Features

Imposition of the death penalty and some tidbits from the Ceylon Bar

Published

3 years ago

2022/10/16

Excerpted from Nimal Wikramanayake’s Life In The Law

When I went to the Bar in Ceylon in 1959, the courts were large rooms powered by a number of large ceiling fans, as they had been for many years. These ceiling fans were ancient and made a considerable racket. Murder cases were heard in the Assize Courts where either a Commissioner of Assizes or a Supreme Court judge sat. Invariably, when a murder case was heard, hundreds of the accused’s relatives and friends attended court to witness the proceedings and support the accused.On one occasion, I wandered into the Assize Court to learn that the accused had just been found guilty of murder. I watched with horror at the passing of the death sentence. It was a gruesome and frightening experience. Firstly, the large ceiling fans were switched off. The resultant hush that fell over the court was frightening. It was as if night had suddenly fallen.

The interpreter, Mudaliyar (the associate), opened his drawer and pulled out a black cap or, as it usually was, a square piece of black cloth. He walked up the steps leading to the judge’s podium and placed the black cloth on the judge’s head before returning to his seat. The judge then told the accused: “Mr X, you have been found guilty by a trial of your peers of murder and you are hereby sentenced to death. On the # day of # at #am you will be taken from your cell to a particular spot in the prison and hanged by the neck until you are dead and may God have mercy on your soul’

I found this statement that God would have mercy on his soul interesting, for Ceylon was a Buddhist Country and there was no God in the Buddhist religion.When the death sentence was passed, there was pandemonium in the court. The friends and relatives of the accused started screaming and yelling, but before the sentence was passed, the judge had made sure that the court was filled with policemen, so when the judge had finished he looked at the police and said, “Clear the court.” The police then cleared everyone out. The bystanders were shoved outside, still screaming and yelling in the large courtyard.I saw this frightening event only once and hope never to see it again, for in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) the death penalty still prevails.

An interesting testamentary case

In 1960, I was briefed to appear with my master in a most fascinating testamentary case. My master was not a brilliant lawyer. He was a down-to-earth man and reminded me of a sixteenth-century English barrister. He was short and fat and extremely laid back – the antithesis of what a barrister should be. My pet complaint was that he never objected when opposing counsel put leading questions to their witnesses. According to my leader, Kingsley Herat, it made no difference to the result of the case whether or not one objected to leading questions.

The case was fascinating for the reason that the main witness for the plaintiff was a Viennese psychiatrist, a Dr Grillmayer, who had recently started a practice in Ceylon and was then a fashionable psychiatrist in Colombo. Our client, the defendant, was an extremely astute man and the father of a close friend of mine.He had two maiden aunts who were very wealthy. None of their nephews and nieces was interested in the welfare of these two ladies, so our client, for reasons best known to himself, decided to look after their welfare for some years before they died. He would visit them regularly, run errands for them, buy their groceries and take them shopping, take them for their doctors’ appointments, and made himself available to help them in their hour of need.

The first aunt died and left her more than ample estate to our client. Her relatives were furious. How dare she leave her estate to this upstart? She had to be non compos mentis to do this. That could be the only explanation.They decided to bring proceedings to have her last will set aside. This is where Dr Grillmayer came into the equation. He was called to give evidence that the old lady had no testamentary capacity. He was a large podgy character more like someone in a Walt Disney cartoon. He clambered into the witness box with great difficulty and sweated profusely, the sweat running down his face.

He gave his evidence with great authority and declared that there was no doubt that the old lady was not of sound mind. He stated that she was suffering from dissociation of time and space.He was asked the reason for this conclusion and the good doctor said that when she was lying ill in hospital, she had written a letter from the hospital but put her home address on the letter. Judge Johnnie Alles burst out laughing and said, ‘I must be suffering from the same ailment for I wrote four letters this morning from my chambers and put my home address on them’

Dr Grillmayer added that the old lady was not in a proper state of mind because in a letter she had written, ‘I am nailed to the bed, so to speak.’ This meant that she was suffering from a coffin complex. What this coffin complex meant, God only knows because he gave no explanation.My master then asked him, “Are you aware of the fact that that statement is a Ceylonism, an expression in common use in Ceylon, so that when you say you are ‘nailed to the bed’ it means you are confined to your bed’?” The good doctor had no answer to that question. Dr Grillmayer’s evidence was the only evidence led for the plaintiff, so the plaintiff’s action was dismissed.A few years later the second aunt died and she also bequeathed her substantial estate to our client. This will was not contested.

Dining at the Bar in England and Ceylon

In England, “Dining at the Bar” was created hundreds of years ago by the several Inns of Court to help young hopeful barristers to meet and greet each other. When I joined the Inner Temple in September 1954, I was required to dine six times during each of the four terms per year and, over a period of three years, seventy-two times in all. However, when I entered Cambridge, this requirement was cut down to three dinners a term.

These dinners were formal black tie affairs. They were held fin the Great Hall of the Inner Temple. Before I entered, I was required to go into a robing room, select a gown and put it on before I entered the dining hall. The “benchers”, the governing body of the Inn, sat at a long table across the back of the hall. The benchers were men of distinction in the profession and included judges, barristers and professors of law.Many years later, I attended a course in company law at Gibson and Weldon in order to prepare myself for the final Bar examination. The lecturer asked whether any of us could tell him what a “debenture” was. A “debenture” is a term which is not easy to define, but loosely it is said to be a specialty debt of a corporation.Regrettably, an African student, I believe from Nigeria, put up his hand and said that a debenture was a controlling member of the Inns of Court!

Be that as it may, these dinners were dull, boring affairs. We sat at long trestle tables and for every four diners there was a bottle of port and a bottle of claret. I made it a point to sit with Pakistani and African students, for alcohol was not permitted to soil their lips. The result was that most nights I had a bottle of claret to myself. I often left these dinners in a very happy frame of mind.

When I returned to Ceylon, the Bar had an annual dinner called “The Voet Lights” (pronounced footlights), yet it had nothing to do with the theatre but was named after Johannes Voet (pronounced “foot”), a great and a celebrated jurist of the seventeenth century in Holland. I attended twelve of these dinners between the years 1959 and 1970.When I was called to the Ceylon Bar in 1959, it was the custom that there was a chief guest, and the barrister of the newest call was required to make a speech. A couple of other barristers were junior to me so I was not particularly concerned about having to make a speech. When I turned up there I realized to my chagrin that those other two barristers had chickened out, so I had to make a speech after all.

It was the conduct of these young barristers after the dinner that was an absolute disgrace. Every year after the dinner we retired to a private club for further alcohol and there were always fisticuffs between my friends. Most of my time after these dinners was spent trying to pull the combatants apart and I occasionally received a few blows for my foolishness. There was nothing heroic about my behaviour. I just did not want a pleasant evening spoilt by unnecessary fisticuffs.

On one occasion we went to the Sinhalese Sports Club for our usual after-dinner drinks. A solicitor by the name of Virgil James was in our party. How he managed to join our party still remains a mystery for he was a proctor of the Supreme Court and not an advocate. He was a tall, skinny man and he was seriously drunk. Also in our crowd was a gentleman called Parathalingam.

“Para’; as he was known to us, had a father who was a brilliant Queen’s Counsel, Mr Thiagalingam. Virgil, for some unaccountable reason, decided to make a speech about Mr Thiagalingam. He got up and said, “Para”, and then intended to repeat himself but he was so drunk that he said, “Para, your father is a pariah.’

There was pandemonium. Para threw himself across the table, grabbled Virgil by his shirt and proceeded to beat him up. I jumped in between them and received a few hefty blows, but I managed to spirit Virgil James out of the Bar Room, put him in a taxi and send him home.

I remember another occasion when we were dining at a nightclub called “The Atlanta” Among us was a Queen’s Counsel – Mr Izzadeen Mohamed QC. Izza was a lavish host who treated us – I believe there were about fifteen of us – to two bottles of Scotch whisky. We were all drinking in the billiards room and one of my friends, HD Thambiah (Thamby), was extremely drunk. When the waiter brought another bottle of Scotch, I said, “Thamby, I think you’ve had enough to drink. I can drink you under the table. Can I take you home?”

At this, Thamby bellowed, “Nimal, I can drink you under the table at any time.” Thamby’s response was greeted with great hilarity by my friends. They were like a crowd of schoolboys egging on two boys to fight. They said, “Nimal you’re talking rubbish. Thamby can drink you under the table at any time.’ This made Thamby even more eager to show his mettle.

I always remembered my father’s advice about how to consume alcohol at parties. Dad was always reasonably sober when he and his friends had drinking bouts because he used to have a weak drink, say a diluted Scotch with lots of water, and sip it through the night and then maybe have another. But I was terrified now as to what this drinking contest meant.

Thamby poured two full glasses of neat Scotch whiskey, then he took one and handed me the other. I protested vehemently, saying that I could not drink a full glass of neat Scotch whiskey. The crowd sided with Thambi and said that that was the terms of the bet. In a fit of bravado, Thamby knocked down his full glass of straight Scotch whiskey.

He was seated on one of the long wooden seats that one finds in a billiard room. The next thing we heard was a clatter as Thamby slipped down his seat and ended up under the billiard table, completely comatose. He had to be taken home and, of course, I won the bet. Why did I need to refer to this drunken revelry? Even lawyers have moments of absurdity.

An amusing story

I would like to relate an incident which occurred in my early years at the Ceylon Bar to introduce a note of levity into this memoir and to prevent boredom from settling in.When I first went to the Bar I would follow senior barristers around and sit down behind them in court to try to learn something from the way they conducted their cases. There was an advocate, whom I shall call Mr X, whom I admired immensely when I first went to the bar. He was slim and tall, and affected an air of insouciance. He wore China-silk suits with flared trouser legs. He smoked cigarettes through a long cigarette holder.

In my early years I used to follow him, especially when he went to the Court of Assizes. I was following a murder case in which he was appearing one day when he told members of the jury that the case for the prosecution was like a painted ship on a painted ocean. That was how he expressed his assertion that the prosecution case was false. I was impressed.

A couple of years later I was seated with my friend Manicks Kanagaretnam in the lounge of the Law Library having a cup of coffee when Mr X walked up and asked to speak to Manicks on a personal matter. He shooed me away, saying that he was not interested in discussing his personal matters before young boys. However, Manicks let me stay and listen to Mr X, who then sat down and told Manicks that he had an important personal problem. He had to go to a formal dinner that night and had never been to one before. What was he to do?

Manicks was regarded as a man of the world, having gone to England and qualified as a barrister, then returned to Ceylon. He was about 10 years older than I was. He told Mr X that he would have a woman seated on either side of him and that the easiest way to get through the dinner was to discuss their marriages and their children, and everything would be fine.

On Monday, I returned to chambers to find Mr X in a heated argument with Manicks. He was screaming abuse at him. He had gone to the dinner and found a woman seated on either side of him. He turned and spoke to the woman to his right and asked, “Are you married?” to which she replied, “No”. He then asked her whether she had any children and she became so incensed that she turned around and did not speak to him for the rest of the night.

Next, he attempted to make conversation with the lady on his left-hand side. He asked her whether she had any children to which she replied, “Yes” He then asked her whether she was married, and she too turned her back on him in a huff and did not speak to him for the rest of the evening. When I saw him that Monday morning, he was absolutely dejected and accused Manicks of ruining his dinner with his stupid advice.

All News Advertisement

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.