Connect with us

Features

IS RANJAN RAMANAYAKE DISQUALIFIED?

Published

on

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama

According to a newspaper report, the Attorney-General has advised the Secretary-General of Parliament that Ranjan Ramanayake’s seat in Parliament has fallen vacant following his “conviction and sentence” for contempt of court. According to the Attorney-General, Ramanayake was “convicted” by the Supreme Court “of the offence of contempt of court punishable under Article 105(3) of the Constitution and sentenced to a term of four years rigorous imprisonment” and is therefore not qualified to remain a Member of Parliament under Article 89(d) of the Constitution. In my view, the Attorney-General has misdirected himself on the law.

 

Article 105(3) states that

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit.

 

Article 89(d) states that:

No person shall be qualified to be an elector if he is subject to the following disqualification –

(d) if he is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months imposed after conviction by any court for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years or is under sentence of death.

 

Article 89(d), therefore, contains four elements, all of which should be satisfied before a person is disqualified from being an elector, and therefore from being elected as a Member of Parliament or from sitting and voting in Parliament. These are:

 

(a) an offence,

(b) punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years,

(c) conviction by a court, and

(d) be serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months.

 

An offence

Article 105(3) does not create the offence of contempt; nor does it refer to contempt as an “offence”. It does not define the term “contempt”; nor does it set out what acts or omissions constitute contempt. What it does is state that the Supreme Court has “the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere”. In Article 105(3), “contempt” is used in a generic sense. As Lord Diplock observed in Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers (1974), “Contempt of Court is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law”.

On the other hand, Article 111C of the Constitution makes it an offence for any person to “interfere or attempt to interfere with the exercise or performance of the judicial powers or functions of any judge”. That is an offence punishable by the High Court, on conviction after trial, with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine, and disqualification from being an elector for a period not exceeding seven years. Similarly, the Judicature Act has conferred on every original court a special jurisdiction to punish with the prescribed penalties every “offence” of contempt of court committed in the presence of the court itself, and all “offences” which are committed in the course of any act or proceeding in such courts “and which are declared by any law for the time being in force to be punishable as contempt of court”. These “offences”, some of which are defined in the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes, include the failure to answer interrogatories or to produce a document, or refuse to give evidence. Ramanayake was not charged under either of these laws.

 

Punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years

For Article 89(d) to be applicable, there has to be “an offence” created by law, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years. Article 105(3) does not create any offence that is punishable “with imprisonment for a term not less than two years”. In fact, Article 105(3) does not specify any term of imprisonment or the quantum of a fine.

 

Conviction by a court

For a person to be “convicted”, there has to be an “offence” for which he is “charged”. Since Article 105(3) does not create any offence, no “charge” or “indictment” was served on Ramanayake. Instead, a “Rule” was read to the “Respondent” by the Registrar at the commencement of the proceedings, and in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment the Court states that “We affirm the Rule”. In the circumstances, the statement in the final paragraph of the judgment that “we convict him for the offence of contempt punishable under Article 105(3)” appears to have been made per incuriam.

Serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months.

The sentence imposed on Ramanayake was four years rigorous imprisonment. That sentence satisfies the requirement of Article 89(d), but only if the other requirements of that Article described above have also been met. Since they have not, the sentence imposed on him is irrelevant in determining whether or not Article 89(d) is applicable to Ramanayake.

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The Government of Sri Lanka has ratified the ICCPR which is the principal multilateral global treaty on human rights. Accordingly, Sri Lanka is bound by the provisions of that treaty. Sri Lanka has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. By so doing, Sri Lanka has recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee, consisting of 18 distinguished international jurists, to receive and consider a “communication” from any citizen who claims to be a victim of a violation of a right defined in the ICCPR. Did the Attorney-General draw the attention of the Court to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in the 2008 case of S.B. Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka which concerned sentencing in contempt matters?

 

S.B. Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka

In 2003, the Supreme Court found S.B. Dissanayake, MP and Minister, guilty of contempt of court for having stated at a public meeting that he “would not accept any shameful decision [‘balu thinduwak’]the Court gives”. He was referring to an advisory opinion which President Kumaratunge had sought from the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue. He was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by Chief Justice Sarath Silva. He availed himself of the right to submit a communication under the ICCPR.

In that case, in which I represented Dissanayake, the Human Rights Committee held that the State was responsible for a violation of the ICCPR even if committed by the judiciary. Accordingly, it described the sentence of two year’s rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court as a “draconian penalty” which constituted “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”, prohibited by Article 9(1) of the ICCPR (The right to liberty). It held that the sentence also violated Article 19(1) of the ICCPR as being disproportionate to any legitimate aim under that Article (Right to freedom of expression).

On the application of Article 89(d) of the Constitution, the Human Rights Committee observed that “if a conviction for an offence is a basis for suspending the right to vote, the period of such suspension should be proportionate to the offence and sentence”. Accordingly, if Dissanayake was denied his right to be elected or to vote for a period of seven years, Sri Lanka would violate Article 25(b) of the ICCPR (The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs).

 

The Sri Lanka Government was ordered to pay compensation to Dissanayake, and restore his right to vote and to be elected. The Government was also requested to make such changes to the law and practice relating to contempt of court, so as to avoid similar violations of the ICCPR in the future. Over a decade later, a law on contempt of court is yet to be enacted by Parliament.

 

The Law on Contempt of Court

In 1983, in Hewamanne v. Manik de Silva, five Judges of the Supreme Court examined very exhaustively the law on contempt of court. They concluded that the substantive law applicable in Sri Lanka was the English common law of contempt. In England, at that time, while the law relating to “scandalizing the court” was still in force, it had not been applied since 1931. Mr Justice Ranasinghe observed thus:

The modern approach in regard to this category of contempt of court seems to be heavily in favour of the courts being content to leave to public opinion attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them and to rely on their conduct itself to be their own vindication.

This as a view shared by Lord Salmon who, in 1970, observed that to claim that “scandalizing the court” is a form of contempt of court was both unfortunate and misleading.

“This archaic description of these proceedings as ‘contempt of court’ suggests that they are designed to buttress the dignity of the judges and to protect them from insult. Nothing could be further from the truth. No such protection is needed. The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented.”

The English law has since been amended. The Crime and Courts Act of 2013 abolished “scandalizing the court” as a form of contempt. What the House of Lords once described as “a supposed affront to the dignity of the court” is no longer punishable as contempt of court. In the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Justice Sachs observed that the words “scandalizing” and “disrepute” belonged to an archaic vocabulary:

“They evoke another age with other values. . . The problem is not simply that the nomenclature is quaint but that it can be misleading. The heart of the offence lies not in the outrage to the sensibilities of the judicial officers concerned but the impact that the utterance is likely to have on the administration of justice. . . Indeed, bruising criticism could in many circumstances lead to the improvement in the administration of justice. Conversely, the chilling effect of fear of prosecution for criticizing the courts might be conducive to its deterioration. . . Criticism, however robust and painful, is as necessary as ever.”

Under English law, contempt committed “in the court itself” includes such acts as disobeying or ignoring a court order; shouting in court; or refusing to answer a question put to a witness by the court. Contempt committed “elsewhere” includes publicly commenting on a pending case by declaring on social media that a person is guilty or innocent; referring to a person’s previous convictions; naming someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous; naming victims, witnesses and offenders under the age of 18; naming sex crime victims; or sharing any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public.

 

Conclusion

 

Since the Attorney-General appeared before the Supreme Court presumably in the capacity of amicus curiae, was it not his duty to have brought to the attention of the Court, the relevant decision of the Human Rights Committee, and also the recent changes in the English law of contempt that continue to be applicable to Sri Lanka in the absence of a substantive law of our own? Was the Attorney-General unaware that “scandalizing the court” was no longer an offence under English law? Meanwhile, is it the Attorney-General who decides whether a duly elected Member of Parliament is disqualified from sitting and voting in Parliament?



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Sri Lanka’s vanishing wetlands put elusive otter under growing threat

Published

on

International Eurasian Otter Workshop-Colchester, United Kingdom

The world marked World Otter Day 2026 recently. Conservationists are warning that Sri Lanka’s rapidly disappearing wetlands, polluted waterways and unplanned development are placing increasing pressure on one of the island’s most elusive freshwater predators, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra).

The species, locally known as “Diya Balla”, is the only otter found in Sri Lanka and is regarded as a key indicator of healthy freshwater ecosystems. Yet despite its ecological importance, experts say the animal remains poorly studied and largely overlooked in national conservation planning.

Naturalist and conservationist Chaminda Jayasekara, who has spent years documenting otters in Sri Lanka, said the species is facing mounting environmental pressures across the island.

Speaking to The Island, Jayasekara said habitat destruction, chemical pollution, road kills, sand mining, and increasing human disturbance are fragmenting the waterways on which otters depend.

“Otters are extremely sensitive animals. When wetlands are degraded or rivers become polluted, they disappear very quickly. Their survival is directly linked to the health of freshwater ecosystems,” he said.

Jayasekara, who specialised in MSc Environmental Management at the University of Hertfordshire, noted that while the species has been recorded across Sri Lanka’s wet zone, dry zone and coastal wetlands, scientific data on population numbers and distribution remain limited.

According to him, the decline of wetlands has become one of the most serious environmental issues facing Sri Lanka. Marshes, mangroves, irrigation tanks and riverine habitats are increasingly being altered by urban expansion, tourism infrastructure, encroachment and agricultural runoff.

He warns that the loss of these habitats not only threatens otters, but also weakens flood control systems, freshwater security and biodiversity resilience at a time when climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent.

Jayasekara said otters play a vital ecological role by helping maintain balanced fish populations and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

“When otters thrive, it tells us the river system is functioning properly. Their presence is a sign that water quality, fish diversity and habitat conditions remain healthy,” he explained.

One of the best-known locations for otter sightings in Sri Lanka is Aranga Pond, within the Horton Plains National Park, where the species has adapted to the island’s cold montane ecosystem.

However, conservationists stress that even protected areas are not immune to broader environmental degradation occurring outside park boundaries.

Jayasekara’s own work on otters gained prominence through long-term conservation efforts at Jetwing Vil Uyana, where a former degraded chena landscape was restored into a functioning wetland ecosystem.

The restored habitat eventually attracted Eurasian otters, fishing cats, grey slender lorises and numerous wetland bird species.

Over 14 years, Jayasekara carried out field observations, camera trapping and awareness programmes involving hotel staff, surrounding schools and local communities.

“What happened at Vil Uyana clearly showed that habitat restoration works. If degraded ecosystems are given time to recover, wildlife can return naturally,” he said.

He added that wetland restoration should become a central component of Sri Lanka’s environmental policy, particularly as climate change intensifies droughts, floods and biodiversity loss.

Chaminda collecting scat for research purposes in Sigiriya

He says wetlands are among the planet’s most productive ecosystems, functioning as natural water filters and carbon sinks while providing breeding grounds for fish, amphibians and aquatic mammals.

Yet globally, wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate, and Sri Lanka is no exception.

Conservation groups have repeatedly warned that illegal waste disposal, pesticide contamination and poorly planned infrastructure projects are severely affecting freshwater ecosystems throughout the country.

Jayasekara also highlighted the importance of stronger environmental education and community participation in conservation.

“Awareness is still very limited. Many people living close to wetlands do not realise the ecological importance of otters or the threats they face,” he said.

According to him, involving local communities in conservation monitoring is essential if Sri Lanka hopes to safeguard the species in the long term.

He also pointed to the growing international interest in otter conservation.

In November 2025, Jayasekara represented Sri Lanka at the International Eurasian Otter Conservation Workshop held at Colchester Zoo and organised by the International Otter Survival Fund.

The workshop brought together nearly 100 researchers, conservationists and wildlife experts from 33 countries to discuss emerging threats facing Eurasian otter populations.

Jayasekara presented Sri Lanka’s experience under the theme Rewilding Through Hospitality, focusing on how habitat restoration and sustainable tourism practices at Vil Uyana contributed to otter conservation.

“The international response was extremely encouraging. Many delegates were surprised that a tourism property in Sri Lanka had quietly carried out wetland conservation work for more than a decade,” he said.

Discussions at the workshop also examined wider environmental concerns including river pollution, declining fish stocks, illegal killings and habitat fragmentation affecting otter populations across Europe and Asia.

New conservation technologies such as AI-assisted wildlife tracking and environmental DNA surveys were also highlighted as emerging tools for monitoring elusive species.

Jayasekara said Sri Lanka urgently requires more scientific surveys, stronger environmental law enforcement and greater investment in freshwater conservation research.

He warned that unless wetlands and waterways are protected, several lesser-known freshwater species could face severe decline in the coming decades.

Environmentalists say otter conservation should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader effort to protect entire freshwater ecosystems that millions of Sri Lankans depend on for drinking water, irrigation and livelihoods.

He further noted that healthy wetlands also strengthen climate resilience by absorbing floodwaters, reducing soil erosion and supporting groundwater recharge.

As Sri Lanka experiences increasingly erratic weather patterns linked to climate change, conservationists argue that protecting wetlands is becoming both an ecological and economic necessity.

Jayasekara believes Sri Lanka still has an opportunity to become a regional example in balancing tourism, biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration.

“The otter teaches us an important lesson,” he said. “If rivers are protected and wetlands are respected, nature has an incredible ability to recover.”

This year’s observance of World Otter Day 2026 is, therefore, serving not only as a celebration of one of the world’s most charismatic mammals, but also as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the fragile freshwater ecosystems upon which both wildlife and human communities ultimately depend.

Eurasian otter

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Malaiyaha Tamil people: Healing the Oldest Wound of Independence

Published

on

Hands of a Maliayaha tea estate worker

In their Vesak messages this year, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya highlighted the values of reconciliation, coexistence and justice as essential to Sri Lanka’s future. President Dissanayake emphasised that Buddhism’s teachings remain deeply relevant to contemporary society and described Vesak as a symbol of “mutual understanding, unity and coexistence among all communities” and of reconciliation itself. Prime Minister Amarasuriya similarly called for the building of a society in which justice is assured to all irrespective of caste, race or religion. These messages were not merely religious aspirations, they were a direct challenge to the most serious failures in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history. These include the three-decade-long war, its human rights violations and the inability to implement a political solution.

These have been and continue to be the challenges that have prevented Sri Lanka from reaching its full potential. Added to this have been the persistence of social and economic inequalities that continue to marginalise communities at the bottom of the social hierarchy. One of the most enduring examples of such injustice is the experience of the Malaiyaha Tamil community. The scale of the original exclusion is worth understanding clearly. According to the 1946 Census, the Malaiyaha Tamil community numbered approximately 780,600 persons and constituted 11.73 percent of the country’s population making them the second largest ethnic community, larger than the Sri Lankan Tamil community who numbered 733,700 or 11.02 percent of the population at the time

The denial of citizenship and voting rights to the Malaiyaha Tamil community was the first major injustice inflicted on an ethnic minority in post-independence Sri Lanka. The consequences were devastating and long-lasting. A community that had contributed enormously to the country’s economy through its labour on the plantations was excluded from political participation and denied basic rights. This was a political and moral failure that cast a long shadow over the country’s post-independence history. Responsibility for that injustice needs to be shared widely. Political leaders across ethnic lines failed to resist it. The result was the marginalisation of a community whose contribution to national prosperity far exceeded the recognition it received. Today, nearly eight decades later, Sri Lanka has an opportunity to correct that historic wrong but only if economic reform is matched by genuine social inclusion.

Longstanding Grievances

The NPP government has repeatedly acknowledged the need to address the longstanding grievances of the Malaiyaha Tamil people. In its election manifesto, the NPP pledged to improve living conditions in plantation areas, strengthen land and housing rights, ensure equal access to education and public services, and integrate plantation communities more fully into national development. The NPP’s Nuwara Eliya Declaration of 2023 similarly recognised that the plantation community had suffered generations of exclusion and promised measures to address disparities in housing, land ownership, infrastructure, education and economic opportunity. The need for such action is plain to see. While citizenship issues have largely been resolved over time, the socio-economic consequences of decades of exclusion remain deeply entrenched and continue to shape daily life in plantation communities.  A conference organised by the Institute of Social Development to mark International Tea Day on May 21 at the BMICH brought out this and many other salient issues.  Headed by P Muthulingam the organisation has advocated for the rights of the Malaiyaha Tamil people for the past 35 years to be equal citizens who enjoy social and economic justice.

The central problem facing many plantation workers is the low level of income they receive. Daily wages remain among the lowest in the country relative to the difficulty and intensity of the work. Plantation labour continues to depend heavily on methods that have changed little over generations. Productivity remains low compared to competing tea-producing countries — not because workers lack capability, but because sustained investment in their welfare, skills and economic mobility has been withheld. Workers consequently remain trapped in a cycle of low wages and limited economic mobility. Their housing situation compounds these difficulties. Many plantation families continue to live in housing owned either by plantation companies or the state. Lack of secure ownership limits their ability to accumulate assets, access credit or make independent decisions regarding their future. When Cyclone Ditwah damaged plantation housing, it exposed the inability of those living in that housing to access state compensation as they did not own the housing in which they lived.

The problems extend beyond the central highlands. Plantation workers living in private estates and smallholdings in other parts of the country face similar challenges. A recent Amnesty International report documented serious abuses affecting Malaiyaha Tamil workers in private tea estates in the Southern Province.  These include wage withholding, debt dependency, restrictions on movement and intimidation and practices the report argued correspond to internationally recognised indicators of forced labour. These findings are not peripheral. They reveal that the structural exclusion of the Malaiyaha Tamil community is not a relic of the past but an active, ongoing condition. Economic vulnerability and social marginalisation continue to leave many plantation workers without effective protection or access to justice. It is against this backdrop that the government’s recent plantation reform initiative assumes special significance.

Second Phase

The government has announced the second phase of a programme to make underutilised plantation lands and assets available for investment. The objective is to transform underperforming assets into productive enterprises capable of generating employment, attracting investment and revitalising regional economies. The programme seeks to modernise the plantation sector, improve productivity and create new opportunities in tourism, renewable energy and export-oriented industries. These objectives are necessary and welcome. However, economic reform alone will not be sufficient and Sri Lanka’s own history provides the warning. Previous rounds of plantation modernisation pursued productivity gains without addressing the structural disempowerment of the people at the centre of the industry. The result was investment that generated wealth without distributing it.  The workers who produced the wealth were once again treated as labour inputs rather than as beneficiaries. If the current reform follows the same logic, it risks reproducing the same failure.

For reform to succeed, plantation workers must be recognised not merely as a labour force but as stakeholders with rights, aspirations and a legitimate claim to share in the benefits of development. Housing ownership, secure land tenure, quality education, vocational training and entrepreneurship need to be built into the reform process from the outset. The government’s commitments to the Malaiyaha Tamil community therefore need to be incorporated into every stage of the reform process. On the contentious question of land, the government should consider establishing an independent national land commission. Such a body should include respected government officials, professionals and representatives from all ethnic and religious communities. It should review land policy comprehensively, develop transparent principles for allocation and use, ensure fairness in decision making and provide a trusted mechanism for resolving disputes. A credible land commission would help build public confidence that land reforms are being undertaken in the national interest rather than for the benefit of particular groups.

The correction of historic injustices should not be viewed as a concession to one community. It should be understood as an investment in national unity, because societies do not become stronger by maintaining the exclusion of those they have wronged.  On the contrary, they become stronger by ending it. The first great injustice committed against an ethnic minority after independence cannot be undone. But its consequences can be addressed, and doing so would strengthen reconciliation, enhance social cohesion and bring Sri Lanka closer to the vision of a country in which all communities live with equal dignity and equal hope. This is what the Vesak messages of the President and Prime Minister promised. The plantation reform now underway is the moment to make good on that promise not in words alone, but in sustained policy that endures beyond any single government and reaches the people who have waited longest for it.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

IMF relief is not economic recovery: Sri Lanka’s real test begins now

Published

on

The IMF’s latest decision to release approximately US$695 million to Sri Lanka provides an important measure of financial relief, but it should not be mistaken for full economic recovery. While the approval reflects progress in stabilisation, fiscal discipline, and reform implementation, the country still faces deep structural weaknesses, social pressures, and external risks. The real test begins now: whether Sri Lanka can convert this temporary breathing space into lasting reform, productive growth, stronger institutions, and national resilience. This moment should not be used for political celebration, but for serious national reflection and responsible action. Sri Lanka must now resolve to support a clear policy direction, a practical reform programme, and a long-term national development path — not merely an individual, a party, or a political camp.

1. IMF Relief: A Necessary Step, but Not a Final Solution

The IMF Executive Board recently completed the combined Fifth and Sixth Reviews under Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility, allowing the country immediate access to SDR 508 million, approximately US$695 million. This decision represents an important step in Sri Lanka’s ongoing economic recovery process following the severe crisis that led to sovereign debt default, shortages of essential goods, high inflation, and the collapse of foreign reserves in 2022.

However, this decision must be understood with great sensitivity. IMF relief is not the same as full economic recovery. It gives Sri Lanka temporary breathing space, helps rebuild a certain level of international confidence, and supports the continuation of the reform programme. However, this relief is not a magic solution that can automatically resolve the country’s deep-rooted economic problems. Fundamental challenges such as the debt burden, weak productive capacity, low export earnings, poor public revenue performance, weak fiscal management, excessive dependence on imports, corruption, and inefficient state-owned enterprises still remain unresolved. Addressing these challenges requires domestic reforms, disciplined policies, stronger production and export capacity, and a long-term national development programme. Therefore, the IMF decision should not be treated as a political victory or as proof of complete economic success. Rather, it should be seen as a reminder that Sri Lanka still has a long and difficult journey ahead.

2. Sri Lanka’s Progress Recognised by the IMF and Its Limits

The IMF’s approval indicates that Sri Lanka has made progress in several important areas. Inflation has been brought under control compared to the extreme levels experienced during the crisis. Foreign reserves have improved, the exchange rate has shown greater stability, and fiscal management has become more disciplined. The government has also continued to implement reforms in taxation, public finance, energy pricing, and debt restructuring.

According to the IMF assessment, performance under the programme has generally been strong. Several quantitative performance targets have been met, while many structural benchmarks have either been achieved or implemented with some delay. This shows that Sri Lanka has remained broadly committed to the reform path agreed under the IMF-supported programme.

Yet this progress remains fragile. Stability achieved through external support must now be converted into genuine economic strength.

3. Conditions and Responsibilities Attached to the IMF Programme

IMF support does not come merely as financial relief; it comes with a set of important reform conditions and responsibilities that Sri Lanka must fulfil. Key among them are maintaining fiscal discipline, improving government revenue, continuing cost-reflective pricing for fuel and electricity, strengthening public financial management, restructuring state-owned enterprises, protecting institutional independence, and preventing the accumulation of new external payment arrears.

The main objective of these conditions is to restore macroeconomic stability, strengthen fiscal credibility, and rebuild international confidence in Sri Lanka. However, these reforms also carry social and political consequences. Higher taxes, market-based utility pricing, and strict expenditure controls can place a heavy burden on ordinary citizens, especially low-income families, small businesses, pensioners, and salaried workers. Therefore, in implementing reforms, economic discipline alone is not enough. Fairness, transparency, and social sensitivity towards vulnerable groups must also be treated as essential priorities.

4.The Impact of IMF Conditions on People and the Economy

One major social consequence of the IMF programme is the increased pressure it can place on household incomes and living standards. When electricity, fuel, and other essential services are priced on a cost-recovery basis, people may have to face a higher cost of living. Although such reforms are necessary to reduce the losses of state-owned enterprises and maintain fiscal discipline, they can weaken the purchasing power of ordinary citizens if strong social protection programmes are not in place.

Another important consequence is the pressure placed on the operating costs and stability of small and medium-sized enterprises. Higher taxes, increased utility costs, fuel and electricity expenses, and the rising cost of borrowing can affect business survival, job creation, and new investment decisions. If reforms are implemented without sufficient attention to production, exports, and small businesses, the country may achieve short-term fiscal stability, but long-term economic growth could remain weak.

There is also a political risk that cannot be ignored. If people feel that the burden of reform is not being shared fairly, reform fatigue and public frustration may emerge. If ordinary citizens are expected to make sacrifices while corruption, waste, and political privileges continue, public confidence in the reform process will decline. Therefore, for IMF-supported reforms to succeed, fairness, transparency, and social sensitivity must be firmly ensured alongside economic discipline.

5. The Real Test Before Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s real test begins now. Beyond temporary financial relief, the country must now prove that it can build a strong economy that generates income and can withstand external shocks. Therefore, our objective should not be limited to securing the next IMF tranche. While an IMF tranche may provide short-term breathing space, it does not guarantee long-term economic independence or stability. The real objective should be to create an economy that does not have to return to the IMF repeatedly during every crisis, but can stand on its own productive strength, export earnings, and fiscal discipline.

This requires fiscal discipline. However, discipline alone is not enough; economic growth is also necessary. Taxation is necessary. But increasing taxes alone is not a solution; production, investment, and exports must also be expanded. Debt restructuring is necessary. But beyond reducing the debt burden, Sri Lanka must also build an economic foundation that does not depend excessively on borrowing in the future. Sacrifices may be asked of the people. But for those sacrifices to be fair, accountability, transparency, and exemplary conduct from leaders are also essential.

Economic recovery cannot be sustained in the long term through financial assistance alone. Such support can provide breathing space during a crisis, but a country is rebuilt on the strength of its own institutions, productive capacity, export competitiveness, and public trust. Therefore, what Sri Lanka needs today is strong institutions, income-generating industries, a broader export base, food security, energy security, and a system of governance that people can trust.

6. Policy Priorities for Sustainable Recovery

Sri Lanka must now move from crisis management to national transformation. First, fiscal discipline should continue, but it must be fair. Revenue mobilisation should not rely only on increasing taxes on the same groups of people. The tax base must be broadened, tax administration must be improved, and tax evasion must be reduced.

Second, social protection must be strengthened. The most vulnerable groups should be protected through well-targeted assistance. Reforms will be more acceptable if people feel that the poor, elderly, disabled, and low-income families are not abandoned.

Third, state-owned enterprise reform should be carried out with transparency and public accountability. The objective should not merely be privatisation, but efficiency, professionalism, financial discipline, and better service delivery.

Fourth, Sri Lanka must prioritise export-led growth. The country cannot build a stable future by depending mainly on borrowing, remittances, and consumption. Agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, IT services, logistics, education, and value-added exports must become central pillars of national development.

Fifth, governance reform is essential. Without reducing corruption, political interference, wasteful expenditure, and weak implementation, no IMF programme can create lasting recovery. Economic reform and governance reform must move together.

7. From Temporary Relief to Lasting Recovery

The IMF decision gives Sri Lanka an important opportunity. It provides the country with space to strengthen economic stability, rebuild international confidence, and move forward with essential reforms. However, it is not a guarantee of success. It is only a step that gives the country some breathing space. It is now Sri Lanka’s responsibility to use that space wisely, with discipline and accountability to the people.

The country must now decide whether it will continue the old cycle of crises, debt, temporary relief, and political blame, or whether it will build a new national programme based on discipline, productive capacity, fairness, and accountability.

At this moment, true success cannot be measured by the amount of money received. It must be measured by whether Sri Lanka can build an economy that produces more, exports more, saves more, is governed better, and protects its people more effectively. The real victory is not receiving IMF relief, but building a strong national economy that will not depend excessively on such relief in the future.

Public Appeal: Let Us Choose a Programme, Not a Personality

This US$695 million will not solve every problem in our country. It may provide temporary financial relief and support the continuation of reforms, but it cannot replace the hard work required to build a productive, disciplined, inclusive, and self-reliant economy.

Therefore, this is the right time for all Sri Lankans to rise above narrow political loyalties and support a clear policy direction, a practical reform programme, and a long-term national development agenda — not merely an individual, a party, or a political camp. What Sri Lanka needs today is not the victory of a personality, but the victory of a responsible national programme that can restore confidence, protect the vulnerable, promote production, strengthen exports, ensure accountability, and secure a better future for the next generation. The question before us is simple but decisive: are we ready to make that choice?

by Prof. Ranjith Bandara,
PhD (Qld.,)

Continue Reading

Trending