Features

Presidential authority in times of emergency:A contemporary appraisal

Published

6 months ago

2025/12/18

‘The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka had recently to deal with this issue frontally (Ambika Satkunanathan v. Attorney General). This is a watershed decision because, for the first time in our legal history, the Supreme Court held that an Acting President of the Republic had violated the fundamental rights of the People, enshrined in the Constitution, by the declaration of a State of Emergency.’

Keynote Address Delivered at the International Research Conference of the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, on 12 December 2025.

1. The Policy Dilemma

One of the great challenges of modern public law is to reconcile traditional principles relating to the rule of law and the separation of powers with the exigencies of crises which threaten the destruction of society itself. To what extent must protective mechanisms developed by systems of law over the ages give way to the need for physical survival in the throes of life-threatening crises? What is the right balance to be struck, as a matter of public policy?

The classic statement is by John Locke, who insisted that, in emergencies, the government should have legally unfettered power “to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it” (Second Treatise of Government). This is an ancient idea which goes back to Roman times, when Cicero, in his famous oration, Pro Milone, declared: “Inter arma silent leges” (“Amid the clash of arms, the laws are silent”).

This received expression in the present century in the work of Carl Schmitt, who insisted that “The sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception” (Political Theology:Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty). According to him, not only is the sovereign’s authority untrammelled during emergency, but the declaration of emergency is his right alone, dependent solely on the exercise of his subjective judgment. This unqualified power springs from the supreme law of nature—-the safety of the people.

Judicial pronouncements across the world explicitly reflect this point of view. Justice Story, on behalf of the Supreme Court of the United States, famously declared: “The question arises, by whom is the exigency to be judged and decided? We are all of opinion that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons” (Martin v. Mott).In Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, Subba Rao CJ, speaking for the Supreme Court of India, observed: “The question whether there is grave emergency is left to the satisfaction of the Executive, for it is obviously in the best position to judge the situation”.

There is, however, equally emphatic opinion to the contrary. Khanna J, in a celebrated dissent, was scathing in his denunciation of the opposite approach: “The position would be that, so far as executive officers are concerned, in matters relating to life and personal liberty of citizens, they would not be governed by any law, they would not be answerable to any court, and they would be wielding more or less despotic powers” (Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla).

These competing postulates have been articulated with equal passion.

II. A Landmark Pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka had recently to deal with this issue frontally (Ambika Satkunanathan v. Attorney General). This is a watershed decision because, for the first time in our legal history, the Supreme Court held that an Acting President of the Republic had violated the fundamental rights of the People, enshrined in the Constitution, by the declaration of a State of Emergency.

The circumstances against the backdrop of which this historic ruling was made, are well known. A serious depletion of foreign reserves resulted in a severe shortage of basic amenities like fuel, cooking gas, electricity, staple food items, and medicine. In the context of an unprecedented default in the repayment of foreign loans and significant depreciation of the rupee, extended power cuts and galloping inflation led to acute economic hardship. These circumstances culminated in unrest on a scale never seen before on the Island.

Violence included the brutal murder of a Member of Parliament, the torching of residences of the Prime Minister and more than 70 other political personalities, forcible occupation of the Presidential Secretariat, the President’s official residence and the Office of the Prime Minister, with almost a million people gathered in Colombo demanding the resignation of the President. The elected President had fled the country, and a date had been set for an urgent meeting of Parliament to elect the President in accordance with procedure spelt out in the Constitution. An unruly mob had encircled Parliament, threatening to prevent this meeting from taking place. This was the situation in which Acting President Ranil Wickemesinghe declared a State of Emergency.

He did so in terms of provision in the Public Security Ordinance, which empowered him to take this action, if he was of opinion that this was “expedient in the interests of public security and the preservation of public order, or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community”(section 2).

The decision was that of a divided Supreme Court. The majority consisted of Murdu Fernando CJ and Yasantha Kodagoda J, while there was a vigorous dissent by Arjuna Obeyesekere J. The minority held that the circumstances warranted the opinion entertained by the Acting President, while the plurality declared themselves prepared to make this assumption. This, then, was common ground. The difference of opinion pertained to another vital issue.

Once the Acting President (hereinafter referred to as the President), had reached this conclusion, he had four optional courses of action available to him:

(i) He could have recourse to the routine law, principally the provisions of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to deal with the situation;

(ii) He could invoke Part III of the Public Security Ordinance, which would enable him to take particular actions such as calling out the Armed Forces to supplement the Police, prevent public gatherings on highways and in the vicinity of bridges and other specified locations, and declare curfew. These measures could be taken, short of proclamation of a State of Emergency;

(iii) He could take the “drastic step”, under Part II of the Public Security Ordinance, to bring into force the provisions contained within that section, in terms of which an Emergency could be declared, applicable to the whole Island;

(iv) While declaring an Emergency under Part II, he could confine its operation to particular parts of the Island.

This is where the difference of opinion between the plurality and the minority of the court manifested itself. The majority was of opinion that the President’s satisfaction relating to the existence of objective conditions justifying declaration of Emergency did not automatically entitle him to go the full length of bringing into being a nationwide Emergency under Part II, but obligated him further to consider whether measures of a more limited nature, contemplated by Part III, would be sufficient to deal effectively with the situation.Failure to do so, according to their ruling, would involve a breach of the Constitution.

By contrast, the minority was convinced that “Once the President has come to the conclusion that a state of public emergency exists, there is no purpose in mandating a consideration of other options”, and that “Requiring the President to embark on whether the ordinary laws or other various provisions or options would be adequate to deal with a public or national emergency, would be unreasonable and an unprecedented step”. On this basis, the minority held that the President’s actions were entirely within the Constitution, and entailed no liability for contravention of fundamental rights.

A great deal hinged, in practical terms,

on the divergence between these points of view.

III. Categories of Emergency: Uniform or Disparate Rules?

Contemporary trends in the law acknowledge marked differences in scale, intensity, and duration among types of emergency which precipitate varying degrees of government paralysis.

South African law incorporates one comprehensive definition of a State of Emergency, capable of invocation when “the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster, or other public emergency” (Constitution, Article 37(1)(a)). Preferable, by far, is the position under the Emergencies Act of Canada, which recognises four different kinds of emergencies— natural disasters, threats to public order, international emergencies, and states of war (Section 18(2)). This enables different degrees of Parliamentary scrutiny and control.

The Constitution of India provides another example of this approach. Article 352 envisages a threat to the security of India or any part of the country by reason of war, external aggression or armed rebellion, while Article 356 contemplates a failure of constitutional government in any Indian state, and the context of Article 360 is jeopardy to the financial stability or credit of India.

In the spectrum of gravity, peril to the very existence of the state, in the degree present in the Sri Lankan situation, attracts the highest concern. In circumstances of potential government breakdown, “facile distrust” is not the recommended counsel. The courts of India have cautioned that “When there is a crisis situation, it is necessary to trust the government with extraordinary powers in order to enable it to overcome such crisis” (Bhagvati J. in Shivakant Shukla).

Undue concern about a lawless situation, typified by unbridled executive power, is not realistic. Emergency legislation has rightly been characterized as “extra-legislative legislation”. Far from there being a legal vacuum, systems of law have furnished practical safeguards, while enabling public order to be maintained.

One of these is the imaginative “super-majority escalator” technique, characteristic of South African law. Only a simple majority of Parliament is required to approve a State of Emergency operative for a maximum period of 21 days, and to extend it up to 3 months. Beyond that, a 60% majority is compulsory for further extensions (Article 37). Here, then, is a successful reconciliation of competing objectives.

Article 16 of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic in France empowers the President to determine not only the sufficiency of conditions warranting the declaration of a State of Emergency, but also its appropriate duration. Restraints on Presidential power in France are weak because the President, although required to consult the Conseil Constitutionel (Constitutional Court), is not bound by its advisory opinion, in the event of contrary advice.

Relative amplitude of Presidential power in emergency situations in France has been justified by a prominent French jurist, François Saint-Bonnet, on the basis that the curtailment of emergency powers at the disposal of the Executive carries the risk of deprivation of the very tools which the government finds indispensable to combat the threat.

Germany’s Basic Law, although wary of emergency powers because of the harrowing experience of Article 48(2) of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic, which paved the way for the rise of Hitler, nevertheless does not balk at recognizing “internal emergencies” which enable intervention by the Executive, albeit subject to control by the Federal Parliament.

Constitutional provisions in different jurisdictions, irrespective of the approach selected, envisage substantial executive power in times of emergency, curtailed by surveillance on the part of the elected Legislature.

IV. Restraints on Judicial Intervention

The decided cases in many countries are replete with examples of indicia which concede to the Executive great latitude in these contexts. The recurring feature is the urging of restraint in the exercise of judicial review in keeping with a suitably benign construction, consistent with constitutional standards. This is reflected in unimpeachable academic authority, as well.

It has been insisted that executive decisions “should be taken seriously as a bona fide attempt to solve whatever social problem they set out to tackle”(Aileen Kavanagh).The caution has been administered that judges should exercise great caution before concluding that the government has violated constitutional rights(Prof. T. R. S. Allan) and,in public emergencies threatening the life of the nation, elected officials should be permitted “to err, if at all, on the side of safety”(Lord Bingham).The courts “should resist the temptation to substitute their own preferred solutions to questions of public policy”(Allan).

This is so, for a number of reasons. One of them is that the public authority is entitled to latitude because it has “a kind of responsibility to advance the public interest that a court does not have”(Brooke L.J.).This is reinforced by other considerations. For instance, possession of special expertise by the executive authority is an important factor.

The nature of the subject matter, for this very reason, has a vital bearing on the issue. Judges have been conscious that “the more political the question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution, and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision”(Lord Bingham).

A responsible and representative system of democratic governance brings into sharp focus “the degree of democratic accountability of the original decision maker, and the extent to which other mechanisms of accountability may be available”(Murray Hunt).Basic values of constitutionalism identify Parliamentary controls as infinitely preferable, in this regard, to judicial intervention.

This has to do with the nature and legitimate confines of the judicial function. Mirza Beg J, speaking for the Supreme Court of India, has candidly conceded that “the judicial process suffers from inherent limitations”(Shivakant Shukla).This is essentially because a court “can neither have full and truthful information, nor the means to such information”(Chandrachud J in Shivakant Shukla),especially in respect of classified information.

An absolute imperative is that the distinction between judicial review and substitution of judgment must be scrupulously observed. Admittedly contextual, this principle is of overriding significance because it is “wrong to expect executive bodies to replicate the style of analysis adopted by courts in determining allegations of violation of rights”(T. R. S. Allan).

It is crucial for the rule of law that the dividing line between these two distinct functions should not become inadvertently blurred. It is not necessary for the public authority to address itself to the same legal arguments as the court(Court of Appeal of England in the Begum case),the judicial function being restricted by the consideration that “the court is usually concerned with whether the decision maker reached his decision in the right way, rather than whether he got what the court might think to be the right answer”(Lord Hoffmann).

The raison d’etre underpinning executive intervention in these extraordinary situations should be constantly borne in mind. The reality is the absence of a practical substitute. “Neither the legislature nor the judiciary is capable of swift, energetic action, which leaves the executive by default as the authoritative body”(David Dyzenhaus).For this inescapable reason, there has been constant emphasis that executive actors “should not be deterred from engaging in the very activity needed,and contemplated, to deal with the crisis”.

The overarching object of policy is the preservation of public confidence. “The faster and more effective the response, the smaller the overall damage to society, as a whole. The best way for government to respond to these fears is to do something large and dramatic to reassure the populace”(Bruce Ackerman).

The weight attaching to these elements of public policy is self-evident. (To be continued)

By Professor G. L. Peiris

D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka); Rhodes Scholar,Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London; Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

All News Advertisement

Features

Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart

Published

1 day ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

A file photo of Buddhist monks engaged in a protest

For more than a century, Sri Lankan society has lived with a quiet contradiction at the heart of its religious life. On the one hand, the Buddhist monk is revered as the embodiment of moral discipline, selfrestraint, and renunciation. On the other, the modern monk has become a public figure, political actor, administrator, media personality, and in some cases power broker whose influence extends far beyond the temple. This contradiction has been tolerated, even celebrated, for decades. But recent events, most notably a widely publicised case involving a senior monk accused of grave moral misconduct, have forced the country to confront a painful truth: the institutional conditions that make such scandals possible are not new. They are the predictable outcome of a long historical process that H. L. Seneviratne described with remarkable clarity in The Work of Kings. The moral deterioration visible today is not an aberration. It is the culmination of a centurylong transformation in the identity, function, and authority of the Sangha.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, it is necessary to revisit the argument Seneviratne made nearly three decades ago. His thesis was simple but profound: the modern Sri Lankan monkhood has taken on the ‘work of kings.’ By this he meant that monks, instead of confining themselves to the renunciant life prescribed by the Vinaya, have assumed the secular responsibilities once associated with precolonial kingship, such as protecting the religion, organising society, guiding the nation, and enforcing moral order. This shift, he argued, was not a natural evolution of Buddhist tradition but a modern invention shaped by colonialism, nationalism, and the anxieties of a society struggling to redefine itself in the face of foreign domination. The monk became a symbol of national identity, a guardian of cultural authenticity, and a leader in the struggle for political autonomy. In the process, the boundaries that once separated the monastic from the worldly began to dissolve.

Transformation

The consequences of this transformation were not immediately visible. For decades, the activist monk was celebrated as a patriot, a reformer, and a moral guide. His involvement in education, social welfare, and nationalist mobilisation was seen as a necessary response to colonial pressures and missionary competition. But beneath the surface, the foundations of monastic discipline were slowly eroding. The Vinaya, which had served for centuries as a rigorous framework for regulating monastic life, was increasingly overshadowed by the demands of public engagement. The communal structures that once ensured accountability, senior supervision, collective confession, and the daily rhythms of monastic routine, were weakened by the pressures of modernity. Monks who travelled constantly, managed institutions, or lived independently in urban temples found themselves outside the traditional systems of oversight that had long protected the integrity of the Sangha.

Scandal

It is within this historical context that the recent scandal must be understood. The case shocked the nation not only because of the severity of the allegations but because it shattered the public’s assumption that the monkhood remains a bastion of moral purity. Yet the shock itself reveals a collective denial. For years, Sri Lankan society has been aware, sometimes quietly, sometimes openly—of the growing gap between the ideal of the monk and the realities of modern monastic life. Stories of misconduct, financial irregularities, political manipulation, and abuse of authority have circulated with increasing frequency. But each incident has been treated as an isolated failure, a personal weakness, or an unfortunate exception. What has been missing is recognition that these incidents are symptoms of a deeper structural problem.

Seneviratne’s analysis helps illuminate this problem. When monks take on the work of kings, they inevitably enter domains of power that expose them to temptations the Vinaya was designed to avoid. Handling money, managing institutions, cultivating political patrons, and exercising authority over laypeople create opportunities for ego, ambition, and moral compromise. The monk who becomes a public figure is no longer shielded by the anonymity and humility of the renunciant life. Instead, he becomes a celebrity, a leader, and in some cases an object of uncritical devotion. This elevation brings with it a dangerous form of immunity. Laypeople who revere a monk for his public achievements may hesitate to question his behaviour. Politicians who rely on monastic support may protect him from scrutiny. The media, which often treats monks as moral authorities, may be reluctant to investigate allegations that challenge the sanctity of the robe.

The recent scandal illustrates how these dynamics can converge. The monk at the centre of the case was not an obscure figure. He was a respected preacher, charismatic leader, and head of a prominent institution. His public image was built on years of service, teaching, and community engagement. Yet it was precisely this public stature that allowed him to operate without meaningful oversight. The institutional structures around him, administrators, lay supporters, and junior monks, were either unwilling or unable to challenge his authority. The very qualities that made him a respected figure in the eyes of the public also made him untouchable within his own institution. When allegations finally emerged, they revealed not only personal wrongdoing but a systemic failure of accountability.

Failure that is not unique

This failure is not unique to one temple or one monk. It reflects a broader pattern within the modern Sangha. As monastic institutions have grown in size, wealth, and influence, their internal governance has struggled to keep pace. Many temples operate as semiautonomous entities controlled by a single monk or a small group of monks. Financial transparency is limited, administrative oversight is weak, and the mechanisms for addressing misconduct are often informal or ineffective. The traditional structures of monastic discipline, such as the Sangharama procedures for adjudicating offences, are rarely used in modern contexts, partly because they require collective participation and partly because they are illsuited to the complexities of contemporary institutional life. In practice, this means that monks who wield significant authority can act with little fear of internal sanction.

The politicisation of the Sangha has further complicated matters. Since the midtwentieth century, monks have played an increasingly prominent role in electoral politics, nationalist movements, and public policy debates. This involvement has given them access to political networks that can be mobilised to protect their interests. It has also created a culture in which monks are valued not for their adherence to the Vinaya but for their ability to influence public opinion, mobilise voters, or lend moral legitimacy to political causes. In such an environment, the monk who is politically useful may be shielded from criticism, while the monk who adheres strictly to the renunciant ideal may find himself marginalised or ignored.

The result is a profound distortion of monastic identity. The monk who once sought liberation from worldly attachments is now encouraged to cultivate influence, authority, and public recognition. The monk who once lived under the strict supervision of senior elders now operates in a world where independence is celebrated and oversight is minimal. The monk who once relied on laypeople for basic sustenance now controls vast resources, manages institutions, and commands the loyalty of thousands of followers. This inversion of traditional roles has created a fertile ground for moral deterioration.

Yet it would be a mistake to interpret this deterioration as evidence that the Sangha as a whole is corrupt. Many monks continue to live lives of remarkable discipline, humility, and spiritual dedication. In remote forest monasteries, small village temples, and meditation centres across the country, monks quietly uphold the ancient ideals of the renunciant life. They are not the ones who appear on television, lead political rallies, or manage large institutions. Their work is invisible, their influence subtle, and their commitment unwavering. The crisis facing the Sangha today is not a crisis of individual morality but a crisis of institutional identity. It is the product of a centurylong transformation that has blurred the boundaries between the monastic and the secular, the spiritual and the political, the renunciant and the worldly.

If Sri Lanka is to address this crisis, it must begin by acknowledging the structural nature of the problem. The temptation to treat each scandal as an isolated incident must be resisted. Instead, the country must confront the uncomfortable reality that the modern configuration of monastic life is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the Vinaya. The Sangha cannot simultaneously function as a political force, a social service provider, a media institution, and a spiritual community without compromising its integrity. The more monks are drawn into the world, the more vulnerable they become to the moral dangers that the Buddha warned against.

Reform, therefore, must focus not only on punishing individual offenders but on rethinking the institutional structures that enable misconduct. This includes strengthening internal governance, enhancing financial transparency, restoring the authority of senior elders, and reestablishing the communal practices that once ensured accountability. It also requires a broader cultural shift in how laypeople relate to monks. Blind devotion must give way to informed respect. Reverence must be balanced with responsibility. The robe must be honoured, but it must not be used as a shield against scrutiny.

Seneviratne’s work offers a valuable starting point for this rethinking. His analysis reminds us that the crisis facing the Sangha is not the result of moral decline alone but of historical forces that reshaped the identity of the monkhood. By tracing the evolution of the activist monk, he shows how the Sangha became entangled in the political and social structures of the modern nationstate. This entanglement has brought both benefits and dangers. It has allowed monks to play important roles in education, social welfare, and national development. But it has also exposed them to the corrupting influences of power, wealth, and public acclaim.

The challenge now is to disentangle the Sangha from these influences without undermining its ability to serve society. This will not be easy. The activist monk has become deeply embedded in the cultural and political fabric of the country. Many laypeople expect monks to be leaders, reformers, and guardians of national identity. Politicians rely on monastic support to legitimise their agendas. Media institutions depend on monks for content, commentary, and moral authority. Reversing this trend will require a collective effort from monks, laypeople, and political leaders alike.

Ultimately, the future of the Sangha depends on its ability to reclaim the renunciant ideal that lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism. This does not mean withdrawing from society entirely, but it does mean reestablishing the boundaries that protect the monk from the dangers of worldly involvement. It means recognising that the true strength of the Sangha lies not in its political influence or institutional power but in its moral authority, its spiritual discipline, and its commitment to the path of liberation. The recent scandal, painful as it is, may serve as a catalyst for this reevaluation. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the modern monastic system and forced the country to confront the consequences of a centurylong transformation.

To understand how the Vihara Devalegam Act relates to the perceived moral deformation of the clergy, it is necessary to examine how property management, state law, and monastic discipline intersect in the modern era. Historically stemming from the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance No. 19 of 1931, this act serves as the primary legal framework governing the ‘temporalities’—meaning the secular wealth, extensive landholdings, and material donations belonging to Buddhist temples and shrines. While ancient kings granted these vast tracts of land to support the monkhood’s spiritual pursuits, the modern codification of this law has inadvertently fostered a system where property rights frequently supersede spiritual accountability.

The core of the crisis lies in the commercialisation of the monastic order that this legal framework enables. By treating temple lands as economic assets and vesting absolute administrative power in individual chief monks or lay trustees, the act has contributed to the rise of what critics term a monastic middle class. Access to vast, unregulated financial resources, rent from lands, and corporate donations has fundamentally shifted the focus of certain segments of the clergy away from the traditional path of worldly renunciation and spiritual guidance. Instead, it has driven a preoccupation with business investments, the accumulation of private capital, and luxury lifestyles, which deeply alienates a public looking to the Sangha for moral leadership.

The institutional flaws embedded in the Vihara Devalegam Act find a stark, real-world manifestation in the recent criminal case involving Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero. As the chief priest of Anuradhapura and the custodian of the Atamasthana—the eight highly venerated Buddhist shrines, including the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi—Hemarathana Thero occupied one of the most powerful and wealthy positions within the Sri Lankan Sangha. His arrest on charges of sexual abuse of a minor girl perfectly illustrates how the structural defects of the Act facilitate not only moral decay but also the systemic obstruction of justice.

The core of this intersection lies in the vast, unaccountable wealth generated by the temporalities of the Anuradhapura shrines. Under the Vihara Devalegam Act, the chief custodian exercises immense, virtually unchecked control over temple revenues, state-backed land management, and millions of rupees in daily donations from millions of global pilgrims. It is precisely this immense financial liquidity that enabled the alleged deployment of vast sums of money to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the profound policy failures cited regarding the helplessness of the monastic hierarchy and state enforcement. When child protection authorities initially attempted to act, the National Child Protection Authority noted severe delays and institutional resistance, stating they practically had to force the police to execute the arrest. The monk’s immediate retreat to a private hospital in Colombo upon the advancement of the criminal probe, followed by his release on bail, mirrors the exact loop described where wealthy monastics deploy high-priced legal defence teams funded directly or indirectly by their institutional positions. Because the Vihara Devalegam Act does not provide a mechanism for the immediate, unconditional forfeiture of temporal administrative rights upon a criminal indictment, the accused retains his structural power throughout the legal process. The Pallegama Thero scandal stands as definitive proof that without a fundamental overhaul of how temple wealth is legally governed and disciplined, the material benefits guaranteed by ancient temporalities will continue to shield the worst elements of moral deformation from the rule of law.

If Sri Lanka can learn from this moment and if it can recognise the structural roots of the crisis and commit to meaningful reform, then the Sangha may yet emerge stronger, more disciplined, and more faithful to its ancient ideals. But if the country continues to treat each scandal as an isolated failure and if it continues to ignore the deeper institutional problems that Seneviratne identified, then the moral deterioration we see today will only deepen. The work of kings, when performed by monks, carries a heavy price. It is time to decide whether that price is worth paying.

by Professor Amarasiri de Silva

Features

Kondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary

Published

1 day ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

The Power and Energy Ministry’s drive towards energy security and renewable energy expansion received a major boost yesterday with the signing of a tripartite cooperation agreement for the development of the 150 MW Kondachchi Wind Power Project and an integrated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Mannar.

The agreement was signed at the Ministry of Power auditorium under the patronage of Power Minister Anura Karunatilaka and Deputy Power Minister Arkam Ilyas.

Speaking at the event, Ministry Secretary G. M. R. D. Aponsu described the project as a transformative investment that would strengthen the country’s electricity network while supporting Sri Lanka’s transition towards cleaner energy sources.

“The Kondachchi Wind Power Project represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy journey. By combining large-scale wind generation with advanced battery energy storage technology, we are creating a more resilient and reliable power system capable of meeting future energy demands while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels,” Aponsu said.

The project will be developed at Silavathurai in the Kondachchi area of Mannar on lands owned by the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation. It is expected to utilise some 31 modern wind turbines with a total installed capacity of at least 150 MW.

Aponsu said the inclusion of an integrated battery storage facility would help address the variability associated with wind power generation and ensure stable electricity supply to the national grid.

“The battery energy storage component is a key feature of this project. It will enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the grid and enhance overall system stability, which is essential as Sri Lanka increases the share of renewables in its energy mix,” he said.

According to the Ministry, the wind farm is expected to generate nearly 525 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually, significantly reducing the country’s expenditure on imported fuel and strengthening national energy security.

The project is also expected to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate commitments by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 372,750 tonnes annually.

“This investment delivers both economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support sustainable development objectives and help Sri Lanka move closer to achieving its renewable energy and climate targets,” Aponsu noted.

The project will be implemented under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement using the Build, Own and Operate (BOO) model. The Asian Development Bank is providing technical and financial advisory support through its Transaction Advisory Services programme.

The signing ceremony was attended by Pradeep Perera, Chairman of the National System Operator (Pvt) Ltd., and Takeyo Koike, Head of Market Development and Public-Private Partnership Division of the ADB, among other distinguished guests.

The Ministry said comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and avifaunal studies have been undertaken to ensure minimal impacts on bird populations, nearby communities and agricultural lands. A dedicated 220-kilovolt transmission system will also be constructed to connect the project to the national grid.

“The Kondachchi Wind Farm is a strategic national project that will help secure Sri Lanka’s energy future while accelerating the country’s transition towards sustainable and affordable electricity generation,” Aponsu said.

Energy sector experts view the project as one of the most important renewable energy initiatives currently being pursued in Sri Lanka, combining utility-scale wind generation with modern energy storage technology to enhance grid reliability and long-term energy sustainability.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Saudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey

Published

1 day ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

Ambassador Al-Kahtani

Interview with Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka

Saudi Arabia has once again demonstrated its unparalleled capacity to manage one of the world’s largest annual religious gatherings, with this year’s Hajj pilgrimage concluding successfully despite extreme temperatures and the immense logistical challenge of accommodating more than 1.7 million pilgrims from around the world.

In an exclusive interview with The Island, Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, described the 2026 Hajj season as a resounding success, crediting the achievement to the visionary leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, and the coordinated efforts of multiple government agencies working around the clock to serve pilgrims.

The Ambassador noted that nearly 3,500 Sri Lankan pilgrims participated in this year’s Hajj under the quota allocated to Sri Lanka, benefiting from enhanced healthcare services, sophisticated crowd-management systems, expanded shaded areas and cutting-edge digital solutions introduced by the Kingdom.

With Saudi Arabia continuing to invest heavily in infrastructure, technology and pilgrim services under Vision 2030, Ambassador Al-Kahtani said the Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that pilgrims from around the world perform their religious duties in safety, comfort and tranquility.

The Saudi envoy also highlighted the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, emphasising expanding cooperation not only in Hajj affairs but also in trade, investment, education, culture and institutional exchanges.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: How do you assess this year’s Hajj season?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: This year’s Hajj season was a resounding success, thanks to the Almighty Allah and the integrated efforts of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, led by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister. This success was reflected in the efficiency of crowd management, the quality of services provided to the Hajj pilgrims and the effective coordination among the various relevant authorities, which enabled pilgrims to perform their rituals in an atmosphere of security, tranquility and ease.

Q: How many Sri Lankan pilgrims performed Hajj this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The number of Hajj pilgrims from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reached approximately 3,500, within the quota allocated to Sri Lanka for this season.

Q: Are there any discussions regarding increasing Sri Lanka’s quota in the future?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:Hajj quotas are determined according to approved regulatory mechanisms that take into account a range of considerations. The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continue to study various aspects related to developing Hajj services and accommodating the allocated numbers for all countries, in coordination with the concerned parties.

Q: What were the most prominent special arrangements implemented this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The operational plans for this season focused on enhancing the safety and comfort of the Hajj pilgrims, especially given the climatic conditions and high temperatures. Measures included expanding shaded areas, increasing water distribution points and enhancing health and ambulance services, in addition to developing the transportation system and traffic management within the holy sites.

Q: What are the most prominent digital systems and smart services that were provided?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:The Kingdom continues to implement its digital transformation objectives for the Hajj and Umrah system. The scope of electronic services offered through the Nusuk platform and application has been expanded, along with the development of digital systems for issuing permits, managing crowds, guidance and health services. This contributes to increasing the efficiency of services and improving the pilgrim’s experience at all stages of their journey.

Q: How were the challenges of overcrowding and heat addressed?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities adopted an integrated crowd-management system based on modern technologies and real-time data analysis. This was coupled with intensified health-awareness campaigns, expanded organised movement routes and increased deployment of field, medical and emergency teams. These measures support the safety of the Hajj pilgrims and reduce the risks associated with crowd density and climatic conditions.

Q: Were there special services for the elderly and sick?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Yes. The Kingdom paid special attention to the elderly and people with special health needs by providing specialized medical services, assistive transportation and facilities equipped to meet their needs, in addition to field teams working to provide humanitarian support and necessary healthcare throughout the Hajj period.

Q: How successful was the Kingdom in combating irregular Hajj permits?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continued to rigorously implement the regulations and instructions governing Hajj, utilising modern technologies and advanced monitoring procedures to reduce violations related to irregular Hajj. These efforts contributed to enhancing the safety of pilgrims, improving crowd-management efficiency and maintaining the smooth flow of movement within the holy sites.

Q: How would you describe Saudi-Sri Lankan cooperation in organising Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka is characterised by continuous and constructive coordination in all matters related to Hajj. The relevant authorities in both countries work jointly to ensure the provision of the best services for Sri Lankan pilgrims and enable them to perform their rituals with ease and peace of mind.

Q: How many Hajj pilgrims were there globally, and what were the main challenges?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: According to official statistics, the number of Hajj pilgrims this year reached 1,707,301 from various countries around the world. The main challenges included managing large crowds, ensuring public safety and providing health, transportation and accommodation services within a specific geographical and temporal scope. These challenges were addressed through advanced and integrated operational plans, which contributed to the smooth and successful completion of the Hajj season.

Q: Are there any future expansion projects?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The Kingdom continues to implement strategic development projects within the framework of Vision 2030, including developing the infrastructure in Makkah and the Holy Sites, and enhancing transportation networks and smart services. This contributes to raising the quality of services provided to pilgrims and Umrah performers and improving their long-term experience.

Q: How are Saudi-Sri Lankan relations strengthened outside the context of Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka are witnessing continuous development in many areas, including political, economic, trade, cultural and educational cooperation, in addition to developing exchanges between institutions and the private sector. This reflects the two countries’ keenness to strengthen the bilateral partnership and achieve common interests.

Q: What message would you like to convey to Sri Lankan Muslims?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: We extend our sincere congratulations to the Hajj pilgrims who have completed their Hajj rituals, and we ask Almighty Allah to accept their pilgrimage. We also assure Muslims in Sri Lanka that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia places serving the Two Holy Mosques and the guests of Almighty Allah at the forefront of its priorities and continues to develop the Hajj and Umrah system to achieve the highest standards of quality and safety.

By Ifham Nizam