News

CPA: Warns country heading towards constitutional crisis

Published

2 years ago

2024/07/30

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has raised concerns about the actions of the President and the government in response to the Supreme Court’s interim order last week restraining Deshabandu Tennakoon from exercising the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

Issuing a statement, the policy think-tank, based in Colombo, said this interim order had been met with statements by the government, including a formal statement in Parliament by the Prime Minister on 27 July, explicitly rejecting it, that raises alarm as to whether Sri Lanka is heading towards a constitutional crisis.

Urging the President to desist from any or all action that raised that prospect, CPA said the Election Commission had issued a gazette setting the date of the Presidential Election to be held on 21st September 2024, and it was incumbent on the Government and all stakeholders to adhere to the Constitution and respect the integrity of the election.

CPA warned that any attempt to subvert elections, and the rule of law, will have significant implications on governance and democracy and setback Sri Lanka’s path towards economic recovery and stability.

According to CPA, the following briefly sets out some of the recent events and their implications.

* The Supreme Court’s Interim Order on the IGP

The Supreme Court’s interim order this week was in response to several cases filed challenging the appointment of Tennakoon as IGP. One of the petitions was filed by CPA’s Executive Director. After hearing lengthy submissions, the Court found that the Petitioners’ case could proceed to the next stage and in light of the strong case made out, the Court also granted an interim order.

CPA welcomes the interim order which upholds the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution. CPA’s position is that, on the documents produced by the Respondents in court, including the minutes of the Constitutional Council meeting, it is clear that the President could not have appointed Tennakoon as IGP on 26th February 2024, as the required support of at least five members of the Constitutional Council was not met.

CPA notes that the President is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. Nothing in the order would prevent the President from making an acting appointment after following the appropriate procedure set out in the Constitution. If the President does not make an acting appointment, that is a choice he makes and he would be fully responsible for the consequences of that choice. Willful violation of the Constitution, including by refusing to do what the Constitution requires him to do, is a ground on which a President can be impeached. As seen in several recent cases, a person holding the office of President can also be held liable in his individual capacity even after the conclusion of his term of office for such violations. In such a context, any action to subvert and/or undermine the Constitution by the individual holding the office must be monitored and necessary legal action pursued.

* Misinformation on the Supreme Court’s Interim Order

CPA also notes that there has been significant misinformation on the validity and the impact of the Supreme Court’s order, including in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 27th July. The Supreme Court’s interim order was not against Parliament, nor was it against the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council, moreover, is not a committee of Parliament and thus is not protected by the parliamentary privilege of exclusive cognisance. A judicial decision that the President disagrees with is not a sufficient basis to claim a judicial attack on the powers and privileges of Parliament. The order of the Supreme Court restrains Tennakoon personally from functioning in the office of IGP. Any suggestion that the order is an order against the functions of Parliament is without merit and lacks any basis in terms of the Constitution and the law. Having misinformed itself on these matters, the Government has in its irresponsible response to the Supreme Court acted in breach of several constitutional conventions that are central to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary. These include the conventions that the Government: obeys the orders of a court even and especially when it does not agree with the reasoning of a judicial pronouncement; does not attack the judiciary in Parliament or elsewhere; and observes the sub judice principle.

CPA also notes the misinformation campaign to indicate that the President cannot make an acting appointment to cover the functions of the office of IGP. This claim is patently false. The Constitution makes specific provisions for acting appointments (Article 41C(2)). The only requirement is that when such an appointment is for a period of more than two weeks, the President needs to get the approval of the Constitutional Council. Furthermore, recent examples dispel these false claims. Firstly, in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the then President appointed Mr. C.D. Wickramarathne as acting IGP whilst Mr. Pujith Jayasundara (who was the IGP) was suspended pending investigations into his conduct. More recently, an acting appointment to the office of IGP was made when Mr. Tennakoon was first appointed as acting IGP in November 2023.

As such, there is no impediment for the President to make an acting appointment to the office of IGP. In fact, the Constitution requires the President to respect the order of the Court and his own responsibilities in terms of the Constitution to make a suitable acting appointment. It is unfortunate that the President seems to be acting in a manner intended to frustrate the order of the Court and subvert the Constitution.

* The Supreme Court’s Interim Order and the Presidential Election

CPA notes the attempts to imply that the interim order may have a bearing on the holding of the presidential election. The interim order has no impact on the conduct of elections. The order leaves it open to the President to make a suitable acting appointment in terms of the Constitution. Even if the President does not make such an appointment, the Election Commission has a provision in the Constitution to give necessary orders to the hierarchy of the Sri Lanka Police to perform functions relating to the election (Article 104G and 104GG).

All News Advertisement

News

BASL asks govt. to abandon plan to raise retirement ages of CA and SC judges

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

… tells Prez such arbitrary change neither necessary nor desirable

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon the controversial plan to increase the retirement age of the judiciary, including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In a statement issued by the BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and its Secretary Nalin de Silva, the BASL pointed out that the proposed increase of the retirement age of the judiciary would undermine the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence in the Judiciary, which is essential for the maintenance of the Rule of Law and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.

The text of the BASL statement: “The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as “BASL”) notes with grave concern reports in the public domain that the Government is considering the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution to increase the age of retirement of Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

It is the considered view of the BASL that the age of retirement of the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which has stood at 63 years and 65 years respectively from the promulgation of the 1978 Constitution, should not be changed arbitrarily and that such a change is neither necessary nor desirable.

To do so will result in the loss of public confidence in the integrity of the legal system and of the Government’s commitment to preserve and protect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Members of the public are likely to question the motives of the Government in bringing in a Constitutional amendment solely for this purpose.

Your Excellency is no doubt aware that the cadre of the Judges of the Court of Appeal was increased from 12 to 20 Judges (including the President of the Court of Appeal) and that of the Supreme Court from 11 to 17 Judges (including the Chief Justice) by the 20th Amendment to the constitution certified on 29th of October 2020. With such enhancement, workwise, there cannot be a real requirement to extend the retirement ages of these judges.

Your Excellency is aware that altering the retirement age of judges of the apex courts would have to be done through a Constitutional amendment. For many years Sri Lanka’s Constitution has been subject to ad hoc amendments, sometimes in order to cater to the political needs of the government in power and often contrary to the interests of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the judiciary.

Extending the retirement age of the sitting Judges of these Courts at this point of time is likely to be viewed by the public as a blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary. We believe that to go ahead with such an ad hoc move will also be an affront to the Honourable Judges of those courts.

If the Government goes ahead with such a move it will set a dangerous precedent for future Governments too to introduce ad hoc amendments to the Constitution in respect of the functions of the Judiciary.

The independence of the Judiciary and the public confidence reposed in it, are indispensable pillars of the Rule of Law and the democratic framework of our Republic. In that regard, it is of paramount importance that the Judiciary must not only remain independent in fact, but must also be seen by the public to be wholly independent, impartial, and free from even the slightest perception of influence, favour, accommodation, or impropriety.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka is therefore constrained, in the discharge of its duty to uphold and safeguard the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary, to respectfully express its serious concern regarding any such proposed amendment, which is neither in the interests of the Judiciary and nor of the people.

In the circumstances, the BASL respectfully urges Your Excellency not to proceed with any proposed constitutional amendment seeking to increase the retirement age of the members of the Judiciary including Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

We remain confident that Your Excellency will give due consideration to the importance of preserving and protecting the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence in the Judiciary, which is essential to the maintenance of the Rule of Law and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.”

Govt. declines to respond

A member of the Cabinet yesterday declined to comment on the BASL’s letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The Minister said that he wouldn’t comment for the time being.

News

New US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

12.5% additional duties on goods imported from Colombo

The US has proposed additional duties of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, including Sri Lanka, over their alleged failure to curb trade in ‌goods made with forced labour.

The proposal made by US Trade Representative’s (USTR) office in terms of Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation to be released, news agencies reported, pointing out that the Trump administration was seeking to rebuild its emergency tariffs, which were struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

The USTR said it determined that it would impose 10% duties related to ⁠the forced labour investigation on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5% on the remaining 45 countries that were investigated.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

According to the trade agency, the USTR found that Sri Lanka has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition.

The USTR noted that the results of its investigation indicate that the acts, policies and practices of Sri Lanka related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition are unreasonable and burden or restrict US commerce.

Accordingly, it has proposed to impose 12.5% additional duties on goods imported from Sri Lanka.

The USTR said it also was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports ‌to ⁠enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, though the duties and volumes were not disclosed.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10% temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down US President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

On Monday, the USTR proposed ⁠a 25% duty on many Brazilian goods as a result of a Section 301 investigation into the country’s digital trade practices and preferential tariffs. The trade agency is also expected to soon unveil the findings of another major Section 301 probe into ⁠the buildup of excess industrial capacity in 16 trading partners, including China.

In the forced labour findings, the USTR said it would exempt from the tariffs a number of products, including energy, rare earths and certain ⁠other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

News

55,000 MT of rejected coal unloaded at Norochcholai

Published

3 hours ago

2026/06/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Coal scam turns into daylight robbery’

More than 55,000 metric tonnes of what has been described as substandard coal that should have been outright rejected had already been unloaded from the vessel MV JOSCO YONGZHOU by yesterday (June 2), intensifying allegations of a major procurement scandal involving the Norochcholai Lakvijaya Power Plant.

The Free Lawyers Organisation (FLO) warned that the controversial shipment, carrying a total of 59,766 metric tonnes of coal, was being discharged despite evidence that it failed to meet mandatory tender specifications and should never have been accepted into the country.

The vessel arrived at the Puttalam anchorage on May 28 and was inspected by authorities at around 3.30 p.m. Approval for unloading was reportedly granted within 30 minutes. Unloading commenced shortly thereafter and has continued despite mounting concerns raised by legal and civil society groups.

According to the FLO, the official Load Port Report issued by Bureau Veritas Solutions South Africa (Pvt) Ltd on April 30, 2026, classified the shipment as one that should have been completely rejected under the tender conditions applicable to the Lanka Coal Company.

The controversy centres on the ash content of the coal. The report indicates an ash level of 16.8 per cent, while the Lanka Coal Company’s own tender document, under Section 5.2 titled “LCC Reject Values for Coal”, sets the maximum permissible reject threshold at 16 per cent.

“The coal does not qualify for purchase under the tender conditions. There is no legal basis for the Lanka Coal Company or the Government of Sri Lanka to accept or pay for this shipment,” the organisation said.

The FLO described the incident as the most serious coal procurement controversy in recent years, noting that this is believed to be the first instance in which a shipment identified at the loading port itself as falling within rejectable limits has nevertheless been cleared for unloading in Sri Lanka.

The shipment was reportedly supplied by Taranjot Resource (Pvt) Ltd.

Attorneys-at-Law Athula de Silva and Piyal Darshana Guruge warned that any decision to process payment for the consignment could expose officials to liability under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.

They argued that authorising payment for a shipment that allegedly fails mandatory quality requirements could amount to causing a loss to the state and constitute a serious breach of procurement procedures, financial regulations and administrative rules.

The lawyers questioned how a shipment identified in an internationally recognised inspection report as unsuitable for acceptance was allowed to proceed through the approval process and be almost entirely unloaded before any formal investigation was conducted.

With over 55,000 metric tonnes already discharged by yesterday morning, the organisation said the issue had moved beyond a mere procurement dispute and raised serious concerns about accountability, regulatory oversight and the protection of public funds.

The FLO called for an immediate independent investigation by the Auditor General, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Lanka Coal Company and relevant technical authorities, warning that failure to act could result in significant financial losses to the state and further undermine public confidence in the management of strategic energy procurements.

By Ifham Nizam