Midweek Review

Supreme Court stands tall

Published

2 years ago

2024/08/28

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government ignored concerns raised by both local and international organizations. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA), the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) and the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) declared their concerns over the government’s refusal to comply with the SC court order to release the funds allocated by Parliament for local elections. They also raised the subsequent referral by Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena of the three Supreme Court Judges responsible for the decision to the Parliamentary Committee on Ethics and Privileges. But, the arrogant political apparatus turned a blind eye to such concerns.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

None of the Supreme Court justices namely Preethi Padman Surasena, Janak de Silva, and Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, who had heard the petitions against the postponement of the Local Government polls, early last year, represented a five-judge bench that delivered the final order last week. Jayawardena retired in the last week of February this year.

The SC held that President Ranil Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, violated fundamental rights of the people, guaranteed in terms of Article 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. The SC also found fault with the Attorney General and the Election Commission.

Had the government adhered to the March 3, 2023, directive that funds necessary for the conducting of the LG polls be allocated without delay, it could have averted the stunning blow just weeks away from the first post-Aragalaya national election.

The SC bench that gave the unprecedented order, in respect of political party leader and executive president, comprised Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, Justices Vijith Malalgoda, PC, Murdu Fernando, PC, Gamini Amarasekara, and Yasantha Kodagoda, PC. Let me mention the full list of Supreme Court justices, CJ Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, Murdu Fernando, PC, Preethi Padman Surasena, S. Thurairaja, PC, E.A. G.R. Amarasekara, Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, A.H.M.D. Nawaz, Kumudini Wickremasinghe, A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, Janak de Silva, Achala Wengappuli, Mahinda Samayawardhena, Arjuna Obeyesekere and K. Priyantha Fernando.

Altogether four parties, the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB), Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) moved the SC against the refusal on the part of the Wickremesinghe-led government to hold scheduled polls. The PAFFREL spearheaded civil society efforts to pressure the government.

With the Ninth Presidential Election just four weeks away, the SC order couldn’t have been delivered at a far worse time for the incumbent President accused of circumventing apex court interim orders in respect of petitions filed against IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon and private consortium IVS-GBS and VFS Global dealing with visa issuance.

The SC’s response to threatening moves made by a section of the parliament at the behest of President Wickremesinghe with regard to the interim order given by justices Preethi Padman Surasena, Janak de Silva, and Priyantha Jayawardena has proved the failure of the disgraceful political project.

Obviously, government strategists failed to comprehend how their game plan could end. No one in Wickremesinghe’s camp would have envisaged the devastating outcome of the LG polls petitions, especially after being blinded by mistakenly thinking that the presidential powers they thought they had could help them to bulldoze their way through anything. RW may have also been emboldened by the kid glove treatment he got at the Bond Presidential Commission probe earlier.

It would be pertinent to mention that the major beneficiaries of the SC order are SJB candidate Sajith Premadasa and JJB candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake as the Sept. 21 presidential contest is widely believed to be among them and the incumbent President.

The devastating SC order severely embarrassed the Wickremesinghe camp, particularly the rebel SLPP parliamentary group that blindly pledged support to the UNP leader, possibly fearing another foreign-backed sinister Aragalaya worse than what they experienced in 2022, or to save their political life. Examples are aplenty if we look around at what happened to our neighbours Pakistan and Bangladesh. They can’t repeat their success that easily in Myanmar as China is keeping a close watch. How would Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, who also holds the Justice portfolio, responds to the developing situation?

Govt. issues warnings

Close on the heels of the interim SC order on March 3, 2023, Attorney-at-Law Premanath C. Dolawatta, who had identified himself as family lawyer of the Rajapaksas, strongly criticized the apex court with regard to the directive issued to the Finance Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana and then Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC.

Acting at the behest of President Wickremesinghe and the SLPP parliamentary group, first time entrant to Parliament Dolawatta, in spite of being a lawyer, alleged on March 07 that the SC order violated powers and privileges of Parliament. The SLPP National List MP argued that the SC interim order interfered with Article 43 (1) read with Article 148 of the Constitution thereby seeking to undermine parliamentary control over public finance. Without hesitation, the politician targeted one of the three justices. Declaring that the interim order violated the principle of natural justice, MP Dolawatta alleged: “One of the learned Judges who issued the interim order is related to a petitioner in a similar case being heard before the other bench of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge has not disclosed the relationship, nor has he recused himself from the case.”

MP Dolawatta couldn’t have been unaware of the outcome of the petitions filed against the postponement of the LG polls. But, the MP had no option but to condemn the Supreme Court, regardless of the consequences. That decision, obviously being taken at the highest level, at the end not only caused embarrassment to the President but the entire Parliament as well.

Three days after lawmaker Dolawatta’s controversial declaration, State Finance Minister Shehan Semasinghe stepped up attacks on the SC. Lawmaker Semasinghe asked Parliament to disregard the SC’s interim order until the Ethics and Privileges Committee dealt with the issue. The SLPPer demanded that a letter sent by the Elections Commission to the Finance Ministry consequent to the SC directive, too, be referred to the Ethics and Privileges Committee.

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government worked overtime to sabotage the LG polls. PAFFREL questioned the combined efforts made by President Wickremesinghe and Premier Dinesh Gunawardena to influence the then Election Commission. The government involved the then AG Rajaratnam in its efforts and the whole political project later exploded in the wake of President’s failed bid to grant a six-month extension to the official.

In spite of declaring its intention to summon Preethi Padman Surasena, Janak De Silva, and Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, the government lacked the political will to go the whole hog. The Opposition lambasted the government over the contentious move.

The government acted in a way that it felt could put off LG polls without suffering major political damage but the final SC verdict seemed to have dealt a devastating blow to Wickremesinghe.

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena owed the public an explanation as he accepted MP Dolawatta’s assertion that parliamentary powers and privileges had been violated and the matter be referred to the Ethics and Privileges Committee.

Towards the end of 2022, the Opposition raised the possibility of the government exploiting a private members’ motion, submitted by MP Dolawatta, to enhance youth representation in governance. One-time External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris who fired the first salvo against the attempt to put off the LG polls further, alleged that the motion could be utilized to delay the polls indefinitely. The one-time top law academic recalled how the Yahapalana government postponed the Provincial Council elections indefinitely.

The rebel SLPP Chairman pointed out that the government had chosen MP Dolawatta’s motion, handed over to President Wickremesinghe on Oct 31, 2022, though SJB’s Imthiaz Bakeer Markar submitted a private member’s motion on the same lines much earlier. However, that strategy, too, never materialized. TheWickremesinghe-Rajapaksa combinnation simply forgot the LG polls while the UNP leader undertook a high profile project to make the Presidential Election, too, disappear.

President’s questionable strategy

Having quit the ruling SLPP parliamentary group, ahead of the parliamentary vote on a new President to complete Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, Prof. Peiris fiercely attacked efforts to undermine the electoral process. The former Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University questioned the President’s attack on the electoral system at an event organized by the BASL in the second week of June 2023.

He chose to challenge Wickremesinghe on the postponement of the LG polls at the BASL’s National Law Conference held at the Grand Hotel, Nuwara Eliya, for questioning the very basis of our electoral system. Before the Judges of the SC, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing petitions filed against the indefinite postponement of LG polls, President Wickremesinghe declared that the people had no faith in elections.

Prof. Peiris emphasized that there had never been a previous instance of a President declaring elections weren’t important as the vast majority of the population, including the youth, had lost faith in elections and the political party system.

In the following month, businessman C.D. Lenawa sought to derail the Presidential Election by preventing the calling of the poll until the SC delivered its interpretation on the date of the presidential poll. A five-member SC bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Vijith Malalgoda, Murdu Fernando, Preethi Padman Surasena and S. Thurairaja dismissed the petition. The petitioner was fined Rs 100,000.

The JJB, IUSF on behalf of the Jana Aragala Sandhanaya, NFF and SJB filed petitions against Lenawa’s move that was dismissed in July.

Amidst accusations that the government was behind Lenawa’s move, the President’s Media Division (PMD) denied President Wickremesinghe’s association with the person concerned. The court proceedings on July 08, 2024 exposed Lenawa’s intention and he was asked to pay as cost Rs 100,000 by the SC.

Regardless of Lenawa’s fate, another person, Attorney-at-Law Aruna Laksiri, moved the SC claiming that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution hadn’t been enacted properly, he called for the SC’s intervention to conduct a referendum before the presidential poll. The SC dismissed that petition, too. The SC ordered the petitioner to pay a court fee of Rs. 500,000.

That ruling was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Arjuna Obeysekera, and Priyantha Fernando affirming the formal adoption of the 19th Constitutional Amendment without the need for a referendum, in line with prior rulings from 2015.

In his petition, Laksiri claimed that the 19th Amendment amended Article 70 of the Constitution, which deprives the President of the power to dissolve an elected Parliament after one year. The lawyer contended that the amendment has not been approved by a referendum, despite a Supreme Court ruling indicating it should be.

During the proceedings, the Attorney General emphasized before the Supreme Court that the Presidential term is constitutionally defined as five years.

Having scuttled the LG polls, President Wickremesinghe, in late February 2023, explained the circumstances he decided not to conduct thebLG polls. Participating in a debate on the Essential Public Services Act, President Wickremesinghe underscored his strategy that his priority was building the economy and not politics. Obviously that was nothing but a signal for the country and the justices hearing relevant cases. By then, the President’s actions and that of his government had effectively prevented the holding of the LG polls as stipulated on March 09, 2023. The PMD aptly headlined Wickremesinghe’s February 23rd statement: “The President tells parliament his priority is building the economy and not politics.”

President Wickremesinghe defended Finance Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana and others under him whom he didn’t identify over the denial of funds required for the conducting of LG polls. This was in the wake of the Election Commission declaring before the SC that the election couldn’t be held as a result of the Finance Secretary taking up a position that the required funds weren’t available.

The President contradicted the Election Commission. Having done so, the UNP leader acknowledged that he personally briefed the members of the Election Commission on December 14, 2022, regarding the unsuitability of holding the LG polls due to the volatile economic situation in the country. Wickremesinghe wanted the polls delayed till the total number of LG members was reduced to 5,000. The country must be reminded that the number of LG members sharply increased during the period Wickremesinghe served as the Prime Minister of the Yahapalana administration.

Making reference to the transitional provisions of the 21st Amendment (In Part 3 under the Interim Provisions) to the Constitution, President Wickremesinghe categorized the Election Commission as a temporary Commission accountable to the Parliament. He found fault with the Election Commission for failing to discuss the issues at hand with the House before making representations to the SC.

President Wickremesinghe is on record as having claimed that he along with Premier Gunawardena and AG Rajaratnam met members of the Election Commission on January 05, 2024, against the backdrop of what he called division among the members regarding the holding of the LG polls on December 23, 2023. According to the President, the Election Commission should have consulted a lawyer, representing the interests of either SJB or the JVP. Instead, the Election Commission sought the advice of Saliya Peiris, PC, whom members of the Election Commission described as one who engaged in politics.

President Wickremesinghe questioned the authority of the Election Commission to go ahead with the scheduled elections while alleging that the Election Commission didn’t properly take a decision to conduct the election on March 09 regardless of rumours. President Wickremesinghe found fault with the then EC Chairman and Attorney-at-Law Nimal Punchihewa and member M.M. Mohamed.

The PMD quoted President Wickremesinghe as having told Parliament on February 23, 2024: “We don’t need to postpone the election, but we don’t have money for it. If we need, we can discuss and come to a decision, but for the moment, we don’t have money. On the other hand, there is no election at hand as well. So, what have we got to do? The Commission is answerable to the Parliament. The Parliament has asked to appoint a select committee on this matter. So, I request to appoint it, record all and take the report to the Supreme Court. According to section 4 of the Constitution, the financial power is vested in the Parliament. After the 1688 Revolution, according to the Magna Carta Agreement, all monetary powers are vested in Parliament. Therefore, give that report to the Supreme Court through a select committee.”

The recent ruling by a five-judge bench meant that the SC obviously thought otherwise. Let me mention the Counsel who appeared for the petitioners in the historic case: Upul Jayasuriya, PC. with Nisala Fernando instructed by Sampath Wijewardane for the SJB, Viran Corea with Luwie Ganeshathasan and Khyati Wickramanayaka instructed by Sinnadurai Sunderalingam & Balendra for CPA, Nigel Hatch, PC. with Shantha Jayawardena, Ms. Wihangi Tissera, Ms. Azra Basheer, Hirannaya Damunupola, Ms. Niroshika Wegiriya, Sunil Watagala and Ms Illangage for the JJB and Asthika Devendra with Pulasthi Hewamanne, Kaneel Maddumage, Vimukthi Karunarathne and Ms. Abheetha Dinethri instructed by Manjula Balasuriya for the PAFFREL.

The SC was moved in terms of Article 17 read with Article 126 of the Constitution. Argued for 15 days, the decision was announced on August 22, 2024.

Some crucial SC rulings

In the run-up to the unprecedented SC ruling on August 22, 2024, the apex court emphasized in no uncertain terms that politicians, regardless of their status, couldn’t expect favoured treatment under any circumstances.

* Following a landmark SC decision, former President Maithripala Sirisena in March 2022 vacated his official residence at Mahagama Sekara Mawatha (formerly known as Paget Road), Colombo. Sirisena had no option but to leave after the SC quashed a Cabinet decision taken in October 2019 to grant the residence to him after his retirement. The residence in question was the former President’s official residence during his tenure as the Head of State. The Supreme Court held that the Cabinet decision while he was at its helm is arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires, illegal, a breach of the provisions of the President’s Entitlements Act, amounts to a violation of the Rule of Law and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioners and the citizens of Sri Lanka.

* In January, 2023 SC ordered ex- President Sirisena to pay a sum of Rs.100 million as damages to the victims of Easter Sunday attacks. Sirisena completed the payment two weeks ago on a staggered basis. The consequences were devastating as underscored by the former SLFP leader’s failure to reach a consensus with any candidate contesting the Presidential Election.

* Sirisena suffered yet another setback when the SC invalidated his decision to grant a presidential pardon to a convict who murdered a Swedish teenager Yvonne Jonsson 19 years ago. Sirisena granted Jude Jayamaha a presidential pardon just a few weeks before the 2019 Presidential Election. Jayamaha was convicted in 2012 for killing Yvonne Jonsson in what was known as the ‘Royal Park’ murder case. Jayamaha was sentenced to death. the SC fined Sirisena Rs 3 mn.

* The other judgment was delivered in November 2023 with respect to petitions filed against the economic crisis that led to the declaration of bankruptcy status in April 2022.

The SC held that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother, former Prime Minister Mahinda, were among several government officials whose conduct contributed to the country’s worst economic crisis in decades.

* Two other SC decisions that sent clear message were the ruling on IGP and the on-line visa issuance facility.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Fonseka clears Rajapaksas of committing war crimes he himself once accused them of

Published

2 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

With Sri Lanka’s 17th annual war victory over separatist Tamil terrorism just months away, warwinning Army Chief, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (Dec. 06, 2005, to July 15, 2009) has significantly changed his war narrative pertaining to the final phase of the offensive that was brought to an end on May 18, 2009.

The armed forces declared the conclusion of ground operations on that day after the entire northern region was brought back under their control. LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, hiding within the secured area, was killed on the following day. His body was recovered from the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon.

With the war a foregone conclusion, with nothing to save the increasingly hedged in Tigers taking refuge among hapless Tamil civilians, Fonseka left for Beijing on May 11, and returned to Colombo, around midnight, on May 17, 2009. The LTTE, in its last desperate bid to facilitate Prabhakatan’s escape, breached one flank of the 53 Division, around 2.30 am, on May 18. But they failed to bring the assault to a successful conclusion and by noon the following day those fanatical followers of Tiger Supremo, who had been trapped within the territory, under military control, died in confrontations.

During Fonseka’s absence, the celebrated 58 Division (formerly Task Force 1), commanded by the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, advanced 31/2 to 4 kms and was appropriately positioned with Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne’s 53 Division. The LTTE never had an opportunity to save its leader by breaching several lines held by frontline troops on the Vanni east front. There couldn’t have been any other option than surrendering to the Army.

The Sinha Regiment veteran, who had repeatedly accused the Rajapaksas of war crimes, and betraying the war effort by providing USD 2 mn, ahead of the 2005 presidential election, to the LTTE, in return for ordering the polls boycott that enabled Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, last week made noteworthy changes to his much disputed narrative.

GR’s call to Shavendra What did the former Army Commander say?

* The Rajapaksas wanted to sabotage the war effort, beginning January 2008.

* In January 2008, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Navy Commander VA Wasantha Karannagoda, proposed to the National Security Council that the Army should advance from Vavuniya to Mullithivu, on a straight line, to rapidly bring the war to a successful conclusion. They asserted that Fonseka’s strategy (fighting the enemy on multiple fronts) caused a lot of casualties.

* They tried to discourage the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka

* Fonseka produced purported video evidence to prove decisive intervention made by Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the afternoon of May 17. The ex-Army Chief’s assertion was based on a telephone call received by Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva from Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That conversation had been captured on video by Swarnavahini’s Shanaka de Silva who now resides in the US. He had been one of the few persons, from the media, authorised by the Army Headquarters and the Defence Ministry to be with the Army leadership on the battlefield. Fonseka claimed that the videographer fled the country to escape death in the hands of the Rajapaksas. It was somewhat reminiscent of Maithripala Sirisena’s claim that if Rajapaksas win the 2015 Presidential election against him he would be killed by them.

* Shanaka captured Shavendra Silva disclosing three conditions laid down by the LTTE to surrender namely (a) Their casualties should be evacuated to Colombo by road (b) They were ready to exchange six captured Army personnel with those in military custody and (c) and the rest were ready to surrender.

* Then Fonseka received a call from Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on a CDMA phone. The Defence Secretary issued specific instructions to the effect that if the LTTE was to surrender that should be to the military and definitely not to the ICRC or any other third party. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, one-time Commanding Officer of the 1st battalion of the Gajaba Regiment, ordered that irrespective of any new developments and talks with the international community, offensive action shouldn’t be halted. That declaration directly contradicted Fonseka’s claim that the Rajapaksas conspired to throw a lifeline to the LTTE.

Fonseka declared that the Rajapaksa brothers, in consultation with the ICRC, and Amnesty International, offered an opportunity for the LTTE leadership to surrender, whereas his order was to annihilate the LTTE. The overall plan was to eliminate all, Fonseka declared, alleging that the Rajapaksa initiated talks with the LTTE and other parties to save those who had been trapped by ground forces in a 400 m x 400 m area by the night of May 16, among a Tamil civilian human shield held by force.

If the LTTE had agreed to surrender to the Army, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have saved their lives. If that happened Velupillai Prabhakaran would have ended up as the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he said. Fonseka shocked everyone when he declared that he never accused the 58 Division of executing prisoners of war (white flag killings) but the issue was created by those media people embedded with the military leadership. Fonseka declared that accusations regarding white flag killings never happened. That story, according to Fonseka, had been developed on the basis of the Rajapaksas’ failed bid to save the lives of the LTTE leaders.

Before we discuss the issues at hand, and various assertions, claims and allegations made by Fonseka, it would be pertinent to remind readers of wartime US Defence Advisor in Colombo Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s June 2011 denial of white flag killings. The US State Department promptly declared that the officer hadn’t spoken at the inaugural Colombo seminar on behalf of the US. Smith’s declaration, made two years after the end of the war, and within months after the release of the Darusman report, dealt a massive blow to false war crimes allegations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in 2010, appointed a three-member Panel of Experts, more like a kangaroo court, consisting of Marzuki Darusman, Yasmin Sooka, and Steven Ratner, to investigate war crimes accusations.

Now Fonseka has confirmed what Smith revealed at the defence seminar in response to a query posed by Maj. General (retd.) Ashok Metha of the IPKF to Shavendra Silva, who had been No 02 in our UN mission, in New York, at that time.

White flag allegations

‘White flag’ allegations cannot be discussed in isolation. Fonseka made that claim as the common presidential candidate backed by the UNP-JVP-TNA combine. The shocking declaration was made in an interview with The Sunday Leader Editor Frederica Jansz published on Dec. 13, 2009 under ‘Gota ordered them to be shot – General Sarath Fonseka.’

The ‘white flag’ story had been sensationally figured in a leaked confidential US Embassy cable, during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here. Butenis had authored that cable at 1.50 pm on Dec. 13, 2009, the day after the now defunct The Sunday Leader exclusive. Butenis had lunch with Fonseka in the company of the then UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, according to the cable. But for the writer the most interesting part had been Butenis declaration that Fonseka’s advisors, namely the late Mangala Samaraweera, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (incumbent President) and Vijitha Herath (current Foreign Minister) wanted him to retract part of the story attributed to him.

Frederica Jansz fiercely stood by her explosive story. She reiterated the accuracy of the story, published on Dec. 13, 2009, during the ‘white flag’ hearing when the writer spoke to her. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Frederica Jansz misinterpreted Fonseka’s response to her queries.

Subsequently, Fonseka repeated the ‘white flag’ allegation at a public rally held in support of his candidature. Many an eyebrow was raised at The Sunday Leader’s almost blind support for Fonseka, against the backdrop of persistent allegations directed at the Army over Lasantha Wickrematunga’s killing. Wickrematunga, an Attorney-at-Law by profession and one-time Private Secretary to Opposition Leader Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was killed on the Attidiya Road, Ratmalana in early January 2009.

The Darusman report, too, dealt withthe ‘white flag’ killings and were central to unsubstantiated Western accusations directed at the Sri Lankan military. Regardless of the political environment in which the ‘white flag’ accusations were made, the issue received global attention for obvious reasons. The accuser had been the war-winning Army Commander who defeated the LTTE at its own game. But, Fonseka insisted, during his meeting with Butenis, as well as the recent public statement that the Rajapaksas had worked behind his back with some members of the international community.

Fresh inquiry needed

Fonseka’s latest declaration that the Rajapaksas wanted to save the LTTE leadership came close on the heels of Deputy British Prime Minister David Lammy’s whistle-stop visit here. The UK, as the leader of the Core Group on Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council, spearheads the campaign targeting Sri Lanka.

Lammy was on his way to New Delhi for the AI Impact Summit. The Labour campaigner pushed for action against Sri Lanka during the last UK general election. In fact, taking punitive action against the Sri Lankan military had been a key campaign slogan meant to attract Tamil voters of Sri Lankan origin. His campaign contributed to the declaration of sanctions in March 2025 against Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, General (retd) Shavendra Silva, General (retd) Jagath Jayasuriya and ex-LTTE commander Karuna, who rebelled against Prabhakaran. Defending Shavendra Silva, Fonseka, about a week after the imposition of the UK sanctions, declared that the British action was unfair.

But Fonseka’s declaration last week had cleared the Rajapaksas of war crimes. Instead, they had been portrayed as traitors. That declaration may undermine the continuous post-war propaganda campaign meant to demonise the Rajapaksas and top ground commanders.

Canada, then a part of the Western clique that blindly towed the US line, declared Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide and also sanctioned ex-Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Other countries resorted to action, though such measures weren’t formally announced. General (retd) Jagath Dias and Maj. Gen (retd) Chagie Gallage were two of those targeted.

Against the backdrop of Fonseka’s latest claims, in respect of accountability issues, the urgent need to review action taken against Sri Lanka cannot be delayed. Although the US denied visa when Fonseka was to accompany President Maithripala Sirisena to the UN, in Sept. 2016, he hadn’t been formally accused of war crimes by the western powers, obviously because he served their interests.

On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that hadn’t been subjected to judicial proceedings, Geneva initiated actions. The US, Canada and UK acted on those accusations. The US sanctioned General Shavendra Silva in Feb. 2020 and Admiral Karannagoda in April 2023.

What compelled Fonseka to change his narrative, 18 years after his Army ended the war? Did Fonseka base his latest version solely on Shanaka de Silva video? Fonseka is on record as claiming that he got that video, via a third party, thereby Shanaka de Silva had nothing to do with his actions.

DNA and formation of DP

Having realised that he couldn’t, under any circumstances, reach a consensus with the UNP to pursue a political career with that party, Fonseka teamed up with the JVP, one of the parties in the coalition that backed his presidential bid in 2010. Fonseka’s current efforts to reach an understanding with the JVP/NPP (President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is the leader of both registered political parties) should be examined against the backdrop of their 2010 alliance.

Under Fonseka’s leadership, the JVP, and a couple of other parties/groups, contested, under the symbol of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) that had been formed on 22 Nov. 2009. but the grouping pathetically failed to live up to their own expectations. The results of the parliamentary polls, conducted in April 2010, had been devastating and utterly demoralising. Fonseka, who polled about 40% of the national vote at the January 2010 presidential election, ended up with just over 5% of the vote, and the DNA only managed to secure seven seats, including two on the National List. The DNA group consisted of Fonseka, ex-national cricket captain Arjuna Ranatunga, businessman Tiran Alles and four JVPers. Anura Kumara Dissanayake was among the four.

Having been arrested on February 8, 2010, soon after the presidential election, Fonseka was in prison. He was court-martialed for committing “military offences”. He was convicted of corrupt military supply deals and sentenced to three years in prison. Fonseka vacated his seat on 7 Oct .2010. Following a failed legal battle to protect his MP status, Fonseka was replaced by DNA member Jayantha Ketagoda on 8 March 2011. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa released Fonseka in May 2012 following heavy US pressure. The US went to the extent of issuing a warning to the then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena that unless President Rajapaksa freed Fonseka he would have to face the consequences (The then Health Minister Sirisena disclosed the US intervention when the writer met him at the Jealth Ministry, as advised by President Rajapaksa)

By then, Fonseka and the JVP had drifted apart and both parties were irrelevant. Somawansa Amarasinghe had been the leader at the time the party decided to join the UNP-led alliance that included the TNA, and the SLMC. The controversial 2010 project had the backing of the US as disclosed by leaked secret diplomatic cables during Patricia Butenis tenure as the US Ambassador here.

In spite of arranging the JVP-led coalition to bring an end to the Rajapaksa rule, Butenis, in a cable dated 15 January 2010, explained the crisis situation here. Butenis said: “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka.”

Then Fonseka scored a major victory when Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya on 1 April, 2013, recognised his Democratic Party (DNA was registered as DP) with ‘burning flame’ as its symbol. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any service commander registering a political party. While Fonseka received the leadership, ex-Army officer Senaka de Silva, husband of Diana Gamage ((later SJB MP who lost her National List seat over citizenship issue) functioned as the Deputy Leader.

Having covered Fonseka’s political journey, beginning with the day he handed over command to Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya, in July, 2009, at the old Army Headquarters that was later demolished to pave the way for the Shangri-La hotel complex, the writer covered the hastily arranged media briefing at the Solis reception hall, Pitakotte, on 2 April, 2023. Claiming that his DP was the only alternative to what he called corrupt Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government and bankrupt Ranil Wickremesinghe-led Opposition, a jubilant Fonseka declared himself as the only alternative (‘I am the only alternative,’ with strapline ‘SF alleges Opposition is as bad as govt’. The Island, April 3, 2013).

Fonseka had been overconfident to such an extent, he appealed to members of the government parliamentary group, as well as the Opposition (UNP), to switch allegiance to him. As usual Fonseka was cocky and never realised that 40% of the national vote he received, at the presidential election, belonged to the UNP, TNA and the JVP. Fonseka also disregarded the fact that he no longer had the JVP’s support. He was on his own. The DP never bothered to examine the devastating impact his 2010 relationship with the TNA had on the party. The 2015 general election results devastated Fonseka and underscored that there was absolutely no opportunity for a new party. The result also proved that his role in Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE hadn’t been a decisive factor.

RW comes to SF’s rescue

Fonseka’s DP suffered a humiliating defeat at the August 2015 parliamentary polls. The outcome had been so bad that the DP was left without at least a National List slot. Fonseka was back to square one. If not for UNP leader and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Fonseka could have been left in the cold. Wickremesinghe accommodated Fonseka on their National List, in place of SLFPer M.K.D.S. Gunawardene, who played a critical role in an influential section of the party and the electorate shifting support to Maithripala Sirisena. Gunawardena passed away on 19 January, 2016. Wickremesinghe and Fonseka signed an agreement at Temple Trees on 3 February, 2016. Fonseka received appointment as National List MP on 9 February, 2016, and served as Minister of Regional Development and, thereafter, as Minister of Wildlife and Sustainable Development, till Oct. 2018. Fonseka lost his Ministry when President Sirisena treacherously sacked Wickremesinghe’s government to pave the way for a new partnership with the Rajapaksas. The Supreme Court discarded that arrangement and brought back the Yahapalana administration but Sirisena, who appointed Fonseka to the lifetime rank of Field Marshal, in recognition of his contribution to the defeat of terrorism, refused to accommodate him in Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet. The President also left out Wasantha Karannagoda and Roshan Goonetilleke. Sirisena appointed them Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of Air Force, respectively, on 19, Sept. 2019, in the wake of him failing to secure the required backing to contest the Nov. 2019 presidential election.

Wickremesinghe’s UNP repeatedly appealed on behalf of Fonseka in vain to Sirisena. At the 2020 general election, Fonseka switched his allegiance to Sajith Premadasa and contested under the SJB’s ‘telephone’ symbol and was elected from the Gampaha district. Later, following a damaging row with Sajith Premadasa, he quit the SJB as its Chairman and, at the last presidential election, joined the fray as an independent candidate. Having secured just 22,407 votes, Fonseka was placed in distant 9th position. Obviously, Fonseka never received any benefits from support extended to the 2022 Aragalaya and his defeat at the last presidential election seems to have placed him in an extremely difficult position, politically.

Let’s end this piece by reminding that Fonseka gave up the party leadership in early 2024 ahead of the presidential election. Senaka de Silva succeeded Fonseka as DP leader, whereas Dr. Asosha Fernando received appointment as its Chairman. The DP has aligned itself with the NPP. The rest is history.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Strengths and weaknesses of BRICS+: Implications for Global South

Published

2 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

The 16th BRICS Summit, from 22 to 24 October 2024 in Kazan, was attended by 24 heads of state, including the five countries that officially became part of the group on 1 January: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia. Argentina finally withdrew from the forum after Javier Milei’s government took office in 2023.

In the end, it changed its strategy and instead of granting full membership made them associated countries adding a large group of 13 countries: two from Latin America (Bolivia and Cuba), three from Africa (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda) and eight from Asia (Belarus, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Vietnam). This confirms the expansionary intent of the BRICS, initiated last year and driven above all by China, which seeks to turn the group into a relevant multilateral forum, with focus on political than economic interaction, designed to serve its interests in the geopolitical dispute with the United States. This dispute however is not the making of China but has arisen mainly due to the callous bungling of Donald Trump in his second term in office.

China has emerged as the power that could influence the membership within the larger group more than its rival in the region, India. Obviously, the latter is concerned about these developments but seems powerless to stop the trend as more countries realize the need for the development of capacity to resist Western dominance. India in this regard seems to be reluctant possibly due to its defence obligations to the US with Trump declaring war against countries that try to forge partnerships aiming to de-dollarize the global economic system.

The real weakness in BRICS therefore, is the seemingly intractable rivalry between China and India and the impact of this relationship on the other members who are keen to see the organisation grow its capacity to meet its stated goals. China is committed to developing an alternative to the Western dominated world order, particularly the weaponization of the dollar by the US. India does not want to be seen as anti-west and as a result India is often viewed as a reluctant or cautious member of BRICS. This problem seems to be perpetuated due to the ongoing border tensions with China. India therefore has a desire to maintain a level playing field within the group, rather than allowing it to be dominated by Beijing.

Though India seems to be committed to a multipolar world, it prefers focusing on economic cooperation over geopolitical alignment. India thinks the expansion of BRICS initiated by China may dilute its influence within the bloc to the advantage of China. India fears the bloc is shifting toward an anti-Western tilt driven by China and Russia, complicating its own strong ties with the West. India is wary of the new members who are also beneficiaries of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. While China aims to use BRICS for anti-Western geopolitical agendas, India favors focusing on South-South financial cooperation and reforming international institutions. Yet India seems to be not in favour of creating a new currency to replace the dollar which could obviously strengthen the South-South financial transactions bypassing the dollar.

Moreover, India has explicitly opposed the expansion of the bloc to include certain nations, such as Pakistan, indicating a desire to control the group’s agenda, especially during its presidency.

In this equation an important factor is the role that Russia could play. The opinion expressed by the Russian foreign minister in this regard may be significant. Referring to the new admissions the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said: “The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us [BRICS members]. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. The six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”

The admission of three major oil producing countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE is bound to have a significant impact on the future global economic system and consequently may have positive implications for the Global South. These countries would have the ability to decisively help in creating a new international trading system to replace the 5 centuries old system that the West created to transfer wealth from the South to the North. This is so because the petro-dollar is the pillar of the western banking system and is at the very core of the de-dollarizing process that the BRICS is aiming at. This cannot be done without taking on board Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the west. BRICS’ expansion, therefore, is its transformation into the most representative community in the world, whose members interact with each other bypassing Western pressure. Saudi Arabia and Iran are actively mending fences, driven by a 2023 China-brokered deal to restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies, and de-escalate regional tensions. While this detente has brought high-level meetings and a decrease in direct hostility rapprochement is not complete yet and there is hope which also has implications, positive for the South and may not be so for the North.

Though the US may not like what is going on, Europe, which may not endorse all that the former does if one is to go by the speech delivered by the Canadian PM in Brazil recently, may not be displeased about the rapid growth of BRICS. The Guardian UK highlighted expert opinion that BRICS expansion is rather “a symbol of broad support from the global South for the recalibration of the world order.” A top official at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Caroline Kanter has told the daily, “It is obvious that we [Western countries] are no longer able to set our own conditions and standards. Proposals will be expected from us so that in the future we will be perceived as an attractive partner.” At the same time, the bottom line is that BRICS expansion is perceived in the West as a political victory for Russia and China which augurs well for the future of BRICS and the Global South.

Poor countries, relentlessly battered by the neo-liberal global economy, will greatly benefit if BRICS succeeds in forging a new world order and usher in an era of self-sufficiency and economic independence. There is no hope for them in the present system designed to exploit their natural resources and keep them in a perpetual state of dependency and increasing poverty. BRICS is bound to be further strengthened if more countries from the South join it. Poor countries must come together and with the help of BRICS work towards this goal.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga