News
President resists independent review by CC of his nominees to high posts – Lawyers’ Collective
The Lawyers’ Collective (LC) has strongly condemned what it calls President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s attempt to intimidate the Constitutional Council of Sri Lanka.LC has said in a media statement: “The Lawyers’ Collective strongly condemns the recent attempt by President Wickremesinghe to intimidate the Constitutional Council of Sri Lanka. In an authoritarian move, on 23 November 2023, President Wickremasinghe in an address to Parliament entirely misrepresented the constitutional purpose of the Constitutional Council by stating that the ‘Council falls under the Executive’. The heavy handed and dangerous public comments of the President constitute a serious undermining of constitutionally imposed checks and balances in the governance of the country.
“The Constitutional Council (CC) was originally established by the 17th amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka in the year 2000 to vet presidential nominees to high posts prior to appointments being made by the President. The 19th Amendment re-established the Council. The 18th and 20th Amendments brought by Rajapaksa administrations abolished the CC as a means of regaining untrammelled powers of the Executive Presidency. Presently, the Council – now under the 21st amendment to the Constitution, is made up of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, one Member of Parliament appointed by the President, five persons appointed by the President as nominated; one Member of Parliament nominated by agreement of the majority of the Members of Parliament representing the Government; one Member of Parliament nominated by agreement of the majority of the Members of Parliament of the political party or independent group to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs; three persons nominated by the Speaker by agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and one Member of Parliament nominated by agreement of the Members of Parliament other than those representing the Government and those belonging to the political party or independent group to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, and appointed by the President. Three persons of those nominated by the speaker by agreement of the PM and Leader of the Opposition are to be persons of integrity, who have distinguished themselves in public life and who are not members of any political party.
“The Council was conceived in response to the largely unchecked powers of the President (a design of the 1978 Constitution) in making appointments to high posts such as Chief Justice, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Judges, the Attorney General, Auditor General, Inspector General of Police, Secretary General of Parliament and the independent Commissions. The Council is a means of achieving national consensus on appointments that require persons of merit, integrity and acceptance across political divides to temper public perceptions of bias and partiality.
The Council was an integral step in depoliticising high public posts. It was also a leap in constitutional development towards securing public accountability and rebuilding public trust in key institutions. Since the Council was established, the executive has from time to time resisted the check placed on it by various means. There has been non-appointment of members and constitutional amendments that abolished the Council, one which replaced it with a rubber stamp Parliamentary Council. Many Presidents have struggled to abide by the high standards imposed by the Constitution.
“President Wickremesinghe, who heralded the 21st Amendment as a return to accountable governance has, by his recent statements in and outside of parliament, crossed a line. In an outrageous move, the President publicly found fault with the Council for failing to approve his nominee to the Supreme Court and his continuing requests to reappoint the current IGP long after his age of retirement. The Constitutional Council is fulfilling its obligations in refusing this reappointment.
He also makes broad claims that the lack of approval has resulted in the police not functioning and the courts coming to a standstill. The President’s decision to appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee to probe into ‘delays’ by the CC constitutes a threat to the members of the Constitutional Council who are constitutionally mandated to deliberate on and independently decide on whether or not a presidential nominee will be approved. If only one candidate is nominated and CC approval is not given, he must hasten to place one or more better suited candidates for approval. He cannot expect to nominate one person and when the CC cannot endorse such person, resort to public complaints and threats against the Council. In fact, it demonstrates the President to disregard of clear constitutional limitations on his executive powers.
“The Lawyer’s Collective notes the growing authoritarianism of a President who serves without a mandate from the people. People’s sovereignty as articulated by the Constitution cannot be flippantly dismissed. This has been powerfully stated in several Supreme Court decisions including a majority decision delivered last week on the economic crisis.
By several previous statements we have raised concerns that the damage to public trust is long lasting. In the wake of an economic and political crisis, and people having expressed their strong desire for change, the conduct of the President signals a failure to break away from undemocratic governance practices of the past, breaching his own pledge of support for the 21st Amendment.
“It is vital that the corporate sector as well as the international community including the International Monetary Fund take grave notice of the growing authoritarianism of the President and the impact it has on good governance and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. If this authoritarian trajectory of the President continues unchecked, it will only lead to political upheaval and further economic uncertainty.”
Signatories to the LC statement are: Upul Jayasuriya, President’s Counsel, Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel, Professor Savitri Goonesekere, Attorney-at-Law, Geoffrey Alagaratnam, President’s Counsel, M.A. Sumanthiran, President’s Counsel, Dulindra Weerasooriya, President’s Counsel, Dinal Phillips, President’s Counsel, Saliya Pieris, President’s Counsel, S.T. Jayanaga, President’s Counsel, Nalin Dissanayake, President’s Counsel, Lal Wijenayake, Attorney-at-Law, Professor Deepika Udagama, Professor Camena Gunaratne, Upul Kumarapperuma, Attorney-at-Law, K.W. Janaranjana, Attorney-at-Law, Srinath Perera, Attorney-at-Law, Akalanka Ukwatta, Attorney-at-Law, Ermiza Tegal, Attorney-at-Law and Manoj Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law
News
Removing monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
The Mahanayaka Theras of all Nikayas have protested against Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) General Secretary Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera, who is serving a prison sentence for contempt of court, being produced before court in civilian attire.
In a letter to the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Mahanayaka Theras have said they were surprised and concerned by the decision to remove the monk’s robes.
The letter has been signed by Most Ven. Thibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera of the Malwatu Chapter, Most Ven. Warakagoda Sri Gnanarathana Thera of the Asgiri Chapter, Most Ven. Karagoda-Uyangoda Maithri Murthi Thera of the Amarapura Maha Nikaya and Most Ven. Makulawe Sri Wimala Thera of the Ramanna Maha Nikaya.
The Mahanayaka Theras have said they respect the Constitution and the judicial process, but maintained that removing a monk’s robes or ending his status as a member of the Buddhist Order is a matter that should be decided by the Maha Sangha.
They have said the relevant Sangha Council has not determined that Ven. Gnanasara Thera committed a Parajika offence or any other offence warranting his removal from the Buddhist Order.
The Mahanayaka Theras have also referred to Regulation 550 of the Prison Standing Orders, which they say stipulates that convicted prisoners should not be taken to court in prison uniform and should be allowed to wear the type of clothing they normally wore before their conviction. In the case of a Buddhist monk, they have said, this means his monastic robes.
They also referred to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which provide for prisoners taken outside prison to be allowed to wear their own clothing or other unobtrusive clothing.
The Mahanayaka Theras have requested the Commissioner General of Prisons to allow Ven. Gnanasara Thera to wear his robes when appearing in court and to maintain his status as a monk while he remains in prison.
Prisons authorities have said that the clothing decision was made under prison regulations, and the Prisons Department has stated that prisoners serving sentences of more than three years are required to wear prison-issued clothing when produced before court.
News
NDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
The Committee on Public Finance has said that the actual losses suffered by the NDB bank are much more than what was initially reported. When compared with the initial disclosure made by NDB on 6 April 2026, the reported amount of the fraud had increased by Rs. 0.4 billion, from Rs. 13.2 billion to Rs. 13.6 billion, the committee said.
When compared with the amount disclosed by NDB on 26 June 2026, based on the interim report dated 22 June 2026, the additional amount of fraud is Rs. 60 million.
The has committee issued the following statement: The Committee on Public Finance recently summoned officials of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to Parliament to inquire into the financial irregularities identified at NDB Bank and the final audit report relating to the matter.
The Committee meeting, chaired by Member of Parliament Dr. Harsha de Silva, discussed irregularities identified in NDB Bank’s financial statements, shortcomings in the audit process, and the relevant audit reports.
The meeting was attended by Deputy Ministers Chathuranga Abeysinghe, Dr. Kaushalya Ariyaratne, and Nishantha Jayaweera, as well as Members of Parliament Attorney-at-Law Rauff Hakeem, Ravi Karunanayake, Ajith Agalakada, Nimal Palihena, Wijesiri Basnayake, M.K.M. Aslam, Champika Hettiarachchi, and Attorney-at-Law Lakmali Hemachandra.
The Committee also focused on the findings of the investigation conducted by the Sri Lanka Accounting and Auditing Standards Monitoring Board (SLAAMB), as well as the findings revealed through the investigation conducted by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP. In particular, the Committee inquired into the failure of the external auditors to identify irregularities in NDB Bank’s financial statements.
The accountability of senior management with regard to corporate governance and risk management in relation to the financial irregularities was also discussed.
As a significant proportion of NDB Bank’s shares are held by institutions representing public and state funds, the Committee also considered the potential impact of such financial irregularities on public funds and the general public.
The Committee also discussed the progress made by LankaPay in establishing a centralized fraud monitoring system to prevent fraud within the financial system. The need to strengthen fraud monitoring systems at the individual bank level to monitor transactions carried out within each bank was also emphasized.
Accordingly, the following observations are included in the final audit report concerning the financial irregularities at NDB Bank:
1. The audit covers the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2026. The audit report specifically identifies the financial impact arising from fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 13,639,664,684 (Rs. 13.6 billion).
2. According to the disclosure made on 29 September 2026, the financial impact arising from the fraudulent transactions is as follows:
· Rs. 1.5 billion for the period prior to 1 January 2025;
· Rs. 9.6 billion during 2025; and
· Rs. 2.5 billion for the quarter ended 31 March 2026.
3. Compared with the initial disclosure made by NDB on 6 April 2026, the reported amount of the fraud has increased by Rs. 0.4 billion, from Rs. 13.2 billion to Rs. 13.6 billion. Compared with the amount disclosed by NDB on 26 June 2026, based on the interim report dated 22 June 2026, the additional amount of fraud is Rs. 60 million.
4. The final audit report has also confirmed the previous disclosures that no customer accounts were affected as a result of the fraud incident.
5. The report has identified several governance failures at NDB relating to the processing of CEFT transactions, user-level activities within the Core Banking System, and the management of user credentials and access information. In addition, shortcomings have been identified in several operational areas, including transaction monitoring, daily account reconciliation, financial compliance, internal audit, branch network management, and operational risk management.
The audit report has made comprehensive recommendations to strengthen the control mechanisms, governance structures, and processes relating to the above-mentioned activities of the bank.
News
President orders review of laws on treatment of imprisoned monks
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has ordered the formation of a committee to review the laws and regulations on how Buddhist monks serving prison sentences are treated, including the procedures that apply when they are taken out of prison.
He revealed this at a special meeting with Maha Sangha representatives held yesterday (8) at the Presidential Secretariat. The meeting was called after concerns were raised over how Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera was treated when he was taken from prison to court.
The committee will recommend amendments to existing laws and, where needed, new prison standing orders and regulations. Its members will be drawn from the Attorney General’s Department, the Ministries of Justice, Public Administration, and Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, and the Department of Prisons, including the Commissioner General of Prisons. It has been given two weeks to review the current legal provisions and submit its recommendations. The President added that any changes specific to Buddhist monks would be made in consultation with the Maha Sangha.
Outlining the legal background, the President said prison administration was governed by the Prisons Ordinance of 1877, along with the regulations and standing orders issued under it. That framework mostly addressed prisoners in general, he said, and had few provisions dealing specifically with Buddhist monks.
The meeting was attended by senior Maha Sangha members representing the Siyam, Amarapura and Ramanna Nikayas, along with Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs Hiniduma Sunil Senevi and Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara.
-
Features5 days agoThe first woman in the foreign service or Ceylon Overseas Service it was then called
-
Editorial6 days agoFuelling discontent and protest
-
News4 days agoGeneva takes up Sallay’s case and govt. ignores opportunity to answer accusations
-
Foreign News6 days agoTen injured after car crashes into rugby supporters in Australia
-
News5 days agoNearly 20 Iranian tankers stranded off Lanka amid US sanctions
-
Latest News6 days agoTharindu Rathnayake, bowlers secure Asian Games Bronze for Sri Lanka
-
Features4 days agoSri Lanka Cricket Bill: Governance reform is not yet a cricket strategy
-
News5 days agoLanka enters new phase of prosecutions as hurdles clear
