Connect with us

News

Activists slam Lanka’s bid to seek X-Press Pearl compensation in Singapore

Published

on

The second interim environmental assessment report compiled by the MEPA-convened expert committee priced the environmental damage from the X-Press Pearl disaster at $6.4 billion. Image courtesy of the Ministry of Justice.

(Mongabay) Environmental activists have questioned the decision to file for compensation in Singapore instead of Sri Lanka for a 2021 ship sinking that became the worst maritime disaster in the country’s history, saying there’s less likelihood of winning adequate compensation overseas.

The Sri Lankan government is filing a lawsuit in Singapore for compensation nearly two years since the worst maritime disaster in the country’s history. But activists say it waited too long and would have stood a better chance of adequate compensation had the lawsuit been filed in Sri Lanka.

Speaking before parliament on April 25, Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe confirmed that the Department of the Attorney General had filed legal action before Singapore’s International Commercial Courts (SICC) to claim compensation for the extensive environmental damage caused by the burning and sinking of the Singapore-flagged freight ship the X-Press Pearl in May 2021.

“The decision to lodge the lawsuit in Singapore courts was done in consultation with a group of independent local and international lawyers as Singapore’s legal system is better equipped to handle this type of complex maritime legal battles,” Rajapakshe said.

The sinking of the fire-stricken ship, carrying tons of plastic pellets and toxic chemicals, is considered Sri Lanka’s worst maritime disaster to date. The plastic pellets, known as nurdles, fouled an extensive arc of Sri Lanka’s southwestern shore, with volunteer crews hard at work cleaning up the billions of grain-sized pellets for months on end.

A 40-member expert committee convened by the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) to assess the environmental damage issued its second interim report in January this year, in which it put a price on the disaster: $6.4 billion.

Maritime rules require a claim for compensation to be filed within two years of the occurrence of the accident. The Singapore-flagged X-Press Pearl caught fire in Sri Lankan waters on May 20, 2021, and sank several days later. But the long wait without filing action has caused anxiety among activists, who have criticized the government for not moving fast enough.

Part of the delay was due to the complexity of the environmental assessment. There was very little baseline data for the expert committee to compare against, especially in the maritime context, which required them to assess damage scenarios over the short, mid- and long terms, said Dharshanie Lahandapura, former chair of the MEPA.

The group of experts continues to monitor the impacts of pollution caused by the disaster. The National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) is also monitoring impacts to the marine environment, while the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) is assessing the fallout on marine life, Lahandapura told Mongabay.

Based on the future findings, there could be more claims, given that the nurdles and other chemicals are likely to have long-lasting effects, Lahandapura said.

But waiting until just weeks before the two-year deadline “is unacceptable as the strategy should be to file it first without waiting for the outcome of the expert committee evaluation,” said Ravindranath Dabare, a lawyer and chair of the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), a Colombo-based NGO.

“Within the first week of the X-Press Pearl disaster, CEJ filed the first case in local courts to push the authorities to take necessary actions, and subsequently two more cases to expedite the proceedings as the work was lagging,” Dabare told Mongabay.

The X-Press Pearl accident occurred within a few kilometers of the Colombo coast, well within Sri Lanka’s jurisdiction. That renders “the shipping company … a part of our local case and their representatives do participate in the court hearings, so there was no barrier to filing a case in Sri Lankan courts,” Dabare said.

He added the evidence is available in Sri Lanka, as are the experts who conducted the environmental damage assessment. Hiring Singapore-based lawyers will incur a higher cost, in addition to the cost of overseas travel — something Sri Lanka can ill afford as it reels from the worst economic  crisis in its history, Dabare said.

“The existing Marine Environment Protection Act and the general law have provisions that enable Sri Lanka to file the lawsuit locally,” said Dan Malika Gunasekera, an expert on international maritime law.

He also noted there’s a limit to the amount of compensation that Sri Lanka can claim when lodging the case in Singapore.

“We must get the compensation from the insurer of the X-Press Pearl, who is in the United Kingdom, and on this basis, it may be better to file in the U.K. than Singapore,” Gunasekera told Mongabay.

Even then, the U.K. would also limit compensation to 19.5 million pounds ($24 million). In Sri Lanka, however, there would be no such cap.

Justice Minister Rajapakshe said the government would appoint a British lawyer to negotiate the compensation limitation set in the U.K. for the insurers. He reiterated the position that prospects for a favorable outcome are better in those overseas courts than in Sri Lanka.

Rajapakshe pointed to the case of the oil tanker New Diamond, which caught fire off Sri Lanka’s eastern coast about eight months before the X-Press Pearl incident. Three compensation claims were filed in Sri Lanka’s commercial courts in the New Diamond case, but they came up against various constraints. This, Rajapakshe said, influenced the decision to take the X-Press Pearl case before the Singapore courts.

Ayesh Ranawaka, a maritime expert and former commissioned officer with the Sri Lankan Navy, agreed that the Singapore courts represented a better chance of getting justice in the X-Press Pearl case. This doesn’t mean the local justice system is weak, he told Mongabay, just that there are too many disagreements at the local level about how to proceed.

If the Sri Lankan position is divided, the other party can take advantage of that, Ranawaka said. But when filing in Singapore, the Sri Lankan parties would at least come to a common position. They would also have international laws to fall back on, so the opportunity for justice may be higher, Ranawaka said.

As the government and activists debate what should be the correct course of action to demand compensation, it’s clear that Sri Lanka needs a clear strategy to handle these kinds of marine disasters, Ranawaka said.

“Sri Lanka needs to look beyond the X-Press Pearl incident and treat it as an eye-opener to ensure a proper maritime policy to avoid future mishaps,” he said.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Latest News

Sun directly overhead Neriyakulam, Punewa, Kebithigollewa, Pankulam and Sinhapura at about 12.10 noon today (31)

Published

on

By

The sun is going to be directly over the latitudes of Sri Lanka from  28th of August to 07th of September due to its apparent southward relative motion.

The nearest places of Sri Lanka over which the sun is overhead today (31) are Neriyakulam, Punewa, Kebithigollewa, Pankulam and Sinhapura about 12.10 noon.

Continue Reading

News

BASL takes exception to Justice Ganepola being denied a place in SC

Published

on

… highlights injustice caused to Justice R. Gurusinghe

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has alleged that due to the failure on the part of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fill the existing vacancies in the Supreme Court, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled. The BASL pointed out at the time of Ganepola’s retirement there were four vacancies in the Supreme Court.

In a letter dated 17 August, 2026, addressed to President Dissanayake, the BASL declared that the failure to promote and recognise Ganepola’s distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.

A top BASL spokesman told The Island yesterday (30) that the Bar Council, over the weekend, had decided to release the hitherto confidential letter.

The official said that they also wanted to remind the President of his assurance given to BASL, on 12 August, 2026, that vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal would be filled as soon as possible, within a month.

The following is the text of the BASL letter, signed by  Rajeev Amarasuriya, President, BASL, and its Secretary Nalin De Silva: “We write further to our letters dated 29th December 2025 and 30th June 2026 in relation to the above, to which we have not received any response.

We also refer to our meeting with Your Excellency on 12th August. As discussed during the meeting, there have been vacancies in the Supreme Court since May 2025, and the number of vacancies has now increased to four (04). There are also four (04) vacancies in the Court of Appeal. These are all matters we have already written to Your Excellency about.

Your Excellency informed the BASL Delegation when we met that you would be taking steps to make recommendations to fill these vacancies as soon as possible, within a month.

We write to reiterate the importance of giving due consideration to the criteria set out in our aforesaid letter dated 29th December 2025. We also wish to emphasise that, in making judicial appointments and promotions, seniority should be given due priority, in keeping with longstanding practice, until such time there are objective and defensible guidelines governing the assessment of merit.

The only justifiable departure to this criterion would be where there exists a specific and recognized demerit in respect of the particular Judge concerned or such other known compelling circumstances that are objectively identifiable such as where a Judge has previously been overlooked for promotion unfairly or conversely, where a Judge has been unfairly previously granted promotions above others.

This approach will safeguard both the integrity of the Judiciary and the trust reposed in it by the public.

Further, while there has been considerable discussion and representation by the Government regarding the importance of retaining experienced judges, as reminded to Your Excellency at our said meeting that, only a few months ago on 8th May 2026, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled, and in which there were four vacancies at the time.

The failure to promote and recognise his distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.

We also drew Your Excellency’s attention at the said meeting to the fact that the Senior-most Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice R. Gurusinghe, who joined the Judicial Service in 1996, who also Acted in the Office of President of the Court of Appeal (appointed by Your Excellency) on 11th May 2026, is due to retire at the end of this month. In fact, we learnt through the Media that Her Ladyship then Chief Justice Justice Murdu Fernando, PC, had previously in July 2025 recommended to Your Excellency the promotion of Justice R. Gurusinghe to the Supreme Court, but the same is pending from that time.

 He too is well deserving of promotion to the Supreme Court and has already been recommended by the former Chief Justice, and his case must also receive due and urgent consideration before his impending retirement.

We hope that Your Excellency will take due note of and give due regard to the concerns of the Bar, as well as to the established principles, practices and conventions governing judicial appointments, when taking steps to fill these vacancies.

On this, Your Excellency is already open to the accusation that these vacancies have been kept open, to fill with favourites of the Government which is yet another serious indictment on the independence of the judiciary which accusation would be confirmed if recommendations are made outside established practice.

Moreover, the BASL expresses grave concern that withholding promotions of Judicial Officers for extended periods of time places undue pressure on Judicial Officers in the discharge of their duties and constitutes both directly and indirectly, interference with the independence of the Judiciary, in addition to the strain obviously caused to the dispensation of justice in other Courts and the stifling and delay of career progression of Judges legitimately entitled to promotions.

We do hope that Your Excellency would take due note and cognizance of the foregoing when effecting these judicial promotions which have been long overdue and which have already adversely impacted the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of justice.”

The BASL has copied the letter to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and all members of the Constitutional Council.

Continue Reading

News

Sajith challenges govt. to hold PC polls

Published

on

Sajith

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa on Saturday (29) challenged the government to hold the long-delayed Provincial Council elections, saying the polls would provide an opportunity to gauge the level of public support enjoyed by the administration.

Addressing a farmers’ meeting in Tissamaharama, Hambantota, Premadasa also criticised the latest Rs. 17 per kilogram increase in wheat flour prices, warning that it would push up the prices of bread, bakery products and other flour-based food items and place further pressure on households already struggling with the rising cost of living.

He said Sri Lanka ranked 120th among 130 countries in an international comparison of minimum wages, arguing that wages remained inadequate to meet the escalating cost of living.

Premadasa also questioned official assessments of living standards, asking whether a person could survive for an entire month on Rs. 17,315, a figure he attributed to the Department of Census and Statistics.

He claimed that between 30 and 40 percent of the population was living in poverty and called for a clear programme to help affected families improve their economic conditions.

Turning to the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which seeks to increase the retirement age of superior court judges, the Opposition Leader accused the government of attempting to undermine judicial independence and interfere with democratic institutions.

He also criticised the government’s handling of poverty, employment, agriculture, healthcare and investment, saying more effective measures were needed to provide relief to people facing economic hardships.Premadasa called for stronger policies to attract foreign direct investment and urged the government to formulate a national strategy for developing the tourism industry.

Continue Reading

Trending