US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was stark: ‘Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC.’ It followed US central administration accusations that the court was unfairly targeting Americans on the basis of trumped-up war crimes charges.

However, a new plethora of sanctions has been clamped on the ICC by the US, which in turn has spurred accusations by sections of the world that the latter has unleashed an ‘assault’ on the international legal order.

What some of the sanctions would mean for the ICC was outlined by Rubio: ‘We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling their ability to operate against us.’

The ICC has shown consistency of purpose over the years. Despite some operational constraints it has indicted a large number of political strongmen from around the world, accused of war crimes and other governance excesses that come under its purview. Two such recent figures are: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Rather than enjoy a mere nominal presence in the world community, the ICC has proved its effectiveness by detaining and bringing to justice scores of VIP politicians and others of their ilk who have been found guilty of human rights abuses and kindred excesses that come within the terms of reference of the ICC.

Accordingly, the international justice system would be stymied considerably as a result of the ICC being dis-empowered, particularly financially. Needless to say, potential and real perpetrators of the species of crime coming under the jurisdiction of the ICC would stand to gain most from such anarchic tendencies. That is, political repression globally would be enabled to enjoy a new lease of life.

A detailing of the types of crime coming under the purview of the ICC provides an idea of what it would cost the international community if the ICC’s operations are gravely hampered. They are mainly: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

That is, the part of the world to be worst affected would be the global South, since the latter is awash with the mentioned crimes. Needless to say, a chronically-disaffected South will sooner rather than later undermine the well being of the world dangerously. The world is already being put through these paces.

At the time of writing, ‘illegal migrants’ from the South, for example, are aggravating many a Western economy’s woes, besides creating for them acute law and order issues. The fact that these migrants’ presence goes on to become a virtual test of the migrant receiving states’ ability to forge domestic social inclusion in the face of jingoistic protests by mainly white supremacist groups is evidence of the latter. As is known, the US, to take just one example, has been up against this crisis for quite a while.

Accordingly, it will be in the best interests of the West if ‘illegal’ migrant arrivals on their shores are stemmed. If the socio-political and economic problems assailing the South are effectively managed through North-South collaborative, ‘trouble-shooting’ efforts the causes leading to ‘illegal’ migration and connected issues could be resolved at source as it were. For, it is the aggravation of the South’s material questions that lays the basis for the emergence of repressive and anti-democratic regimes in the hemisphere.

Until such time that the aforementioned issues in North-South relations are visited afresh and addressed urgently, a vibrantly functioning ICC would be needed. For, the latter would prove a deterrent to Southern political and military strongmen, highly prone to power abuse and like excesses, from coming into being in the wake of the South’s chronic material woes and the wars and conflicts that result from them.

It stands to reason then that the US would be acting in its own interests by enabling the ICC to perpetuate its mandate without hindrance. For a crop of issues that impinges negatively on internal law and order would be defused.

Meanwhile, there needs to be a meeting of minds among the rest of the West to put back in place a North-South dialogue process aimed at reducing some of the economic pressures that are weighing on the South.

Since economics usually drives politics it will be in the interests of the world community to scrutinizingly re-visit North-South issues of the past and put in place economic relief packages for Southern publics that would enable them to tide over their material hardships rather than permit the latter to aggravate into social disaffection and eventually armed militancy. It is the latter juncture that paves the way for the emergence of authoritarian rulers in the South who then go on to be a blight on their publics.

Accordingly, the Southern-based global development thinking of the past that envisaged a more equitable world economic order needs to be seen as an urgent need. That is, NAM’s international development paradigms need to be resuscitated to the extent possible.

It is unlikely that rightist governments of the West, such as the current Republican administration in the US, would find these projects feasible, but democratic states of Europe, led by perhaps the UK, are likely to think otherwise. For it would not be beneficial for the democratic world to be having on their hands repressive governments in the South who would be gravitating towards the major military and economic actors of the South, such as Iran and North Korea, who tend to be in constant power struggles with the West.

However, until such time that the mentioned, pro-people initiatives are given serious thought the ICC would need to be enabled by the international community to be in place comfortably and carry on with its mandate of bringing repressive rulers to book. Besides the ICC should pave the way for the peoples of the developing world to enjoy some substantial respite from the political repression and even terror which tend to be their lot.

Meanwhile, the wars of West Asia are relentlessly aggravating the economic hardships of people everywhere, driving the point home to enlightened sections that there is no alternative to peacemaking. A challenge is to convert the US under President Trump to this line of thinking.

Dream of performing on a world stage? Well, here is your unique, golden opportunity!

The World Championships of Performing Arts (WCOPA) — the one and only official “Talent Olympics” — is the world’s premier global platform for aspiring singers, dancers, actors, models, instrumentalists, etc., to compete, shine and be discovered!

And, yes, this world stage is open to YOU, Sri Lankans living in Sri Lanka and overseas!

Held annually in glittering Las Vegas, WCOPA brings together over 70 countries, all competing for Gold, Silver and Bronze Medals, just like the traditional Olympics.

Lakisha Bernard: Will represent Team Sri Lanka at WCOPA 2027

Outstanding performers vie for the coveted titles of Junior and Senior Grand Champion Performer of the World, with winners and standout participants awarded over $500,000 in scholarships, cash awards and prizes to catapult their education and careers!

Sri Lanka is already making waves! At WCOPA 2026, Natharie Wickramasinghe, representing Team Sri Lanka, made the nation proud by winning a Bronze Medal in the Ethnic/Folklore Dance category!

Lakisha: Accomplished freelance Model and Fashion Design graduate

Recruitment for this prestigious competition is handled through a system of scouts and licensed National Directors — and this is where our very own Chris Rajendra, now based in Las Vegas, and National Director for Team Sri Lanka, comes into the scene.

If you are a singer, dancer, actor, model, instrumentalist — if you have talent burning inside you — contact Chris Rajendra today for registration and, who knows, you may find yourself in Las Vegas, and proudly draped in the Sri Lankan flag, at WCOPA 2027!

The contact address is: Chris Rajendra, wcopa.nationaldirector.sl@gmail.com

or chris.rajendra@gmail.com

Meanwhile, a star is born for 2027, in the form of Lakisha Bernard who is all set to represent Team Sri Lanka at WCOPA 2027.

Originally hailing from the sun-drenched coastal city of Colombo and now carving out her creative career in Canada, 22-year-old Lakisha is stepping into the international spotlight.

This accomplished freelance Model and Fashion Design graduate has officially been appointed as the Team Sri Lanka Promoter for Canada as she prepares to represent Team Sri Lanka at WCOPA in Las Vegas.

Lakisha brings a unique blend of high-fashion sensibility, captivating camera presence and expert garment design to the Team.

Having built her career, from local college shoots to high-glamour concepts, Lakisha’s inspiring journey embodies the true spirit of cultural bridge-building and creative resilience, bringing immense pride and recognition to Sri Lanka on the global stage.

WCOPA 2027 will be held at the legendary Westgate Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, from 12th to 20th July – the very same iconic arena where the late, great Elvis Presley himself performed!

Your moment is now. Your stage is Las Vegas, so hurry and contact Chris Rajendra.

By Savitri Goonesekere

( This is an edited version of the transcript of a talk given at a public seminar titled ‘Why should we rally for a new people’s constitution?’, held at the National Library Auditorium on 11 September 2026 and organised by the Young Lawyers’ Association. )

(Continued from Yesterday)

Then in 2015—again, and I think Mr. Sumanthiran P.C.  was part of this initiative—there was a whole bipartisan process for constitutional reform. Excellent reports were prepared by public servants and experts on the public service, on the judiciary, etc., etc. There were consultative arrangements that included civil society and citizens. But then that also came to nothing.

Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, I think, led that process of the Constitutional reform of 2015, which was supposed to have been completed but never was completed. Then surprisingly, when Mr. Wickremesinghe became the first unelected president, we witnessed another period of  an authoritarian Executive Presidency.

The dismantling of the Executive Presidency has to be the bottom line, the baseline of constitutional reform. We do not want anything but that. We have to dismantle this governance approach. We have to return to a system of governance with an elected Prime Minister and an Opposition in Parliament. But the baseline is we cannot have amendment after amendment after amendment—amendments from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and now 2022.

The time has come to say “no more amendments!” What we want is a new Constitution with the dismantling of the Executive Presidency. And for that, we want all-party consensus. We need to demand that. We must also demand this of the NPP, because this was their commitment to us the People. It was a commitment made in their election manifesto: bringing a new constitution which would dismantle the executive Presidency.

We have an enormous wealth of information, reports, draft constitutions, and documented materials that can be a rich resource, and are easily available. A small group of people can sit down and draft a good constitution using those resources, working in a consultative manner.  The voice of the people was heard during the 2015 consultative process. That material is available. New consultations must and can  address the key areas of concern for us.  Preparing a new constitution in this consultative manner is something which should not be postponed, because it is doable. It is not something that is going to take years because all the resources, the experience  for drafting a new Constitution are available. All it needs is the political will to do so.

You can also have transitional provisions—transitional provisions where the current elected President becomes, for the period of the term of office, a Prime Minister who heads the government. Those are possibilities that can and must be put into place.

We must recall  that the JVP as a party came into the political process many years ago, and from 1994 accepted a commitment to uphold democracy. Over the years the JVP members elected  to Parliament demonstrated that they understood Democracy as a system of governance. The 17th Amendment can be traced to the contribution of the JVP. They  were with the government at that time.  Subsequently, again, the JVP brought a 20th Amendment to repeal the Executive Presidency. Then again when there was a Constitutional crisis in 2018, the JVP participated in an all-party opposition consensus, and a court case was filed by all—the Sampanthan case. The case was decided in the Supreme Court and the constitutional crisis was resolved with the government respecting the decision of the Supreme Court. So that record must be maintained by this government and it must not be undermined.

My colleagues here, I think, will speak on the pillars of Constitutionalism and Democracy.  I just want to flag a few issues because we need to understand that any new Constitution has to address  all those key areas.

One is the franchise—we have enough experience and must not forget that we have addressed and eliminated electoral violence. Our recent elections have shown that our People want peaceful, violence free elections. But that franchise must also be combined with an effort to solve our national question, with effective power-sharing. The Constitution must reflect a commitment to understand that we respect diversity, pluralism and the long tradition of peaceful relations in our communities , rejecting the extremism, the fundamentalism which cannot make us think as Sri Lankans who belong to one country. So that is key.

Then, of course, the separation of powers. We have been speaking of that recently with the 22nd Amendment. What does separation of powers mean? It means, in simple terms (to the young lawyers, all that you learned in your classroom), that in a Democracy you do not have a single leader, you do not have a legislature—if you forgive the Freudian slip—which trumps the other institutions.  You don’t have a legislature or an executive which exercises unlimited power or what is now called “Rajya balaya”. You have courts which ultimately are the arbiters of the Legislature and the Executive who can scrutinise the conduct of these institutions. This is what you mean by the core concept of an independent  judiciary that is empowered to protect citizens’ rights, prevents abuse of State power or rajya balaya, with freedom from interference by government.

Today on social media, ministers, members of Parliament ask, “What is independence of the judiciary? Nobody is telling us: what is the independence of the judiciary?”  What is independence of the judiciary if not linked to the separation of powers of the three institutions of governance.  So how can we have a Minister of Justice, lawyers in Parliament, say, “What is this independence of the judiciary?”  Have they left their knowledge in the classroom? They as lawyers should know that the Independence of the judiciary has served this country well. It has done so over decades, and that is something which we have to ensure.

What are, then, the specificities of independence of the judiciary? Even in the 1978 Constitution, the Preamble says, “We, the people of this country, give to ourselves the Constitution, recognising our fundamental rights and the independence of the judiciary.” So, this norm is central,  fundamental. The 1978 Constitution has separate provisions —and I am sure these distinguished lawyers have argued this—called  “Independence of the Judiciary”.

And those provisions are born of experience in Democracies. These are three basic norms:  one, you don’t change the age of retirement of sitting judges; two, you ensure that their salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund—that is, you can change the salaries, but their payment has to be assured; and three, you have an impeachment procedure if you want to terminate the appointment of a judge.

So those are three basic norms on ensuring that the independence of the judiciary is recognized. . This is why others with democratic traditions, like the regional organisation LawAsia, and Commonwealth lawyers have focused on these norms of democratic Constitutionalism. Because the judiciary is not like the public service. It is  not like other institutions. In governance called democracy with separation of powers, it is the one institution that monitors and ensures that the legislature and the executive in government respect the rights of the Sovereign People.

What about the other concepts that have been floating around again with much confusion? What is audi alteram partem? People are saying, “What is audi alteram partem?” “What is the conflict of interest?”

I am  really surprised that there is such a misunderstanding on the concept of conflict of interest and duty. When I was teaching in the university, if our students didn’t understand that concept, we would have been quite shocked. My colleagues understood what this meant, and we followed what we taught in the classroom.  When we sat on boards, if we had that special interest in decision-making, what would we do? We would say, “My daughter is an applicant for this post. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest and duty. I will recuse myself. I will withdraw.” That was what we said and did. Colleagues did that. When we sat on Boards and Committees, colleagues followed these norms.

The idea that you yourself may not decide in favour of your daughter who is  an applicant is less important than the perception of your conduct. The perception is that you, the mother, sat in the decision making seat,  and, therefore, she got the job. So, perception is important. Now, sometimes we are told on social media, on TV—some people say—”You can’t go on these abstract ideas about what can happen. These are abstract ideas, they’re not concrete.” Of course, perceptions are ideas and not concrete facts. We must avoid possible conflict of interest and duty, because public perception is that it will happen.

What is the legal norm? Audi alteram partem—hearing the other side and the importance of doing so.  Is this idea something foreign or colonial? We have Buddhist monks this evening in the audience—what did the Buddha say? Freedom of thought and speech is fundamental. He said, “Do not accept what I have said. Do not accept what the sages have said. Listen, understand, and then believe.”  We have this norm of hearing the other side, not shouting each other down, in our own society, among our own citizens. Politicians often disregard this tradition which is embedded in the legal norm.

In conclusion, I want to say, for myself, what I would like to see in a new Constitution: the dismantling of the executive Presidency; clarity with regard to the Sovereignty of the people.

Today we have Article 3 , Sovereignty is in the People, is inalienable, and includes government powers, fundamental rights, and the franchise. This article should be linked to Article 4 ,  exercise of sovereignty:  the division of sovereign power across the legislature, the  executive and the  judiciary,  the three pillars. There is jurisprudence on this topic, but that has been  challenged. Article 3—Sovereignty—is then delinked from Article 4, which is the institutional framework of governance. I think we need clarity on this matter, and that is very important. Those clauses have to be drafted very carefully.

I also think we should have clarity on the referendum article. We need to address important issues on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive—that is an area of concern. Strengthening the Independence of the judiciary must be a priority. Provisions on human rights must incorporate the approach on the  indivisibility of fundamental rights, recognising civil liberties and socio-economic rights. That requires a shift away from the idea that the latter are government’s social policies and not enforceable rights of a Sovereign People. A new Constitution must also address a current concern  – the immunity of a President from being sued, and his power to pardon persons for offences that they have been convicted in the courts.