Features
Presidential pardons: an unchecked executive power
by R.J. de Silva,Attorney-at-law
A pardon is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary ‘as an act of grace’. In the Oxford Dictionary it is defined as an “action of forgiving or remission of the legal consequences of an offence or conviction”. Some argue that the power to grant a pardon is a check on the powers of the judiciary rectifying any miscarriage of justice. But this executive power unchecked could result in the abuse of power.
In recent times, President Sirisena granted two pardons – one within six months and the other within nine days of relinquishing office while President Gotabay Rajapaksa granted two pardons – one within four months of becoming president and the other seven months after he received a two thirds majority in Parliament.
The practice of giving Presidential pardons to political friends came to the limelight when President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a notorious Buddhist monk Ven. Galaboda Eththe Gnanasara who had received a pardon from President Sirisena earlier, as the Head of the Presidential Task Force to study and prepare a law to implement the concept “One Country One Law”, as though the monk was an epitome of righteousness.
In view of the controversial manner in which Presidents Maithripala Sirisena and Gotabaya Rajapaksa had granted pardons, the proposals to tighten presidential prerogative in granting pardons was a strident demand during the course of the recent Aragalaya. However, the course of action provided in the 19th amendment for the Supreme Court to review pardons by way of Fundamental Rights applications, has become a positive feature in the hands of our independent Supreme Court which has maintained checks and balances on the executive power thereby preventing a culture of injustice undermining the Rule of Law.
Some murders highlight brutality and arrogance of the accused when committing crimes. Such acts bring immense agony, pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones. That is why a president is expected to intervene with utmost care when using his prerogative to grant a pardon. In doing so, he is obliged to consider the gravity of the offence, the role of the police in containing crime, the specific role of the AGs department and the judiciary in imparting justice and not be arbitrary, unreasonable and ignore the public interest.
In Britain, the courts have jurisdiction to review the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of the Monarch to grant a pardon “in accordance with accepted public Law principles”. In India too, the Indian Supreme Court has held that in a landmark judgement in Epuru Sudhakar and Another vs Government of Andhra Pradesh , that the Indian Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to review presidential pardons.
The request for a pardon is generally forwarded by the Prisons Department based on good behaviour, age and medical condition etc. Of the prisoner. Therefore it plays a leading role in deciding on a convict’s life in prison. Also, the prisoner himself can appeal for a pardon.
Article 34 (1) of the Constitution, while stating that the President may in the case of any offender convicted by any court (a) grant a pardon either free or subject to lawful conditions, (b) grant any respite for an indefinite period, of the execution of any sentence, (c) substitute a less severe form of punishment imposed on the offender or (d) remit the whole or any part of the punishment imposed, has incorporated a Proviso to the Article 34 which states that : ‘where the offender has been condemned to death, the President shall call for the report from the Judge who tried him and shall forward that report for AG’s advice and thereafter the President shall submit all to the Minister of Justice, who shall forward the report with his recommendations to the President.’
Presidential pardons for offenses not amounting to murder
Presidential pardons are a regular feature in cases where prisoners are convicted of minor offences. Such pardons are granted marking special events like Vesak, Christmas and Independence Day. In such cases of non-murder offences, pardons are given mainly during national festivals. According to statistics available in the Ministry of Justice, Presidents J R Jayewardene, R Premadasa, D B Wijetunga released 72 convicts during 1978 to 1994. The first President J R Jayewardene pardoned gangster Gonawela Sunil in 1983 convicted for raping a 14-year-old girl in 1982. On that occasion, The President of the BASL, A C (Bunty) de Zoysa protested strongly. Zoysa was a working Committee member of the UNP at the time but had the guts to clash with his party leader. However, his protests were ignored.
This rapist gangster is alleged to have executed a plan to massacre 53 Tamil Prisoners in 1983. ( N Jordan, Retd Deputy Prisons Chief- CDN, 16 Nov. 1999 ). President Premadasa pardoned Manori Daniels, a teacher in a government school in the Batticaloa District and a mother of two, who was convicted of aiding and abetting the LTTE bomber Gagendran who caused the death of 40 civilians in a car bomb blast in Maradana, on November 9. 1987. She was given a six year sentence in October 1989. (President Premadasa expected the LTTE to reciprocate his goodwill. But as history has recorded, LTTE never reciprocated gestures of goodwill shown by either Presidents Ranasinghe Premadasa or subsequently Mahinda Rajapaksa).
President Mahinda Rajapaksa pardoned 10 former members of the Presidential Security Division ( PSD ) who were sentenced for over four years after they were found guilty of assaulting and causing bodily harm to a famous husband wife duo because they sang at an opposition political party musical show.
Presidential pardons where death sentences are pronounced
In murder convictions, the presiding judge always files a report. This report is available to the President and to the Committee sitting on the future of such convicts. If a presidential pardon is granted to a murder convict in death row, in most instances the death sentence is reduced to life imprisonment.
“Life sentence” means 20 years. From time to time, the term gets reduced due to good behaviour, age, medical condition etc. Finally, the prisoner is sent home before the reduced term is reached but under a supervisory licence and required to be of good behaviour.
During President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s presidency, a policy was formulated and is being followed today where a committee comprising of a retired judge as chairman, an official from the AG’s and Prisons Departments, Ministry of Justice and a psychologist sit in committee to decide on the future of a prisoner on whom a death sentence is passed. The committee decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
Abuse of presidential power
But with time, unchecked presidential power began to corrupt, resulting in abuse of power. It expanded to instances where murderers were pardoned with impunity.
In the first of such cases was President Mahinda Rajapaks pardoning in March 2009, Mary Juliet Monica Fernando (a minister’s wife) convicted of a double murder in 2005. In view of the controversies surrounding the impunity with which President Mahinda Rajapaksa used his Executive powers in general, the Yahapalanaya government enacted the 19th amendment, in which provision was made for the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the official decisions of a President by way of a Fundamental Rights application under Article 35 (1) of the Constitution. As a result, a way to check presidential excesses was made available to the people, thereby upholding the doctrine of “Separation of Powers” in the Constitution.
Despite the enactment of the said 19th Amendment by his own government, President Sirisena granted pardons to: (1) controversial Buddhist monk and Secretary General of the militant Bodu Bala Sena in May 2019. He had been sentenced to six years for contempt of court after failing in his appeal to the Court of Appeal in August 2019. This pardon was granted a mere six months before Sirisena relinquished office.
(2) to Jude Anthony Jayamaha on November 9, 2019, a mere nine days before he relinquished office despite the Supreme Court having dismissed Jayamah’s appeal confirming the death sentence.
In the face of severe criticism, a press release from the president’s office on November 11, 2019 stated that Ven Athuraliya Rathana Thero moved in the matter in writing and made verbal representation with Ven Baddegama Samitha Thero, Ven Karandawela Punnaratana Thero, Ven Balangoda Buddhagosha Thero and Catholic Bishop Raymond Wickramasinghe. They appealed to the President to pardon Jayamaha. Many allegations were made about large sums of money being paid to various persons for the services rendered but, astonishingly no formal inquiry was made to find out the truth about these allegations made by the president’s media division, although some of those named were MPs.
Aggrieved by the presidential pardon, a F R application was filed by ‘The Women and Media Collective’ challenging the use of the president’s constitutional power to grant a pardon as he does not have the freedom to grossly violate the Rule of Law, equity and rationality and has no right to recklessly disregard the sensitivities and sensibilities of the aggrieved family from whom a young life was taken away in a gruesome murder. When the case was taken for hearing, the court was informed by the Controller of Immigration and Emigration that after Jayamaha was granted the pardon, he had travelled overseas and is not to be found. The SC ordered overseas travel ban until further consideration.
A three-member Bench delivering the judgement found President Sirisena had intentionally violated the constitution and ordered him to pay Rs 1 m each to the parents of the victim and Rs 1 m to the petitioner and directed the AG to take tangible measures to secure the custody of the Jayamaha.
Despite mud in the face of the outgoing President Sirisena, the newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, also misused his constitutional privilege. Armed with a massive 6.9m voter mandate, he gave two pardons: (1) to an Army Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake on March 26, 2020 – a mere four months after he assumed office despite a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court affirming on April 25, 2019 the death sentence and (2) to former Parliamentarian Duminda Silva on June 24, 2021- a mere seven months after receiving a two thirds majority in Parliament.
It is heartening to observe that the Supreme Court has asserted its authority by judicially checking the presidential prerogative to grant pardons. It has already issued an interim order, nullifying the presidential pardon granted to Duminda Silva and fixed September 4 to hear the FR case challenging the pardon given to former soldier Sunil Ratnayake.
In the case of Duminda Silva, The Colombo High Court imprisoned this controversial parliamentarian for life in 2016 over the murder of MP Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a highly controversial Presidential Commission to investigate incidents of political victimization which recommended the release of Duminda Silva. The President promptly granted a special pardon to Duminda Silva in June 2021. But in May 2022, the SC issued an interim order directing the CID to place Duminda Silva under prison custody and impound his passport.
One of the most obnoxious and controversial acts of President Gotabaya Rajapakse was to grant Lance Corporal Suni Ratnayake a pardon for the murder of eight Tamil civilians in December 2000. This act of the president after the war victory and at a time the country required reconciliation to rebuild the country’s economy after a 30 year war and reconcile and integrate the Tamil community was not expected of a Head of a State and was a stab in the back of reconciliation.
Fortunately, The SC has granted leave to appeal in five FR cases filed by the family members of the victims and the Centre for Policy Alternatives, challenging the former President’s decision to pardon former soldier and directed service of notices on the former president and Ratnayake to be present at the hearing in September 2024, as both were unrepresented in court.
The people should recall the facts of this heinous crime and the court verdict, to understand the gravity of the crime committed on so many innocent lives. Lance Corporal Sunil Ratnayake, with a 20 strong military unit of the Gajaba Regiment was airlifed to Mirusavil, Jaffna, on December 18, 2000. The murder of eight villagers took place just one day later on December 19, 2000.
He was sentenced to death by a High Court Trial at Bar in June 2015 after almost 15 months since the date of the crime. A five judge Bench sitting in appeal in the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on April 25, 2019. The court held that the prosecution had established all eight counts of murder (11-18) and count of causing hurt to Maheswaran ( 19 ) and confirmed the death sentence.
Briefly the facts are as follows: When the fighting intensified in 2000 and the LTTE overran Elephant Pass in April 2000, the army retreated to Ellathumaduwal and the villagers dispersed from their village Mirusavil to close by villages due to stray shells falling nearby. But the villagers developed the habit of visiting their homes in Mirusavil to clean their houses and collect whatever produce they can and return before dusk.
On December 18, 2000, a military unit of the Gajaba Regiment was airlifted to Mirusavil. On December 19, eight villagers comprising a five-year-old toddler accompanying his father, two 13- and 15-year-old boys accompanying their fathers visited their homes on cycles, as villagers used to do.
On this fateful day at about 4 pm, when the eight villagers were getting ready to return with whatever produce they had collected, the five-year-old had pestered the father to pluck a guava fruit from a nearby tree. The father not having the heart to disappoint his son, had with the others on their cycles, gone towards the fruit tree. But they were confronted on the way by two soldiers – one with a firearm and the other with a knife. After an initial questioning, one soldier went back and returned with four other military men who together had severely assaulted all the men with blunt weapons. When witness Maheswaran (only surviving witness) regained consciousness, they blindfolded him with his sarong and threw him over a fence. His sarong was entangled on the fence and he lay injured in his underwear.
Subsequent events narrated by Maheswaran, disclosed how he escaped not knowing the fate of the others and met his father who was searching for him. His mother to whom the story was related, had complained to the political office of the EPDP. Subsequently he was admitted to the Chandigar hospital. On information and pressure, the army authorities promptly started investigating the incident.
During the search of the area by the Military Police with Maheswaran, a few soldiers accompanied by Officer Commanding the unit Sgt Ranasinghe stationed about 50 meters away from the scene of the crime, had approached the search party. Seeing them Maheswaran had spontaneously cried out pointing at two soldiers as the two who had severely beaten them up. They were Lance Corporal Ratnayake and Private Kumarasinghe.
Subsequently at a Magisterial inquiry, five persons were identified among whom were the first accused appellant Ratnayake and Kumarasinghe. On court orders, a search revealed the bodies and the bicycles of all the eight unfortunate civilians killed and buried at a spot shown by Ratnayake – the accused appellant. The relatives had identified the bodies.
They were charged for unlawful assembly and murder and causing hurt to the only eyewitness Maheswaran and deceased Raviwarnam.
The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and lay on the credibility of the evidence of the only eye witness, Maheswaran. The court had observed that the witness was traumatized and had even refused to go with the army to identify places if not accompanied by EPDP and ICRC officials.
Medical evidence confirmed the assault to be compatible with Maheswaran’s testimony. The doctor who did the post mortem examination stated that all bodies had injuries by assault and cut injuries around the back of either side of the neck, which severed the two main arteries and were necessarily fatal. The prosecution had contended that no firearms were used in murdering, as the killers were aware of the war situation in the area and took precautions not to make a noise by firing.
The defence argued that Maheswaran’s evidence had contradictions and omissions. But both courts held that they were all minor and insignificant. The SC further observed that the witness was a Tamil with no knowledge of Sinhala. His evidence was translated into Sinhala writing and some discrepancies may have occurred.
The SC commented that in his dock statement the accused appellant had admitted that he was present in the area on this fateful day. The SC having considered the totality of all the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, came to the conclusion that: (1) there was irresistible inference that it was appellant and his group of men that had inflicted the fatal injuries to all deceased and (2) from the nature of injuries, it was safe to conclude that the injuries were inflicted with an intention to cause death.
It is hoped that the agitation launched by civil society will succeed and ensure that the process of granting a pardon by the Head of State will be strengthened by unambiguous constitutional and legal provisions, so that such a privilege is retained but not abused for collateral reasons.
Features
Addressing human rights needs multi-pronged approach
by Jehan Perera
The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for grave human rights violations committed during the armed conflict and in other periods of political violence.
The government may have felt sufficiently confident that its response to the High Commissioner’s update could be handled by its representative in Geneva and did not require the attendance of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Sri Lanka’s representative Sumith Dassanayake called for a fundamental review of country-specific mandates within the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has been facing repeated scrutiny in the form of successive UNHRC resolutions from 2012 onwards. Ambassador Dassanayake argued that such mandates should not continue indefinitely and must be regularly assessed against measurable objectives and tangible outcomes. This may reflect confidence that its record of reform is beginning to receive recognition internationally. The reports and statements at the Human Rights Council acknowledged progress in the government’s efforts to address corruption and economic crime.
The government’s anti-corruption drive has included investigations into allegations involving individuals who held the highest political offices in the country. The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with alleged misuse of public funds, and the investigation into the controversial SriLankan Airlines Airbus transaction involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, are examples of the reach of these investigations. The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa in connection with allegations relating to the Airbus purchase scandal has also demonstrated that the government is willing to pursue cases involving politically powerful figures.
Wide Range
The ongoing investigations appear to encompass a wide range of parliamentarians and government members, both past and present. They suggest that accountability for corruption is not being confined to lower-level officials or to individuals who lack political influence. This is precisely the kind of accountability that the public has long demanded and that previous governments have too often failed to deliver. The government is also reaching into the upper levels of the military hierarchies of the past. The case in which 11 young men, most of them Tamil, disappeared after being abducted in Colombo between 2008 and 2009 involved allegations that some families were asked to pay ransoms. The investigation into this case has reached senior military figures. The willingness to pursue such cases is important because it challenges the assumption that those who exercised power during the war are beyond the reach of the law. Such cases would provide a practical test of whether the government’s commitment to accountability for economic crimes is part of a broader commitment to the rule of law.
Success in prosecuting corruption cannot substitute for justice for those who were unlawfully killed, disappeared, tortured or otherwise victimised. The UN report noted that there had been no recognition or accountability for crimes under international law, gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties during the war. The government has yet to establish a credible and effective process to address the many cases of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing, torture and other serious violations. The government needs to take the international commitments it has inherited on human rights issues seriously. It needs to adopt a multi-pronged approach and go beyond focusing primarily on financial and corruption-related accountability.
Need Action
As a member of the international community, Sri Lanka has a responsibility to abide by the commitments it has made. It cannot selectively uphold international obligations postponing those that are politically difficult. Also, as a small country, Sri Lanka has a self-interest in ensuring the survival of international law, which is all that it has to protect it from the depredations of the bigger international actors. The erosion of international law by powerful states makes it all the more important that smaller states uphold the principles on which the international system is based. Sri Lanka cannot credibly appeal to international law when it is threatened from outside while disregarding its own obligations within. Sri Lanka also needs to win the confidence of its own population that it is committed to justice and equality for all. Public opinion polls and community-level research have disclosed that ethnic and religious minorities are appreciative of the sense of greater security they enjoy under the present government from ethnic or religious extremists.
But a sense of security is not the same as the fulfilment of rights. As far as the Tamil people are concerned, the government has yet to deliver on several of its specific promises. These include the long-standing problems of missing persons, the release of political prisoners who have been members of Tamil militant organisations, and the return of land taken over for military purposes during the war. The issue of Buddhist statues and archaeological sites found on their properties which are then taken from their control continue to trouble them especially as they see no signs of resolution of those disputes. The issue of pastureland in the east of the country in Mylathamadu is particularly concerning to them as they see orders by successive presidents, both President Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, being disregarded on the ground. The Mylathamadu pastureland dispute is where traditional Tamil dairy farmers have engaged in multi-year protests against the ongoing encroachment of their ancestral grazing lands by Sinhalese crop cultivators relocated under government development schemes.
The government’s failure to hold Provincial Council elections is particularly troubling. The provincial council system is the only one that can provide the Tamil people and other ethnic minorities the opportunity to wield political power and exercise a measure of self-determination in the areas in which they are the numerical majority. The continued postponement of Provincial Council elections therefore has consequences that go beyond an ordinary electoral delay. It deprives communities of an important constitutional avenue for democratic participation and power-sharing. The ethnic and religious minorities appreciate what the government is doing in the larger national interest, but they must not be made to feel that their special concerns are being ignored. The government cannot resolve Sri Lanka’s entire legacy of rights violations overnight. But it does need to demonstrate that it is willing to move forward on multiple fronts, not only on a few.
Features
The emptying university: why are academics leaving?
by Hasini Lecamwasam
Brain drain in Sri Lanka is at an all-time high. The latest Human Flight and Brain Drain Index for 2024 shows that we are 16th of 175 countries on this count, and first in South Asia. That this is a crisis goes without saying. Brain drain affects all sectors, and is a huge strain on the resources of a developing country. Particularly in Sri Lanka, where considerable public investment is made in the moulding of professionals through the system of free education, this amounts to transferring the resources of poorer countries to richer ones with top migration destinations. It is, therefore, important to consider the push and pull factors behind skilled outmigration, specifically from the public university system of Sri Lanka, a key focus of the Kuppi column.
From frustration to exit
Several bitter realities in our crumbling public university system act as push factors in the migration decisions of academics. Many essays on this column have, over several years, attempted to highlight numerous aspects of this erosion. Perhaps, primary among them is the lack of adequate funding, which has debilitating ramifications for the system: very little investment is made in the up-keep of infrastructure (and even less in its expansion), resulting in serious constraints in accommodating growing batches of students and the wellbeing of the staff (particularly in regional universities); research funding is negligible, severely curtailing academics’ ability to effectively discharge their primary duty of teaching which should ideally be informed by their research (and the research of others, access to which is also, unfortunately, mediated by funding); a funding crunch also means a slash in (or greater constraints on) recruitments, increasing the workloads of academics, currently in service, and eating into the quality of their teaching and research.
What recruitments are done frustrate those with any faith in merit. As many of our interventions in this column have shown, recruitment processes are characterised by archaic selection criteria that place very little weight on a candidate’s postgraduate growth and the advantages of interdisciplinary training. Added to this is the general preference for ‘culturally compliant’ candidates who would not rock the boat too much. The combined effect is that those with the capacity and spirit to try out innovations in education are discouraged from joining or staying on in the public university system. Some, or many, of them may instead seek appointments abroad.
A thread that binds all of these problems together is pervasive hierarchy which, again, many interventions on this column have sought to highlight. It is the interest in preserving hierarchy that leads to the preference for alumni in recruitment processes. Hierarchy within universities can be particularly frustrating for younger faculty and women, who typically have to bear the brunt of the workload of their senior, often male, colleagues. In a context of funding, and, therefore, recruitment, restrictions, this translates into a disproportionate burden being placed on junior (usually female) faculty, seriously hindering their prospects of growing into successful academics due to the time constraints within which they have to operate. Junior academics, therefore, are more likely to look to educational institutions abroad for what they hope would be a different work culture that respects them more.
Ideological ruses
On top of these structural frustrations are also the workings of neoliberal ideology. For one, the nature of relations between the global metropole and peripheral countries like Sri Lanka largely dictates what is desirable and what is not. The apparent lifestyles of Western countries – from food to clothing, housing, appliances, and so on – have continued to lure people from the periphery with the promise of a ‘better’ life, alongside better career advancement opportunities. This, of course, masks much of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes to survive in Western societies. For instance, in most cases highly attractive public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, clean air, quality control of food, and so on belie the astronomical privatised costs of healthcare and education. Health insurance is usually mandatory and steep in most high-income settings, while even subsidised education (for which eligibility criteria are strict) creates a serious dent in household earnings. Of course, the happy images of glossy trams and gleeful international travellers don’t convey this.
A second ideological ruse is the myth of greater opportunities and recognition abroad. While there is no denying that local skilled sectors – be it higher education, health, civil service, or private white-collar positions – are replete with issues that inhibit merit-based professional advancement, the notion that things are fundamentally different in Western countries stems from an uninformed optimism. As is now increasingly known and discussed, Western labour markets are notoriously racialised, and equivalent skills are rarely treated as such. Instead, it is usually demanded that skilled migrants clear certain formal examinations in their host countries. In fields like medicine, this is followed by an interview that may also be racially prejudiced. Once these initial steps are cleared, remuneration reverts to square one irrespective of experience accumulated abroad, not to mention the many subtle aggressions, rejections, and trials one has to go through in the negotiation of everyday life. In the many cases where professional qualifications are used as leverage for a move abroad, sights are set on a better future for one’s children, which again is informed by the misplaced faith in greater opportunities and a lack of awareness of the factors outlined above. Needless to say, in the global swing to the Right, things have become even more challenging. In such a context, considering the few rare cases where skilled migrants live extremely comfortable lives as the norm becomes a dangerous misconception.
The two ideological pull factors mentioned above are complemented by a push factor, which has to do with a highly classed understanding of what a white-collar professional is due in their society. Many of these aspirations are clearly articulated in academic trade union action demanding separate quotas for school entry, increased fuel allowances, winning back the presently stalled vehicle permit scheme, salary hikes, and so on. While working people have every right to agitate for better material conditions, insofar as it remains unconnected to a broader movement for improving the conditions of the lot of the working class, it remains self-serving and very much within the class logic of capitalist society. Since these demands are articulated as a means of maintaining distinction, it is clear that they are not envisaged as part of a class movement. The frustration of not having these needs for distinction satisfied may push some to seek greener pastures abroad, at least financially, (perhaps as a means of social mobility based on it), only to be disappointed on most occasions.
What is to be done?
Addressing the systemic push factors listed above requires, first and foremost, greater allocations for free public higher education. This would immediately translate into more recruitments and less work per academic, and better research and teaching in the long haul. An increase in funding would also ideally lead to greater infrastructural investments, especially including improving the living conditions of those who work in regional universities amid untold hardships. Next, fairer, more creative, and, therefore, more effective recruitment policies are badly needed to attract talented individuals to university positions. Rather than carving out a ‘special category’ for academics to achieve this purpose, which is informed by a classed logic, this needs to be done through fundamental reforms in recruitment processes. Third, a persistent attack on the entrenched hierarchy within universities through internal reform is much called for. Reforming recruitment practices will go a long way towards addressing this. Measures should also be taken to introduce more stringent policies against SGBV (not to mention ragging, even though it is not directly connected to brain drain). Such measures would create a safer, fairer, and more attractive workplace, which would give more reasons for people to stay.
On top of greater allocations, we also need a transformation of our aspirations themselves if this situation is to change. That necessitates a kind of education capable of questioning the ‘paradise’ conception of Western societies, and lays bare their colonial material and ideological dimensions, in both their historical and contemporary manifestations. These colonial understandings of the ‘good life’, moreover, have devastating ecological implications for the planet, not to mention social justice. An education with the ability to transform this mindset would hopefully prove to be more than a mere path to social mobility, rather being a tool of social emancipation that renders mobility moot.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is with the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Features
Friends favourite Suzi Croner returns for Oktoberfest 2026
Charming audiences in Switzerland as Suzi Flückiger, Sri Lanka’s own Suzi Croner is coming home… for a very special occasion.
The bubbly former frontline vocalist of 90s band Friends will take the stage at a popular venue in Colombo for Oktoberfest 2026.
Known in Europe for her country and classic hits, Suzi has remained a much-loved name back home. This will be a rare chance for local fans to see her live and celebrate the voice behind so many Friends memories.
Oktoberfest 2026 in Colombo promises an evening of live music, traditional Bavarian food and beer, colourful dirndls and lederhosen, folk dancing, and plenty of community cheer.

Suzi Croner (Flückiger)
Against this lively backdrop, Suzi will take the stage for a special solo set, featuring her own pre-recorded music. She performed at the event last year too, as a solo artiste, but a German band providing the music.
This year, however she says, it’s a different scene.
“The novel attraction will be the dancers from Germany — all girls, clad in German outfits,” Suzi said. She added that the event will also highlight the activities generally connected with Oktoberfest, which should generate a lot of fun and excitement for those who join her in Colombo next month.
Suzi has become a much-in-demand artiste in Europe, and has even performed Down Under, in Melbourne.
In Switzerland, where she has been based for the past 42 years, she continues to charm audiences with country and classic hits, performing at private events and community nights across Europe.
“My weekends are generally loaded with my work as a singer,” she said. “And I also play tennis three times a week, because I need to keep fit to entertain my audience in an active way.”
Her repertoire is made up mainly of Swiss, German and English songs.
And true to form, Suzi loves springing surprises.
“So watch out when you join me at Oktoberfest 2026, in Colombo!” she said.
-
Sports4 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News4 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Latest News4 days agoShafali, Deepti power India into sixth T20 Asia Cup final
-
Opinion6 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
Latest News4 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Features5 days agoLost for 90 years: Rare Goby resurfaces in Jaffna
-
News2 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News3 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
