Features

The NPP’s Constitutional Reforms: Purposes and Processes

Published

2 days ago

2026/06/14

Participating at the All Party Conference that then President Jayewardene convened in January 1984 in the aftermath of the watershed violence of 1983, Dr. Colvin R de Silva characteristically perorated that the structure of the Sri Lankan state is incongruent with the country’s sociopolitical reality. He said it more as Historian than as a Lawyer or the architect of the 1972 Constitution.

This gap between state structure and political reality was somewhat bridged by the 13^th Amendment that came three years later, with all due credit to President Jayewardene no matter how begrudgingly he may have done it and even if it was under Indian duress as JRJ’s critics have been alleging ever since.

In this backdrop, it is fair to say that the NPP’s constitutional proposals, even if they may not have been drafted with this specific intent, could contribute to further bridging the structural-reality gap and potentially transform Sri Lanka into an ethno-equal state and an ethno-equal nation. The rub, however, is in the ability of the government, as well as its intention, to fulfill in practice what is otherwise a very laudable purpose. The experience so far with the Provincial Council elections and the absence of any manifest effort by the NPP government towards implementing any of its main constitutional proposals do not allow room for too much optimism.

As I cite below, the NPP’s Manifesto fulsomely promises to hold all provincial and local government elections within one year after coming into office. Now with all the ministerial and prime-ministerial explanations in parliament as to what and what pre-steps this overworked government is apparently constrained to take, the PC system would consider itself lucky if the next provincial elections end up being held at the same time as the next parliamentary elections. That is the reality. It could be much better and that too by a government that promised to be much better.

The NPP’s Constitutional Purpose

Section 4 of the NPP Manifesto, A Thriving Nation, A Beautiful Life, is entitled A Dignified Life – A Strong Country, and includes nine subsections, viz. 1) A new constitution – A united Sri Lankan nation; 2) An efficient public service – A skill based professionalism; 3) Rule of law – A judicial system with equal access; 4) Public security assuring – People friendly service; 5) A humanitarian prison – A lawful confinement; 6) A drug-free country – A healthier citizen life; 7) A dignified diplomacy – A sovereign state; 8) High level of national security – Secured state; and 9) A Sri Lankan Nation – The Universal Citizen. These subheadings and sections are indicative of the NPP’s vision for the Sri Lankan State, a Sri Lankan Nation, and the equality of all its citizens.

The Section specific to the constitution (Section 4.1) includes the NPP’s promise to usher in “a new constitution” for “a united Sri Lankan nation.” The process for introducing the new constitution is described thus: “A new constitution will be drafted and passed through a referendum with the necessary changes, if there any, after going through a public discourse.” In addition, Section 4.9 – A Sri Lankan Nation – The Universal Citizen, elaborates on the premise and the purpose of a new NPP Constitution which are outlined as follows:

“Introduce a new constitution that strengthens democracy and ensures equality of all citizens. This initiative will build on the constitutional reform process started in 2015 which remains incomplete. The proposed constitutional reforms will guarantee equality and democracy and the devolution of political and administrative power to every local government, district and province so that all people can be involved in governance within one country. Provincial councils and local government elections, which are currently postponed indefinitely, will be held within a year to provide an opportunity for the people to join the governance.”

Fifteen “activities” are included as making up the constitution making process: 1) Recognizing and enacting the rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as basic rights; 2) Broadening the constitutional law about the rights of children, women, and people with disabilities according to international conventions; 3) Safeguarding the voting rights of immigrants within and outside of the country; 4) Abolishing the executive presidency and appointing a president, without executive powers, by the parliament; 5) Introducing a new parliamentary electoral system; 6) Limiting official presidential residences to one; 7) Abolishing the pensions and special privileges given to retired presidents and their families; 8) Appointing 25 ministers and corresponding deputy ministers to 25 logically determined ministries and abolishing State Ministerial posts; 9) An advisory council consisting of specialists on the subject will be appointed to each ministry; 10) Introducing a code of ethics, including not allowing members of parliament (MPs) and ministers to appoint their immediate family members to their personal staff; 11) Abolishing allowances made to MPs for participating in parliamentary sessions; 12) Abolishing the pension offered to MPs after 05 years; 13) Preventing MPs or their close family members from directly or indirectly engaging in businesses or contracts with the government; 14) Removing the tax-free vehicle permits for MPs; and 15) Giving only one vehicle for Ministers /Deputy Ministers to be used during their period of office.

Interestingly, while the aborted 2015 constitutional reform process that the NPP was a part of is acknowledged, there are no references in the proposals – to the 1972 Constitution or the 1978 Constitution, and missing in the proposals are some of the signature terms that were/are both the badges and burdens of the two constitutions viz., the republic; unitary state; socialist (1972) and democratic socialist (1978); and special status for Buddhism. On the other hand, the proposals (Activity #1 & #2) include the commitment to enshrine and enforce rights and freedoms of Sri Lankans in accordance with international covenants and conventions. This inclusion is refreshingly open in contrast to the 1972 and 1978 constitutions which were rather averse to embracing anything ‘foreign’ due to the misplaced fear of diluting the island’s sovereignty, which is more theoretical than concrete.

Sovereignty and territorial integrity are duly emphasized in Section 4.7 of the proposals: A Dignified Diplomacy – A sovereign State, and in Subsection 4.8: Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity. Section 4.9: A Sri Lankan Nation – The Universal Citizen, underscores national reconciliation, equality of citizens in religion and language, and the vigorous operationalization of the Provincial Council system even though the 13^th Amendment is not mentioned in the proposals. There is, however, specific reference to the 16^th Amendment and the promise to implement the National Language Policy that is enshrined in 16A. Sri Lanka’s ethnic diversity is acknowledged and various measures are identified for achieving national reconciliation and a free and equal society.

Among these measures are: establishing an Inter-Religious Council consisting of all religious leaders and religious scholars to resolve inter-religious issues; releasing all political prisoners and ensuring their free socialization; abolition of all oppressive acts including the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA); regularization of civil administration in a way that the civil rights of the people in all parts of the country including the North and East are guaranteed; providing educational and employment opportunities to all ethnicities based on merit without political influence; providing relief to war widows, internally displaced persons, people with disabilities and people with trauma in need of relief and shelter; settlement of existing land related issues by a National Commission on Lands and Settlements; and ending resettlement programmes that operate with the aim of changing population composition; and addressing the wages, land, housing, education, and health issues of the Malaiayaka Tamils based on the NPP’s Hatton Declaration of 2023.

This is an impressive list by any comparison and it will be all the more impressive if the NPP government were to seriously and capably set about achieving most or all of them.

The Constitutional Process

While the Manifesto indicates that “a new constitution will be drafted and passed through a referendum with the necessary changes, if there are any, after going through a public discourse,” it is not clear if the NPP intends to comprehensively amend the current (1978) constitution, or repeal and replace it based on a referendum. Similar to its 1972 predecessor, the 1978 Constitution provides for repealing and replacing itself but requires the people’s endorsement in a referendum. Although the referendum requirement is limited to specific provisions of the constitution, an interpretive judicial culture has since evolved widening the referendum net to capture other provisions that are not stipulated in Article 83 of the constitution.

Opposing and, in my view, more persuasive voices have been heard from experts like Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema, and long before that from Dr. Colvin R.de Silva during the controversy over 13A referendum requirements, that a referendum requirement should be limited to changing only the provisions that are specifically to the provisions mentioned in Article 83. By this interpretation, a referendum is required to extend the term of a president or of parliament, but not for abolishing the system of elected executive presidency itself.

At the same time, a synthesizing view has also evolved that if the constitution were to be changed in a substantial manner, let alone repeal and replace it even without changing any of the Article 83 provisions, it would be prudent to have a referendum and be done with it. The latter is also the NPP’s position but seemingly taken from a more positive and democratic standpoint than a narrow interpretive standpoint. But there are questions as to how and when the NPP government will have a constitution package ready and when will it likely call for a referendum. It is not necessary to detail the amending processes in an election manifesto, but with nearly two years in office it is time for the government to indicate what is going to be its new constitution and how is it going to be achieved.

Another technicality is that when it drafted the manifesto promising constitutional changes subject to a referendum, the NPP may not have been expecting a two-thirds majority in parliament. So, what was its thinking about meeting the initial amendment requirement of a two-thirds majority in parliament without having sufficient numbers in the government. It would have had to find common ground with opposition parties in parliament. That is the very purpose of the two-thirds majority in parliament – to achieve interparty consensus as opposed to using a steamroller single-party majority.

The question to the government is why is it not being consultative with at least some, if not all, of the parties in opposition. As well, inasmuch as the Manifesto refers to a continuation of the 2015 constitutional reform process, why is the government not consulting with those individuals and organizations who were significantly involved in that earlier process. Some of them were directly associated with the NPP. But none of them is in the scene now, while the current Minister of Justice was politically unheard and unseen at that time.

The double burden of Justice and Constitutional Affairs is too much for even the most experienced and equipped political leader. It is too much to saddle a first time MP and Minister with such heavy responsibilities. As well, there is much talk about the government inviting non-NPP experts to play lead roles in institutions and agencies involved in running the economy. Why not extend this approach to implementing the NPP’s constitutional reform process?

To hark back briefly to the making of the 1972 Constitution, neither Colvin R de Silva nor the United Front were banking on winning a two-thirds majority in the 1970 elections. Instead, they were relying on Colvin’s legal theory that the new constitution will be a total rupture from the Soulbury Constitution and that its making will follow its own path based on an electoral mandate from the people.

“Not merely despite the Queen, but in defiance of the Queen and her Crown,” was Dr. Colvin’s platform pitch. The two-thirds majority that the United Front turned out to be a curse in disguise. While the NPP is now saddled with a two-thirds majority it doesn’t have Colvin’s legal theory to ignore the amending procedures of the 1978 Constitution. JR Jayewardene faithfully followed the amending procedure of the 1972 Constitution, but created a more rigid constitution than its far more flexible predecessor.

Ushering new constitutions are easily done on the morrow of independence or a revolution. Midlife constitutional changes are extremely difficult in any country and there are only a handful of countries that have successfully achieved this feat. The successful making of the 1972 and 1977 constitutions in Sri Lanka were almost entirely due to the power and competence of their two architects, Colvin R de Silva whose power was entirely intellectual and professional, and JR Jayewardene who in addition had absolute political power after the UNP’s landslide victory in 1977.

Sri Lankan politics has not been able to replicate their circumstances ever since, and the circumstances of the NPP are no different, its two-thirds majority notwithstanding. If the government is serious about drafting a new constitution, conducting public consultation, and holding a referendum, it should have started the process the day after it was sworn into office. It could start the process right away even now. The task deserves a separate ministry and supporting expertise. It cannot be the part time job of a first time Minister of Justice.

All that said, many of the NPP’s reform proposals can be implemented without introducing a new constitution. Few have already been introduced and many more can be introduced by simple legislation or through amendments without a referendum. For the super majority the government has in parliament, its legislative record has not been sufficiently impressive. The government has given priority to implementing proposals that it considers to be more resonant with the voters at large.

They include, the taking away the manifestly undue perks and privileges of former presidents, and the proposals to end the more offensive perks and privileges of parliamentarians. The reform of parliament itself is to be achieved by implementing a new electoral system; by limiting cabinet size to 25 and appointing an advisory council for each ministry; and introducing a code of ethics for MPs. These measures will also go down well with the public, but they can all be implemented through simple legislation without having to change the constitution through a referendum.

The most glaring omission is the continuing foot dragging over the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). There are already new victims of this continuation. What is the point in indefinitely detaining people like Retired Major Gen. Suresh Sallay under the PTA? It only vitiates however plausible a case the government might have against Gen. Sallay. More importantly, it flies in the face of the NPP’s promise to abolish the PTA, and its promise of custodial and prison reforms under Section 4.5 of the Manifesto: A humanitarian prison – A lawful confinement. The PTA only keeps the door open for police abuse and overreach.

The most recognizable and much talked about proposal is for “Abolishing the executive presidency and appointing a president, without executive powers, by the parliament.” If only the NPP government can deliver on this promise during its current first term, it can justifiably claim to have fulfilled its constitutional promise almost in entirety. No one will likely ask for anything more from the NPP, constitutionally speaking. But that seems unlikely to happen and this gets clearer as each day goes by. The talk inside the NPP and outside would seem to suggest that President Dissanayake will seek a second term as an elected Executive President and renege on what was made out to be a historic promise. It will become another daydream, so to speak.

by Rajan Philips

All News Advertisement

Features

New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly, but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.

The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all circumstances and if considered appropriate. The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.

The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred to mediation. These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem. A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However, matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.

The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.

The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family and business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation, is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.

Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –

* Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;

* Given that mediating disputes requires very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;

* Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;

* Mediation Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone. Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.

* Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.

* The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.

* Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.

* Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.

* A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018 as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector. In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide” is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.

* Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;

* The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.

The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).

Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022. UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.

(To be continued)

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.

Features

A Testament to the Sri Lankan family

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.

In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.

At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family. I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan. These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.

Practical Solution

In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.

At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan. This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed. Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.

Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.

Rational Empathy

Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.

My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.

The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.

That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.

I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.

by Jehan Perera

Features

City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo

Published

8 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

Enroute

If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.

The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.

What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:

Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments

One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.

With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.

Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.

Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.

Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders

The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.

Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.

And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.

Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.

In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.

The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”

So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.

Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.