Thursday 8th January, 2026

The JVP/NPP leaders seem to have forgotten that serving justice for the Easter Sunday terror victims was a central plank of their election platform in 2024. They delivered thunderous speeches replete with theatrics at election rallies, condemning the previous governments for their failure to trace the masterminds behind the Easter Sunday carnage. They garnered favour with the families of the Easter Sunday carnage victims and other seekers of justice to win elections. Sadly, a fresh probe, launched into the Easter Sunday terror attacks, following the 2024 regime change, has been relegated to the back burner for all intents and purposes, and the government leaders have the audacity to give evasive answers when they are questioned on vital issues pertaining to the investigations into the Easter Sunday terror attacks. What transpired in Parliament yesterday is a case in point.

SJB MP Nizam Kariapper asked Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. (retd.) Aruna Jayasekera why four military intelligence officers who served under the latter when he was the Security Forces Commander in the Eastern Province, in 2019, had not been arrested and grilled in connection with the Easter Sunday terror attacks although the police had identified them as suspects. Jayasekera said he would not answer that question as investigations were still on. SJB MP Mujibur Rahman asked Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala a question about Sara Jasmine or Pulasthini Mahendran, the widow of Mohammed Hashtun, who carried out a suicide bomb attack on St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya in 2019. Claiming that she had fled to India and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa himself had vouched for that fact when he was in the Opposition, Rahman demanded to know why the government had neither obtained an arrest warrant for her nor taken up the issue of her escape to India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indian Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. Minister Wijepala’s reply was that there was no conclusive evidence that Sara had fled to India and a warrant would be obtained, if necessary.

MP Rahman’s claim about Dr. Jayatissa’s averment that Sara fled to India should be viewed against a very serious allegation made by Dr. Jayatissa, as a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed the Easter Sunday carnage. In an interview with BBC in 2019, Dr. Jayatissa declared that according to ‘investigative evidence’ he was privy to, India had been behind the Easter Sunday terror attacks. So, why the NPP government has not taken up the issue of Sara’s disappearance with India is the question. Minister Wijepala’s claim that there is no credible evidence to prove that Sara is in India is not convincing. Is the NPP government wary of taking up that issue with New Delhi lest it should antagonise the Indian leaders?

The incumbent government cannot be expected to allow the aforesaid four military intelligence officers to be arrested or even questioned as it does not want to open a can of worms. There is a clear case of conflict of interest where those intelligence operatives and Jayasekera are concerned. The same is true of Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, retired SDIG Ravi Seneviratne, and CID Director, retired SSP Shani Abeysekera. The CID, which was under Seneviratne and Abeysekera in 2019, has come under fire for its failure to prevent the Easter Sunday terror attacks and properly investigate terrorist activities in the Eastern Province, particularly the execution-style killing of two policemen in Vavunathivu, a few months before the carnage. The conflict of interest at issue has had a corrosive effect on the integrity of ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday attacks.

It is imperative that a serious effort be made to arrest Sara, who was privy to the inner workings of the National Thowheed Jamaath, which carried out the Easter Sunday attacks, and therefore can reveal who actually masterminded the carnage. After all, the JVP/NPP leaders pledged to unravel the truth about the Easter Sunday bombings swiftly and have justice served expeditiously.

Wednesday 7th January, 2026

The lessons of history often go unlearnt in Sri Lankan politics, defined by policy contradictions and about-turns. The NPP government is planning to relaunch a risky mission that a powerful regime once had to abandon for fear of a backlash. Yesterday, Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe told Parliament that the NPP government had given thought to introducing a pension scheme for the private sector workers because the current lump-sum Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) payments did not help achieve the desired social security goals. The government apparently had him send a trial balloon in the House. Going by what he outlined, the NPP government’s private sector pension plan is similar to the one that President Mahinda Rajapaksa unveiled in Budget 2011 and made an abortive attempt to implement.

Presenting Budget 2011, President Rajapaksa revealed his intention to set up what he described as an Employees’ Pension Fund, which curiously had the same initialism—EPF—as the Employees’ Provident Fund. He proposed contributions from employees and employers to the fund to be set up.

Every employer would be required to transfer gratuity payments to the proposed pension fund, President Rajapaksa said, noting that employees too would have to contribute two percent of their pension fund balance to be withdrawn; a private sector worker would have to contribute to the pension fund for a minimum of 10 years to qualify for a pension, and the fund would be managed by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.

The Rajapaksa government was planning to steamroller the Private Sector Pension Bill through Parliament in June 2011 to provide post-retirement monthly pension benefits to employees in the private and corporate sectors. A major point of contention was a provision that would have helped convert a portion of the Employees’ Provident Fund savings, paid as a lump sum upon retirement, into a monthly pension, effectively eliminating a significant part of the lump-sum payment option.

In an editorial comment on Budget 2011, we argued that the Rajapaksa government was playing with fire, and any attempt to implement the private sector pension scheme at the expense of the EPF or part of it would run into stiff resistance from workers. Intoxicated with power and impervious to reason, that regime tried to bulldoze its way through. Trade unions opposed the Bill tooth and nail, claiming that it aimed to end EPF lump-sum payments in respect of a portion of the accumulated funds, and replace it with a monthly pension starting at age 60, irrespective of the actual retirement age. An employee retiring at the age of 55 would have to wait five years to receive any benefits from that portion of his or her savings, the warring trade unionists argued, expressing concerns about those disadvantages and a lack of transparency about how the funds would be managed. The JVP was among the opponents of that controversial Bill. It was widely feared that the Rajapaksa government intended to use the large EPF asset base for other purposes.

The Rajapaksa government used force in a bid to overcome resistance, but in vain. In June 2011, mass protests erupted and a violent clash at the Katunayake Free Trade Zone, resulted in the death of a worker and forced the Rajapaksa government to suspend and eventually withdraw the ill-conceived Bill. The Rajapaksa regime accused the JVP of instigating violent protests against the Bill to advance a sinister political agenda. The withdrawal of the Bill helped bring the situation under control.

Ironically, the incumbent NPP government is trying to do what its main constituent, the JVP, together with workers, other Opposition parties and trade unions vehemently condemned the Rajapaksa administration for, about 15 years ago. Those who fail to learn from history are said to be doomed to repeat it.

Tuesday 6th January, 2026

The scourge of narcotics has eaten into the vitals of many institutions. Among those arrested and prosecuted for drug-related offences are some state employees including police officers. The proliferation of dangerous drugs has therefore come as no surprise. Juvenal’s famous rhetorical question comes to mind: “Who guards the guards?”

Thankfully, the police officers involved in the drug trade run the risk of having to face the full force of the law in case of being found out. The Police Department is considered one of the most corrupt state institutions in this country, but it makes a serious effort to rid itself of drug dealers among its members.

About 500 police officers are facing disciplinary action over drug-related offences, according to IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya. It is a matter of relief that the Police Department takes action against its own members. The Police Chief is reported to have said at a recent passing-out ceremony at the Sri Lanka Police College grounds in Anuradhapura that a considerable number of police officers have been dismissed for drug offences. This kind of self-correcting culture is rare in state institutions and should therefore be appreciated.

However, it is not only bad cops in the pay of drug dealers and other criminals who are suspended; good cops who courageously carry out their duties and functions and rile the politicians in power in the process also face disciplinary action or even termination instead of commendations and promotions.

The deplorable manner in which the police bigwigs throw their subordinates under the bus to appease their political masters has had a crippling impact on the morale of the police. One may recall the predicament of three police officers who took part in a raid on a cannabis plantation recently in Suriyakanda. The land where cannabis plants were found reportedly belongs to a family member of a ruling party MP, who together with a group of his party supporters set upon one of the police officers. The victim was hospitalised. The other officers were transferred. The police at the behest of their top brass unashamedly went so far as to arrest the assault victim and not the MP and his goons! Worse, the victim was suspended from service.

It has been reported that addressing the newly commissioned police officers at the aforementioned ceremony, Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala and IGP Weerasooriya emphasised the importance of professionalism, integrity and dedication for building a successful career in the police service. But in reality, these attributes alone do not help state officials achieve their career goals. The Acting Auditor General was overlooked when President Anura Kumara Dissanayake submitted nominees for the post of Auditor General to the Constitutional Council. He is the most eligible officer to head the National Audit Office, but he lacks what state officials need to secure top posts—political backing, which takes precedence over educational and professional qualifications and seniority in the public service.

A minister has come under a social media piranha attack, as it were, for referring to what may be described as an anti-effort workplace maxim: “More work, more trouble; less work, less trouble, and no work, no trouble.” What ails the state service is encapsulated in this one-liner, which is popular among shirkers in the public sector. It is only natural that ‘quiet quitting’ has become the norm in the highly-politicised state service where pleasing politicians is the way to climb the career ladder, as is public knowledge.

Many police officers have chosen to follow the aforesaid shirkers’ motto to avoid trouble. This may explain why a group of police officers just looked on while the JVP/NPP members were parking their buses in undesignated sections of the southern expressway on their way to the JVP’s May Day rally last year. If they had taken any action against the transgressors, they would have been transferred to faraway places.

It is only wishful thinking that a country without an independent state service can achieve progress.