Features
Elizabeth the Great
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
When the Union Jack, fluttering from the flagpole of Buckingham Palace, was gently lowered to half-mast, just after 6.30pm (BST), on Thursday, 8th September, the anxious wait of the nation for six hours was over and all hopes were dashed. From the time an announcement was made from Buckingham Palace just after 12.30pm that Her Majesty was gravely ill, the nation feared the worst, but hoped for the best. As the notice announcing the death of Queen Elizabeth was being posted on the gates of Buckingham Palace, the autumn showers, bathing London from morning, eased off and a ray of sunshine emanated through the thick dark clouds, dominating the western skies forming a rainbow over the Union Jack fluttering, lazily, half-mast. The much-loved Queen was no more!
Queen Elizabeth II was the most famous woman, perhaps the most famous person, in the whole world, and much had been written about her. When I wrote an article on the occasion of her celebrating an unprecedented Platinum Jubilee (A Queen Unmatched, The Island 23rd April) I never imagined I would be writing again on her, so soon. More so, because just two days before, she was seen with all smiles, bidding farewell to her 14th Prime Minister and welcoming the 15th. How uncertain life is!

I wish to highlight some of her unique achievements and defend her from some of the unfair accusations made. Unfortunately, most hurting for her, some these came from within; first from Diana and then from Megan. A few have endured so much they seem to have come to be regarded as true. Perhaps, unfortunately, the royal tradition is not to use the right of reply and Her Majesty has famously stated “Don’t complain – Don’t explain!”
In an excellent editorial, titled “Death of a great leader” (The Island, 10th September), whilst paying a glowing tribute to Queen Elizabeth, the editor has stated:
“Great as she was, Queen Elizabeth II was not infallible. Her handling of some of her family affairs came in for criticism, as in the case of the Diana controversy, which had an adverse effect on the reputation of Buckingham Palace. A much-publicised claim by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, earlier this year, that Buckingham Palace’s decision to deny Archie the title of Prince had been driven by institutional racism, within the monarchy, also reflected badly on the Queen, who, however, remained unfazed. Despite such blemishes, as it were, and what her critics may say, all in all, her reign was hugely successful and stood Britain in good stead.”
Unfortunately, Princess Diana was being manipulated by many including journalists, and the then PM Tony Blair, who wanted to showcase Diana as the face of the new monarchy. With the resounding majority he received, Tony Blair may have thought that he could reform the monarchy, too. His wife declared that she did not intend curtsy to the queen. Apparently, Her Majesty cut him down to size, stating at their first meeting “You are my 10th Prime Minister. The first was Winston. That was before you were born”. Perhaps, this made Blair’s resolve even greater but, to his credit, he gave sound advice to the Queen, following the death of Diana.
Diana’s sudden death evoked mass hysteria, more so because the media made her a saint in spite of many indiscreet liaisons, and made Charles a pariah because of his public admission that he had a liaison with Camilla, after his marriage had broken down, irretrievably. The Queen was in Balmoral, consoling her two young grandsons, who had lost their mother. The resultant delayed return to Buckingham Palace evoked public criticism and generated newspaper headlines. Added to that, Mohamed Al-Fayed was making wild accusations that the monarchy was instrumental in murdering Diana, and his son Dodi, who, by the way, was carrying-on with Diana, whilst having an American girlfriend! ‘Operation Paget’, the Metropolitan police inquiry, headed by Lord Stevens, established that it was a tragic accident. An interesting fact that was disclosed during the inquiry was that both Diana and Dodi may have survived the crash had they worn seat belts. The only survivor was the security officer, the only person to wear a seat belt. Al-Fayed disagreed with the inquiry report but had to stop slandering once the coroner’s inquest was concluded, in April 2008, when the jury returned the verdict that Diana and Fayed were unlawfully killed as a result of “gross negligence” of the driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi.

The Oprah Winfrey interview, with the Sussexes, turned out to be a publicity stunt where Oprah demonstrated a total lack of tough questioning she is renowned for. Had she done her research, she could have brought to their attention “letters patent dated 20 November 1917 by King George V” when the accusation was made that Archie was denied the title ‘Prince’ because of institutional racism within the monarchy. Archie was not entitled to be a prince as the ‘letters patent’ restricted the title of Prince to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. They forgot to mention that the Queen conferred an appropriate title which they refused. Megan stated that they requested this title for security purposes. The fact is that security does not depend on the title but on the basis of individual assessments made by the security services. She also stated that Charles will deny Archie the title. In spite of the atrocious campaign carried out, sometime ago by Diana supporters, to skip a generation and make William the king, Charles has become King and we have Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet! What a pity that a publicity seeking American actress, not a Hollywood actress even of B-grade but a minor one who acted in some TV series, who got married to a Prince, has done so much of reputational damage to the British Monarchy?
The Queen is far from being a racist. In fact, when in 1961 she danced with Ghana’s first President Kwame Nkrumah at a farewell reception, it was the racist segment of the British populace that was infuriated. Though the Netflix series ‘The Crown’ tried portray it as ‘the dance that changed history’, it probably is an exaggeration. Nkrumah remained a socialist till he was deposed, but this dance may well have catalysed the process of many African countries joining the Commonwealth.
The other Prime Minister the Queen did not get on well with was Margaret Thatcher. It is well known that Her Majesty was concerned about Thatcherite policies causing social upheaval. In fact, Thatcher had once commented that if the Queen had the vote, she would probably vote for Social-Democrats! This makes it obvious that though born to riches, Her Majesty felt the pulse of the poor. But the main disagreement was about sanctions on South Africa. Thatcher found excuses not to impose sanctions, perhaps because her husband had business interests but, ultimately, the Queen prevailed and sanctions were imposed which facilitated the dismantling of apartheid. This was the reason for the close association between the Queen and Nelson Mandela.

The British Commonwealth was started by the Queen’s father and she transformed it to be the powerful organization, the Commonwealth of Nations. When she became Queen, there were eight members and, at the time of her death, the number stood at 56 countries, from all inhabited continents, with a combined population of 2.4 billion. All the English-speaking countries are members, except the USA, which, in a way, is an advantage as the USA would have distorted the Commonwealth. Still, some Americans seem to be looking upon Britain as the ‘mother country’ as stated by a couple from California who were laying flowers at Buckingham Palace. Interestingly, four African countries, that were not under British rule, too, have opted to join the Commonwealth. Mozambique, formerly under Portugal, joined in 1995, and Rwanda, formerly under Germany, and then the Netherlands, joined in 2009. Gabon and Togo, both formerly under France, joined on 29th June 2022. Many others have applied to join which dispels the accusation that the British Monarchy is racist. As suggested by the Queen, King Charles has taken over the responsibility of heading the Commonwealth.
The Queen has shown an abiding interest in Sri Lanka. Victoria Dam was a British gift, under the patronage of Her Majesty. A former Sri Lanka High Commissioner to the UK told me how, on two occasions, during largely attended diplomatic receptions, the Queen came looking for him to inquire how we are coping after the 2004 Tsunami and how our Cricket team was faring after the 2009 attack in Pakistan. In spite of all this, some ‘liberal’ commentators have taken objections to flying the Sri Lankan flag half-mast and having a National Day of Mourning because we are a republic. These narrow-minded experts are a minority, fortunately. Judging by the reactions across the world, these measures are more than justified.
Monuments across the world were illuminated in the Queen’s honour, including ‘Christ, the Redeemer, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Politicians, around the world, have been paying tribute, the best coming from President Macron of France. In spite of the traditional Franco-British rivalry and derogatory personal references by Liz Truss, during the leadership campaign, President Macron responded with magnanimity. While conveying his condolences to the British people, he stated: “To you, she is your Queen but to us, she is THE Queen”! No one could have better described the high esteem with which Queen Elizabeth was held around the world.
According to the British regnal system she is Queen Elizabeth, the Second but she was second to none. She was the most successful British Monarch ever. Therefore, I, too, join the clamour that the best way to honour this magnificent lady is by calling her “Elizabeth, the Great!”
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
