Features
Momentous events in Parliament
(Continued from last week)
Chapter 27
A 33 YEAR JOURNEY in PARLIAMENT COMES TO AN END
As I was reaching the age of retirement of 60 years, I felt it was a part of my official duties to call on H.E. the President D.B.Wijetunga to say farewell. Having received an appointment, I called on him. He greeted me very warmly saying “Nihal, why are you trying to leave us?” I promptly replied that at the age of 60, there was no option left to me. I must add that by this time, there had grown a great bond of friendship between us. This arose as a result of President Premadasa falling victim to an assassin bomb at Armour Street on May 1st, 1993. It was my duty to inform the House of this tragic accident. Since there was a vacancy in the Office of President, I as the returning officer under the law, would be receiving nominations from Members for the vacant post and fixed a day for the next Sitting of the House to receive nominations. The Government had by then decided that it was Mr. Wijetunga who was to be their nominee.
Mr. Wijetunga quite elated by the news of his nomination consulted me on many occasions as to how an election would be held and the procedure. I even recall him visiting me in my simple home in Havelock Road, to have a chat with me. Mr. Wijetunga was very well known for his stark simplicity and charm.
On the appointed day in the House, I rose and asked for nominations. Mr. Wijetunga’s name was proposed by the Government and seconded. I then asked for any other name. The SUP had decided not to propose a name and would support Mr. Wijetunga. As there were no other names proposed, after waiting for a few minutes, I declared Mr. Wijetunga elected unanimously as the new President of Sri Lanka. He was overjoyed and thanked me for all my help.
So, at our final meeting he said very cordially, “Nihal, you have over 30 year’s full-fledged experience in Parliamentary matters. We cannot allow you to leave.” I replied, “Sir, this is determined by the Constitution and there is no option for me.” He replied quickly, “‘Mere is a procedure in the Constitution for your term to be extended by moving a Motion in the House and we can get it through”. I said, “No, Sir. That would not be proper and you would be breaking tradition.” I added, “Sir, my Deputy is perfectly qualified to succeed me,” and added in jest, “Sir, he is a good Kandyan too and you should like him more.”
The President then chatted and asked me what my plans were and I replied “Nothing at present, but I will like some leisure time.” He then asked me if I was willing to accept a diplomatic assignment abroad and I thanked him sincerely for his kindness and replied that I would prefer to be with my wife and children here in Sri Lanka. After some more conversation, I took leave of him.
In Parliament, my staff had organized a farewell for me. It was attended by the then Speaker M.H. Mohamed, Deputy Speaker Gamini Fonseka, my two Deputies-Bertram Tittawella, Priyanee Wijesekara and most of the 800 plus staff.
Speeches were made by the above and a few other members of the staff, to which I replied to them for their kind words and thanked them for the full support given to me in running this vast establishment of over 800 and without their cooperation and help I could not have succeeded in my endeavors. On behalf of the entire staff, the Hon. Speaker was kind enough to hand over few generous gifts which I accepted with gracious thanks. After refreshments were served, all 800 plus of us sat for a group photograph outside Parliament.
My final farewell had been fixed for June 8th, 1994. Hansard of that day records as follows:-
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the House, before you move this Motion, may I have the permission of the House to invite Mr. S.N. Seneviratne to take his seat at the table? Does the House agree? Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Seneviratne may be invited to the Chamber.
(Whereupon Mr. S.N. Seneviratne, having been escorted into the Chamber took his seat.)
Hon. Wijayapala Mendis — Minister of Transport and Highways and Leader of the House of Parliament:
“Mr. Speaker, I move, That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Mr. Sand Nihal Seneviratne on his retirement from the Office of the Secretary General of Parliament, an expression of the deep sense of appreciation of the Members of Parliament for the valuable services performed by him as Second Clerk Assistant and Clerk Assistant of the House of Representative, Deputy Secretary General of Parliament and Secretary-General of Parliament over a period of 33 years, particularly in regard to his wide knowledge of Parliamentary procedures and practices; their sincere thanks for the assistance and advice given by him and their recognition of the unswerving dedication with which he has discharged his responsibilities and the noteworthy contribution he has made to the several Associations of Parliamentarians both within, as well as, outside the Commonwealth”.
The Hon. Leader of the House Hon Wijayapala Mendis made a lengthy speech followed by Mr. K.B. Ratnayake, followed by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister, Minister of Industries, Science and Technology. Others who joined to pay tribute were Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena, Mr. V.Anandasangaree, Mr. Mavai Senathirajah, Dr. Wimal Wickremasinghe, Minister of Environment and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Maithripala Senanayake, Mr. Richard Pathirana Al Haj S.S.M. Abu Bakar, Mr. P.P. Devaraj, Mr. C.V. Gooneratne, Mr. Ananda Dassanayake, Mr. U.B. Wijekoon, Mr. Dharmasiri Senanayake, Mr. Mangala Moonesinghe, A.H.M. Azwer.
Mr. Speaker finally ended the Proceedings thus: “I thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for jointly moving this Vote of Appreciation of the services of the retiring Secretary-General Mr. Nihal Seneviratne after nearly 33 years in Parliamentary service. Quite a lot has been said about Mr. Seneviratne and his services to Parliament during his three decades of service in various senior positions. I wish to join the Hon. Members who in their speeches referred to the untiring services Mr. Seneviratne has rendered particularly during his time as Secretary-General. I knew Mr. Seneviratne from the time he was Deputy Secretary General in Parliament. He has been a great source of help who was well versed in Parliamentary procedures. The job of a Secretary-General is not an easy one. One will have to adjust temperamentally to the needs of all the Hon. Members at various levels. Mr. Seneviratne did this job well. I have also had many Secretaries who worked under me and are proud to say that Mr. Seneviratne was one of the best. May I now wish Mr. and Mrs. Seneviratne all the very best, good health and prosperity?. I now take great pleasure, on behalf of the House, to present a token of appreciation, this souvenir to Mr. Seneviratne.”
Sittings were over around 12.00 noon and soon after a group photograph of all the Members present along with my self was taken. I bowed out soon after for the last time, saying adieu to the place where I had spent 33 memorable years.
Given the volatility of Sri Lankan politics, there were many momentous events within Parliament which I was privy to. Looking back, I can say that there was never a dull moment While there were ups and downs, great accomplishments, and terrible tragedies for the country, seeing up close and personal the men and women who trod the country’s political landscape during those three and half decades gave me a unique insight into the personal side of larger-than-life public figures, put me at odds with some powerful politicians and earned the respect of many. While I now remember those days with fondness, I feel privileged to have played a role in my quiet and resolute manner to stir the Legislature in the right direction during my time. It was not a career I ever planned for, nor was there any indication in my early life that one day I would be thrust into the center of many momentous and historic events in the country and at times be the cynosure of all eyes. It has indeed been a long journey, one that I feel deeply privileged to have trod.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN SRI LANKA
Although institutions of democratic nature have existed in Sri Lanka from ancient times, the Westminster type of parliamentary government was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1948 after independence from British rule. The post-independence Soulbury Constitution of 1948 provided a legislature comprising 101 members, the Governor-General and two Houses – the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 1972, Sri Lanka was declared a Republic. The republican Constitution of 1972, while retaining the Cabinet form of Government provided for a unicameral legislature called the National State Assembly and a nominated President. The present Constitution which came into operation in September 1978 has created a Presidential System of Government within a parliamentary framework. The Parliament of Sri Lanka which was also the First Parliament under the new Constitution consists of 168 members. At the General Election held in 1989, 196 members were elected on the Proportional Representation (PR) system which has been written into the 1978 Constitution and is a significant departure from the earlier first-past-the-post or Westminster System for election. With 29 MPs appointed through the National List, Parliament today consists of 225 members.
Parliament is elected for a period of five years since the introduction of the 19th Amendments to the Constitution in 2015.Prior to that, the term of Parliament was six years. The life of Parliament is divided into sessions with each usually lasting one year. At the opening for each session, the President’s Statement of Government Policy to Parliament outlines the government’s broad policies and proposed legislative programmes. Each Session is terminated by a Prorogation.
In the Republic of Sri Lanka, sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of Government, fundamental rights, and the franchise. Parliament and the President who exercise the People’s sovereignty are the supreme instruments of State power. Parliament exercises the legislative and judicial powers of the People and the President the executive powers. The judicial powers, however, have to be exercised by Parliament through the courts, tribunals and institutions established by the Constitution and by law. In the discharge of its functions Parliament and its members are fortified by certain privileges , immunities and powers relating to which Parliament may exercise the judicial powers directly according to law and punish any person who commits a breach of privilege.
Sri Lanka has practiced representative democracy since 1833 and enjoyed Universal Franchise since 1931. Close to a century of exercise of the right to Universal Franchise has imbued in our people a keen political awareness and educated them the a process of the working of Parliamentary democracy.
As the supreme legislative authority in the country, Parliament has power to make laws, including repealing and amending existing laws, amending, or adding new provisions to the Constitution. Laws pertaining to the Constitution have to be passed by a two third majority of the whole number of MPs including those not present. The amendment to certain Articles in the Constitution however must receive the approval of the people at a referendum. Parliament cannot enact laws suspending the operation of the Constitution or any part thereof or repealing the Constitution, unless such a law also enacts a new Constitution to replace it.
The Constitution also lays down Directive Principles of State Policy to guide Parliament , the President, and the Cabinet of Ministers to govern and enact laws for the establishment of a free and just society in Sri Lanka. By these principals, the State is sworn to establish a democratic , socialist society that will ensure the full realization of the fundamental rights and freedoms of its people.
Parliament cannot abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power and cannot set up any authority with legislative power. No court or tribunal can question on any ground the validity of legislation enacted by Parliament. However, before the enactment of such legislation, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be invoked by any citizen.
Another principal function of Parliament is to scrutinize government policy and administration, particularly proposals for raising revenue and for expenditure. Parliament has full control over public finance and it alone authorizes taxes and duties to be levied and the various objects of expenditure. The Cabinet of Ministers is charged with the direction and control of the government and is collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.
The Speaker is the representative and spokesman of Parliament in its collective capacity. He presides over sittings of Parliament and interprets and enforces Standing Orders. In his absence the Deputy Speaker and in their absence the Deputy Chairman of Committee presides over sittings of Parliament and performs the functions of the Speaker.
The head of the Parliament staff is the Secretary General of Parliament who is appointed by the President. The members of his staff are appointed by him with the approval of the Speaker.
The party system is a vital component of Parliamentary democracy and the organization of political parties represented in Parliament as Government and Opposition help to ensure that all aspects and viewpoints of matters placed before Parliament are duly considered before any decision is taken. The Government Group is organised under the Leader of the House and the Chief Government Whip. The leader of the Party in the Opposition with the largest number of members is recognized as the Leader of the Opposition. It also has its Chief Whip. The Leader of the Opposition is accorded the status and given the emoluments of a Cabinet Minister and provided with a separate staff, office, accommodation, official residence, and vehicle. The other parties in the Opposition, at their discretion, may come under the Whip of the Opposition.
The detailed arrangement of government business and the allocation of time for debate is decided at meetings of the Committee on Parliamentary business. It consists of the Speaker as Chairman, the Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the House, Chief Government Whip, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Opposition Whip, and the leaders of the other parties.
The Sri Lanka Parliament has a strong and active Committee system comprising legislative Standing Committees, Select Committees and Committees for Special Purposes such as the Committee on Standing Orders, on Public Accounts, on Parliamentary Business, on Privileges, on Public Enterprisers and on Public Petitions.
The Parliament also by law provides for the establishment of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman), empowered with the duty of investigating complaints and allegations of the infringement of fundamental rights and other injustices of maladministration,when asked to do so by the Public Petitions Committee of Parliament, to which petitions-presented by Members of Parliament, on behalf of members of the public, are rereferred. The Ombudsman’s powers of investigation extend to administrative actions by Central Government, and Local Government’s departments and corporations . The Ombudsman has access to departmental papers and reports findings to Parliament. The Ombudsman is appointed by the President.
The Committee of Public Petitions has assumed a great deal of importance after the creation of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for administration because all matters going before the Commissioner have to be referred to him by the Public Petitions Committee. Grievances of citizens presented by Members in the form of petitions to Parliament and approved by the Speaker as conforming to Standing Orders are referred to the PPC. If the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner, such petitions are referred to him by the PPC. In other cases, the Committee itself will inquire into the petition for which purpose it has been given powers to summon and question any person and call for papers and documents and to have access to stores and property. Since the Ombudsman started functioning there has been a great increase in the number of petitions presented to Parliament.
The privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament have been embodied in the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act. Apart from specifying the offences which are termed breaches of privilege, this Act declares and defines the privileges and immunities of the Parliament and its members. All questions of privilege have to be first discussed with the Speaker in his Chambers and then raised in the House. If the Speaker is satisfied there is a prime facie case, he would advise that the matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges. The practice in such cases has been for the Leader of the House to move a Motion referring the matter to the Committee. Although Parliament as a body can hear evidence and decide on matters of privilege, the practice is to refer it to the Committee which will in turn report back on whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed and make recommendations regarding what should be done.
There is also a system of consultative committees, each of these corresponding to the number of Ministries in the Cabinet. The Chairman of the Consultative Committee is the minister in charge of the functions and subjects which the Committee has been empowered to consider . Each Consultative Committee reflects as far as possible the party composition in Parliament. Parliament or the Minister who chairs the Committee can refer to it any matter for inquiry and report including proposals for legislation, supplementary or other estimates, statements of expenditure , motions, annual reports and papers. A Consultative Committee also has the power to initiate a Bill or Motion through the Chairman. It also provides members with a means of raising matters pertaining to their electorates.
With the amended Standing Orders adopted in March 2018, a few new committees have been established including the Committee on Public Finance, the Committee on Constitution Affairs, Liaison Committee, and the Backbenchers Committee.
In addition to that, Sectoral Oversight Committees, numbering not more than 20, have been set up and they have the power to examine any Bill, any subsidiary legislation including Regulation, Resolution, Treaty, Report, or any other matter relating to subjects and functions within their jurisdiction.
Apart from the passing of laws, an important function of Parliament is to provide a forum for Members to raise matters of public importance, to discuss Government policy and to air public grievances. They have the facility to raise questions from Ministers as well as initiate adjournment motions to discuss matters of public importance.
Any speech made in Parliament is recorded in the Official Report of parliamentary debates, the Hansard, in the language in which it was spoken. Members are free to speak in Sinhala, Tamil or English with simultaneous translations provided in all languages.
by Nihal Seneviratne ✍️
Advocate of the Supreme Court
Retired Secretary General of Parliament
(From Memories of 33 years in Parliament)
Features
BRICS upholds inclusive growth; re-affirms South-South cooperation
A principal highlight of the recently concluded BRICS 2026 summit in New Delhi was the grouping’s unambiguous championing of the empowerment of ordinary people everywhere. This was yet another notable coming together of Southern governments over matters of common concern alright but it was the grouping’s people-oriented thinking that struck the impartial commentator as particularly important this time around.
The latter accent merits underscoring in view of the widespread perception that Southern oriented international organizations, such as the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), have had their day, so to speak. However the BRICS summit not only re-affirmed NAM principles but gave proof of its willingness to complement the main undertakings of NAM. Accordingly, causes such as South-South cooperation, international economic and social equity, multilateralism, international peace and the need to uphold the current UN-centred world order received resounding and fresh emphasis.
Particularly encouraging for those espousing Southern development concerns was the stressing of the historic ‘Bandung Principles’ in the New Delhi Declaration which crowned the summit deliberations. As is known, it was the ‘Bandung Spirit’ of 1955 that paved the way for the establishment of NAM and South-South cooperation in a major way. As such the ‘Spirit’ was primary in helping to reshape international development discourse and in giving it a pro-people bent. That is, development correctly conceived was birthed.
The New Delhi Declaration said in this regard: ‘We recall the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia that proclaimed general principles, including equality, independence, non-intervention and mutual benefit. We stress that the Bandung Spirit serves as a reference in the pursuit of a fairer, more inclusive, and representative multilateral system.’
‘Geopolitics’ was not glossed over or ignored in New Delhi, but it is quite forgotten by some sections of opinion in particularly Sri Lanka that BRICS, while being an important Southern counter-balance in terms of power to the global North is also essentially about international economic growth with equity. The New Delhi summit helped to put right this conceptual imbalance in what groupings such as BRICS ought to be thinking and doing.
Even more precisely, people should be at the heart of development and in the exertions and preoccupations of international organizations claiming to represent the South. Southern governments equipped with economic and military might in particular remain important but it is people’s empowerment that ought to be the overriding consideration.
The latter concerns help stress the cruciality of democratic development since it is the latter that facilitates best the well being of people. Unfortunately, BRICS happens to be top-heavy with authoritarian governments that could deliver economic growth but not equity. It is fully representative, participatory governance that could best deliver to the people their essential needs and not totalitarian governments.
This is a complex dilemma for BRICS. It could be resolved somewhat by admitting more and more pro-people, democratic states into the BRICS fold to counter-balance the power and influence of authoritarian states. At present among the principal BRICS countries it’s only India that meets most of the criteria for democratic development.
Hopefully, more and more Southern democracies would see it fit to join BRICS in consideration of the latter’s potential to be a prime ‘economic powerhouse’ of the world. Equally hopefully, people’s empowerment in the true sense would come to be valued as a crucial merit for BRICS membership. It is relevant to stress that the fulfillment of the fundamental rights of a people is integral to their complete empowerment.
A grave negative fallout from the Trump administration’s current militarism is that more and more states world wide would come to value military heft over people’s empowerment. Consequently, the preference for military power could lead to countries wanting BRICS membership for the wrong reasons. That is, security through collective armed might would come to matter over all else and the world would be rendered an increasingly ‘dangerous place’.
But thinking people would expect from BRICS a more responsible role in world affairs and prefer to have from it inspirational guidance in democratic development, correctly understood.
A commitment by BRICS at the summit of considerable importance to world peace that should not be underplayed is its commitment to the UN system and the strengthening of International Law. The relevant quote from the Declaration spoke of BRICS’ ‘Commitment to strengthening multilateralism and multi-polarity and upholding International Law, including the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’
Coming at a time when the UN is seen by some as a spent force, lacking effectiveness, the above endorsement of the UN Charter and International Law is of crucial significance. This amounts to solidly upholding the post World War Two order despite current largely rhetorical assertions that it is fast unraveling.
While UN reform remains a compelling necessity, the endorsement of the UN-centred order holds out the possibility of some of the BRICS heavyweights, who are currently acting in violation of International Law, eventually getting back to conduct that would be more in keeping with the requirements of International Law.
The UN could put these developments to constructive use by redoubling its efforts to work out diplomatic solutions to the current conflicts and wars that are showing no signs of being receptive to fresh peace efforts.
Two of these theatres of conflict are the Middle East and the Ukraine. While the US, Israel, Russia and Iran would need to be engaged by the UN with exceptional persuasive power to sort out the conflicts where they have come to feature directly and indirectly, the relevant BRICS members’ commitments to world peace and multilateralism could be used as instruments of moral pressure perhaps to induce them to get onto the path of peaceful conflict resolution.
The wide consensus among the BRICS powers amounts to their scoring a significant political victory over the US and its allies. Their espousal of international peace and the UN Charter exposes the US as being at cross purposes with peace-oriented and democratic sections world wide. Specifically, the moral and intellectual poverty of the Trump administration is being revealed glaringly.
This does not amount to a condemnation of the people of the US perse. It is just that some of them have voted quite unwisely. As a first step towards correcting this situation they could make good use of the upcoming mid term elections to register their strong disapproval of the Trump administration and the political extremists among the US Right. Course correction is not impossible.
Features
Not I — We: A new uniform will mean nothing if the person inside it is left behind
by Mahil Dole
Senior Superintendent of Police (Retd.)
Sri Lanka Police has just marked 160 years. The parades were in order. The sentence that should have followed them has not been written with enough force. A police service that is pulled by politics, rewarded for individual glory and tried every night on social media cannot protect a country that is now a maritime hinge for international narcotics and financial crime. The political authority must decide, not in a speech, but in conduct, whether this force belongs to the law or to the loudest faction of the week.
That is not a plea. It is a warning.
The political hierarchy and the police hierarchy now agree that the service needs a new outlook, beginning with the uniform. The cut and the kit are not yet settled. That conversation is overdue. Criminals have moved into containers, encrypted apps and international logistics. An officer equipped for a quieter decade is less able to detect, and less able to come home.
Sophistication of kit is essential. Body-worn cameras, communications and protective equipment that match the threat are not luxuries. They keep a policeman alive.
If the first decision of this compact is only what the officer will wear, the wrapping will be modern and the person untouched. The priority is not a new silhouette. It is a different person inside the uniform.
The officer is a human being
He and she is a product of this complicated society. The fractures that run through the village, the school and the social-media feed run through the recruit. Communal suspicion, religious identity and ethnic memory are not checked at the armoury gate. The question treated as delicate is operational: is this officer mentally geared for ordinary crime and for communal, religious and ethnic conflict?
What is his stand if he belongs to one community and is sent into a dispute involving another? How will the parties look at him? How will the media frame the first photograph? That decides whether a crowd sees the law or “the other side.” We are all Sri Lankans. The sentence is easy on a Police Day banner. It is hard at a junction when rumour is already ahead of the patrol.
Every officer, from constable to gazetted rank, must be trained for these issues as deliberately as for a baton. Not one lecture at Katukurunda: recurring, scenario-based work on mixed neighbourhoods, mixed complainants, and keeping personal faith out of the method of work. The media will hunt the communal angle; parties to a conflict will hunt the ethnic one. The only answer that holds is an officer whose first identity on duty is Sri Lankan and whose first loyalty is the law.
That is “We.” Assuming the uniform dissolves identity is how a single incident becomes a national story.
What they have been is not what they can remain
From the 1866 ordinance this service has been the state’s civilian arm, colonial order-keeping, post-independence law and order, then a wartime partner that buried its dead beside the armed forces. Specialised units were built for terrorism, organised crime and financial intelligence. The same institution was used as a residual army, a political instrument and a promotion marketplace. Loyalty too often attached to a person, not to the law. Easter Sunday made the price visible. So did every file that moved, or stalled, according to who was in office.
A history of sacrifice does not excuse a present of capture. It makes the capture more shameful.
What they are today
On paper the force is large, some 79,000 authorised, 609 stations. On the ground it is thin. More than 4,300 officers have left since 2020. Vacancies exceed 30,000. Shifts of twelve to eighteen hours are still treated as normal. Distress is still logged as discipline rather than welfare. That is waste, not toughness.
Crime has two faces, and both strike national security. Gang violence over narcotics still produces shootings. Sri Lanka also sits on feeder routes moving Afghan and Pakistani product toward other markets. Harbour and high-sea detections in the hundreds of kilograms are no longer rare. Ice hidden in towels at Colombo Port; heroin pulled from multi-day trawlers; scam compounds and frozen assets in the billions of rupees, these are not “ordinary crime.” They buy influence and fund the next consignment.
The third battlefield is information. Reels and anonymous accounts impersonate officers, launder rumour as fact, and reward the man who seeks a following. Inside the service the culture still teaches “I”: my file, my photograph, my briefing. Rank is being treated as a prize. It is a trust.
The container that became a campaign
Late August 2026, officers opened containers at the Colombo International Container Terminal and recovered some 463 to 472 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, concealed in towels, originating from Pakistan and valued in the billions of rupees. Suspects including foreign nationals were arrested. The United States DEA publicly associated itself with the intelligence. The criminal case sits with the Central Crime Investigation Bureau.
That is a success. It should have been protected as a success.
Instead, an internal process review, ordered by the Inspector General into how information moved between bureaux, was translated on social media into another story: that the IGP and Senior DIG Ranmal Kodituwakku were being “chambered” over the detection. An Opposition MP warned, correctly, that putting the officers who delivered the raid under a public microscope will teach the service the wrong lesson.
State the distinction without apology. A criminal file is about the network and the money. A process file is about timelines and chain of custody. A blog is neither. Collapsing a Senior DIG’s recorded statement into “the hierarchy is in the dock” is not accountability. It is a gift to those who packed the towels. After a half-tonne interdiction, a process review is normal; leaking it as a morality play is not. Complete the inquiry on the record. If negligence is found, deal with it. If not, say so. Half-spoken files let rumour colonise the institution.
Training, technology and a mind that can bear the load
The IGP and the hierarchy must stop treating training as a calendar ornament. Immediate programmes are required, not next year’s paper.
First
, the evolving issues: communal and religious tension, narrative operations, child and women protection, financial and cyber crime, harbour interdiction, the law of arrest.
Second
, the technologies: digital evidence, data protection under the Personal Data Protection Act, disciplined open-source work, body-worn cameras that protect the public and officers alike.
Third
, mental health as operational infrastructure, counselling an Inspector can use without becoming a Legal Division case, and early recognition of burnout before it becomes a headline.
Incentives must follow: allowances for certified competencies, promotion credit for courses applied, not for attendance photographs. Asking for sophistication at the port with no path to acquire it is theatre.
A new uniform that can carry a camera, worn by an officer unprepared for the society he polices, is a costume. The station, the cell, the unseen hour Look next at where this officer lives and works. Many stations are old, congested and unhygienic. Living standards on duty are low. You cannot demand a different person in the uniform and house him as if he were expendable.
Cells are a particular failure of command. Too many sit out of sight of the men on duty. They are dilapidated. What happens inside goes unnoticed until a death, an assault or an escape. That is a design of our own buildings, not a secret of the underworld. A cell that cannot be seen cannot be defended in court or in conscience. Refurbish, fix sightlines, monitor what the Constitution requires, and treat an escape as a failure of supervision before it becomes a press note.
These are not welfare extras. They are the conditions under which evidence is kept, suspects are held, and officers decide whether the job is still worth the family cost.
The health of the officer is the health of the public
One of the first duties of the hierarchy is the health of the policeman and his family. A sick officer with a sick child is not “uncommitted.” He is a risk to himself, to the next raid, and to the citizen at the counter. Police hospitals are few. Officers in rural stations cannot reach them in time. The IGP should not wait for a building programme. Speak to the health authorities now. Arrange priority access for officers and their families at government hospitals. Dedicated wards or reserved beds are not a privilege class. They are the minimum owed to people sent into harm, and into other people’s crises, at every hour.
Good health is a good mind. A good mind is good care for the people. No uniform compensates for an officer who has not slept, has not been treated, and cannot reach a Police hospital.
What they must be tomorrow
The country does not need more decoration. It needs a service the public can approach without fear and that no politician can casually redirect: intelligence-led against networks that threaten the state; digitally capable and legally bounded; trained for communal heat as well as narcotics; housed and treated as human beings; collectively minded. We hold the ground, not I cleared the file.
The constable at the junction and the analyst tracing a hawala chain are the same institution. National security is not a specialist’s private property.
To the policymakers and the political authority
You have agreed with the Police hierarchy on a new outlook. Use it for more than cloth.
Independence is not the IGP’s personal autonomy. It is the institution’s ability to apply the law without fear or favour, and still answer to the law. You cannot have that and also have a Police summoned, transferred or publicly undermined according to the needs of the week.
Appointment and removal of the Inspector General must remain a process, not patronage. The National Police Commission must exercise its powers over promotions, transfers and discipline without being hectored from the gallery. Cabinet sets policy and budget. It does not choose Tuesday’s suspect. Comment from the House on the guilt of named officers while a file is open is not oversight. It is interference under another name.
If you want an apolitical Police, stop using internal inquiry as a factional weapon and social media as a substitute bench. Different treatment of files is the old disease. Naming it only when the officer is someone you dislike is the same disease.
Then fund what a new uniform implies: immediate training, habitable stations, cells that can be seen, and a health arrangement with the Ministry of Health that does not leave a rural sergeant’s family outside the gate. Announcing kit and withholding living conditions is not reform. It is dressing the service for a photograph.
The public has a part. Distinguish error from crime. Cooperate with the officer who is fair; demand consequences where he is not. In conflict, look at the uniform as the law, not as a census of name, faith or village. Do not outsource judgement to an anonymous account.
The stand It is not I. It should be We.
A new uniform will not make an officer Sri Lankan. Training, health, housing, an apolitical file, and a command that treats him as a human being might. A service that thinks in individual glory will be outrun by networks that think in systems. A political class that thinks in capture will keep receiving detections and wondering why the pipeline never closes. A country that argues about the cloth while the person inside it is exhausted, untrained for communal fire, and unseen in a dilapidated cell block is not preparing for tomorrow. It is rearranging the wardrobe.
The law cannot serve two masters. Neither can the uniform, old or new.
(This analysis is offered in the interest of national security, institutional reform, and public safety)
Mahil Dole, SSP (Retd.), served as Deputy Director in charge of the Counter-Terrorism Desk of the State Intelligence Service and later as Intelligence Coordinator to the Inspector General of Police. He is a former Member of the Sri Lanka Wakfs Board and author of Security Beyond Enforcement: Practical Approaches for a Safer Nation. Email – mahildole54@gmail.com
Features
The Miss World 2026 scene …
History was made under the lights on 05th September, as Joheirry Mola Dominguez, of the Dominican Republic, was crowned Miss World 2026 by outgoing queen Suchata Chuangsri of Thailand at April 2nd Square in Nha Trang, Vietnam.
It is only the second Miss World title for the Dominican Republic; 44 years after Mariasela Álvarez’s win in 1982. Reports described it as an “emotional and historic moment” for the nation.
Joheirry, 24, beat 110 other delegates to take the crown.
A dedicated educator and community advocate, she holds a degree in Business Management and Administration from Universidad Iberoamericana. She is Founder and President of “Voices of Tomorrow”, an initiative expanding access to English education for children in vulnerable communities. She also teaches Literature and Social Studies in English, and works as a correspondent for Univision New York’s Ventana a Quisqueya.

Her advocacy won hearts
It was her advocacy that won hearts.
“My Beauty With a Purpose is to take English programmes to kids in vulnerable communities,”
she said at the Grand Final. “Because I believe that when they know this language, the opportunities, the doors that can open to their life, it’s huge. English is a tool that will stay with them and benefit them for the rest of their lives.”
Spain’s Elisabeth Reynés finished 1st Runner-Up, while Malaysia’s Taanusiya Chetty, also winner of Beauty With a Purpose, took 2nd Runner-Up.
The Top 6 included Vietnam’s Le Nguyen Bao Ngoc, Eritrea’s Snit Habteab, and South Africa’s Romanda Hombir.
The 75th Anniversary edition, hosted for the first time in Vietnam, was a spectacle before 20,000 spectators. Staged on a 110+ meter outdoor platform by Nha Trang beach, the square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound.
Even heavy rain during the Americas & Caribbean segment couldn’t dampen spirits. Umbrellas and raincoats popped up and the show resumed 15 minutes later. Nobody left. That’s dedication.
With 111 ambassadors, cultural dances, ao dai performances, and the seaside backdrop, officials called it a celebration of beauty, talent, confidence, and social responsibility.
With 20,000 people, rain or shine, screaming, cheering, live-streaming, waving flags… it was, indeed, pure Miss World magic.
For Sri Lanka, Prathibha Liyanaarachchi did not make the Top 40 at the 73rd Miss World Festival, but she reached the finalist stages of four fast-track events — Top Model, Talent, Sports, and Beauty With a Purpose.

Miss World magic: The square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound
-
Sports6 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News6 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Latest News6 days agoShafali, Deepti power India into sixth T20 Asia Cup final
-
Latest News6 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
News4 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News5 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
-
Editorial6 days agoA flight of fancy
-
News5 days agoGreen Climate Fund (GCF) Regional Dialogue for East and South Asia will be held from 14 to 17 September 2026 at Cinnamon Life at City of Dreams Hotel, Colombo
