been influenced by what he described as inordinate and unforgivable delay on the part of the Akuregoda Operations Room to carry out timely evacuation of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on the night of 09 May from Temple Trees. Most probably, the President wanted to oversee the 09 July counter operation personally. But, in hindsight, the decision to shift the Operations Room from Akuregoda to the President’s House obviously hadn’t been a clever move.

SLN preparations

When mobs threatened to overwhelm the President’s security at Pangiriwattta, on 31 March, additional police and STF contingents were brought in. They were followed by the Navy and Air Force. The Army arrived at the scene, subsequently.

As pointed out by the President himself, the situation at Temple Trees, on 09 May, had been far worse and the combined police and armed forces response revealed that they hadn’t taken precautionary/counter measures, even after the Pangiriwatta fiasco.

At the time of the incidents, the overall Temple Trees security deployment included about 60 elite Special Boat Squadron (SBS) personnel deployed within the premises and were supplemented by seven SLN platoons. The Army also moved in to strengthen Temple Trees defences but the mobs pressed on till troops fired blank ammunition.

The top brass, directing counter measures from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters, had to act swiftly and decisively to evacuate those at the Temple Trees or face the consequences. As there hadn’t been any other alternative place of living proposed, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, wife Shiranthi and their eldest son Namal were escorted to nearby former Air Force Headquarters and from there flown to the Trincomalee Navy base. VA Ulugetenne, over the phone, issued instructions to the relevant officer in Trincomalee to make arrangements as two helicopters carrying the group took off from the helipad on the top of the former Air Force Headquarters. The helicopters departed around 04 in the morning.

They had stayed at Trincomalee Navy House for about a week and, as requested by the Navy, paid for their stay because by then Mahinda Rajapaksa had resigned. Perhaps, they could have taken refuge at the Panagoda Army cantonment or at Saliyapura, home to the Gajaba Regiment, but, at the end, sought the protection at the Trincomalee Navy base.

Ironically, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, had to take refuge at the Trincomalee Navy base, exactly two months later. Ever since the President moved into the President’s House, Fort, the Navy had been on their toes to meet any eventuality. The daunting task of arranging evacuation by sea fell on the shoulders of VA Ulugetenne, who, meticulously, planned the operation with his staff.

Having informed the President of the contingency plans, VA Ulugetenne stationed two Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPVs), namely SLNS Sindurala and SLNS Gajabahu and four Fast Attack Craft (FACs), at the Colombo Port. It would be pertinent to mention that SLNS Sindurala, built at the Goa shipyard, in terms of an agreement signed at the tail end of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, was adjudged the best vessel in the SLN fleet in 2022.

Additional SBS personnel and snipers, too, had been brought in to Colombo though none of them knew exactly what their task would be. The OPV and FAC crews most probably felt that they were awaiting orders for a major anti-drug operation in the high seas.

As the decision was made to evacuate the President and the First Lady, the Chief alerted the vessels and quickly deployed tugboats to pull SLNS Sindurala and, shortly thereafter, SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, carrying the President and the First Lady. By the time the two AOPVs moved in different directions, on the instructions of VA Ulugetenne, the hand phones of SLNS Gajabahu crew were collected to prevent them from revealing what was happening. Along with the AOPVs, two pairs of FACs had moved out to sea. (https://island.lk/ranil-reveals-bid-to-get-rid-of-him-while-gr-was-fleeing-to-trinco-on-board-slns-gajabahu/)

Nearly 12-hour journey to Trinco

The SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, had a crew consisting of over 100 officers and men. Someone, most probably a port employee, posted a short clip of some unidentified persons taking large travelling bags into the ship but the President, First Lady and VA Ulugetenne going in were never captured on a camera.

As the vessel began its journey towards Trincomalee, it remained approximately 12 nautical miles from land and the President received many calls, some of which weren’t answered. VA Ulugetenne, too, received quite a number of calls. Those familiar with the developments at that time said that some felt that SLNS Gajabahu should move out of Sri Lankan waters. There had been suggestions that the destination should be the Maldives, India or Singapore. Regardless of such suggestions, SLNS Gajabahu proceeded towards Trincomalee where the Navy made necessary arrangements to host them.

Captain Marlon Perera, who still serves the Navy, had been the Commanding Officer of the vessel. Perera now holds the Commodore rank.

During the journey precautions were taken to ensure the safety and security of the President and the First Lady. Although the crew hadn’t been aware that they would be entrusted with such a sensitive task at a time the country was in crossroads against the backdrop of an economic collapse and sovereign default, there were fears of the crew being affected by propaganda in support of regime change operation.

The attempt made by sailor Wijemuni Vijitha Rohana de Silva to cause harm to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, way back in July, 1987, underscored the necessity to take precautions during the Colombo-Trincomalee journey as the possibility of anti-Gotabaya campaign having an impact on at least some members of the ship crew couldn’t be ruled out.

On July 30, 1987, during a guard of honor in Colombo, the 21-year-old naval rating struck Gandhi on the shoulder and back with the butt of his rifle. Gandhi narrowly avoided the full impact of the blow by evasive ducking.

On the invitation of VA Ulugetenne, Gotabaya Rajapaksa attended all the formalities in respect of a visit undertaken by the President to the Trincomalee Navy base. The President participated in those formalities knowing that he couldn’t attend the commissioning parade that was scheduled to be held on 15 July, 2022. The Navy was not in a position to put off the commissioning parade hence the decision to invite Defence Secretary Gunaratne as the Chief Guest.

Ulugetenne retired from active naval service on 18 December, 2022, following a distinguished career, spanning over 37 years. He received the appointment as the 24th Commander of the Navy in July, 2020, just a couple of months after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the President.

Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor, appointed Ulugetenne as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Cuba. The appointment was made in late 2023 and the retired Navy Chief presented his credentials to Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on 13 February, 2024 (https://island.lk/from-fonseka-convictions-to-arrest-of-ulugetenne/)

However, within weeks after the last presidential election held in late November, 2024, the NPP government recalled over a dozen top envoys appointed by the previous administration. Admiral Ulugetenne was among them. The government deprived a decorated officer, who had served the country for nearly four decades, from completing his term in Havana. Within months after his return, he became the target of a murder investigation.

Then out of the blue the retired Navy Chief became the focus of a murder investigation, that, too, post-war. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested him on 28 July, 2025, over the disappearance of a person reported in July, 2020.

Kurunegala High Court Judge Tikiri Jayatilleke, on 14 October, 2025, granted him bail. Jayatilleke declared that the CID acted in an illegal manner in respect of the former Navy Commander. His counsel Kalinga Indatissa, PC, alleged in court that his client had been apprehended only on the basis of an ex-LTTE cadre’s allegation in the absence of any evidence

The next hearing is scheduled for 08 July, 2026. Ulugetenne was held at the Kegalle Prison for four days and then transferred to the Dumbara (Pallekale) Prison. Altogether, he was in prison for 80 days, like a common criminal, despite him being a former Navy Commander with an unblemished career record.

Wartime Chief of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral (retd) Sarath Mohotti, who had been also arrested in connection with the same investigation, was also granted bail, a few weeks later.

Continue Reading

Trending