Features
TO WHOM IS THE LOYALTY OF THE POLICE DUE?
By Dr. Kingsley Wickremasuriya
Senior Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Retired) (kingsley.wickremasuriya@gmail.com) Prologue
“I am not bound to carry out your illegal orders..!” – SSP says to Police Minister and leaves the meeting..! (Lanka enews defense correspondent.
The Lanka-e News of Nov. 18, 2022 reported a rare incident where a Senior Superintendent of Police said to the face of Police Minister Tiran Alles that he is not bound to implement illegal orders, and then left a meeting of the Minister of Police.
According to reports, the incident is as follows. On Tuesday (Nov. 15) in the Ministry of Police, a conference was held under the chairmanship of the Minister of Police and the Inspector General of Police, where all Deputy Inspector Generals, SSPs, SPs, and ASPs of the Western Province were summoned. There, Tiran Alles has said that those holding anti-government demonstrations should be arrested.
Accordingly, Tiran Alles has scolded the police for not arresting the women who went to the United Nations office in Colombo the Monday (14) and not dispersing the protest there and another protest in front of the TID with baton charges. He then asked who the SSP in charge of that area was and told him to get up. Then Colombo South SSP Gayantha Hasantha Marapana stood up.
Senior DIG Deshabandhu Tennakoon ordered SSP Gayantha Marapana to arrest a woman including Hirunika who walked to the United Nations office yesterday (14), but he did not implement the order. And then Deshabandhu bypassed all the SSPs and SPs and ordered OIC Kurunduwatta directly to carry out the order. Accordingly, the women were arrested.
Hence Tiran Alles was very angry with SSP Gayantha Marapana. When SSP Gayantha Marapana stood up, Tiran asked him why the women were not arrested that day and threatened him to leave the police force or wait for transfers if there is anyone who could not carry out his orders. SSP Marapana responded by asking, “what is the charge” and said that he cannot face human rights cases by ordering to arrest the people without charge.
Then Tiran Alles, who turned to the Inspector General of Police, asked, “Why is there no charge? Is opposing the government not a charge?” Inspector General of Police Wickramaratna said that it was not an accusation. Minister Alles who was then angered said that, if he could not carry out his orders, he should leave the police force. SSP Marapana replied that he joined the police as an SI and became an SSP not by executing illegal orders and that no police officer is bound to execute illegal orders. He then left the Minister’s conference.
Duties and Liabilities Under the Police Ordinance
It was in 1866 that an Ordinance to provide for the establishment and regulation of a police force in Sri Lanka was established. Under Sections three to six, nine, 10, and 59 of the Ordinance, it was lawful for the Minister to make rules from time to time, and when made to revoke, alter, or amend the rules on MATTERS OF POLICY.
But the Inspector-General of Police and such other Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, inspectors, and other officers as may be necessary under (Sections 20,21,24,55,56, etc of the Ordinance), on the other hand, were vested with the powers of ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLICE. Accordingly, the Inspector-General of Police “may from time to time, subject always to the approbation of the said Minister, frame orders and regulations for the observance of the police officers who shall be placed under his control as aforesaid, and also for the general government of such persons, as to their places of residence, classification, rank, and particular services, as well as their distribution and inspection, and all such orders and regulations relative to the said as police force as he may deem expedient for preventing neglect or abuse, and for rendering such force efficient in the discharge of its duties.”
So, while the Minister was responsible for making rules on matters of policy, the administration of the Police under the Police Ordinance was vested in the hands of the Inspector-General of Police. These were the clear lines of the Chain of Command drawn under which the Police operated under the Ordinance, until Independence.
Then in 1947, the Soulbury Constitution provided a parliamentary form of government for Ceylon and for a Judicial Service Commission and a Public Service Commission that contained all the basic principles and procedures necessary for the Rule of Law. But the United Front Government that enacted a new constitution severed the link to the British crown, depriving the judiciary of its independence and the power of judicial review, two of the most important conditions for the rule of law.
Minority rights were safeguarded by Article 29(2) of the Constitution but on the advice of Sir Ivor Jennings, its unofficial constitutional advisor, the Board of Ministers decided not to incorporate a Bill of Rights. But with the promulgation of the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA on May 22, 1972, the CONSTITUTION became the SUPREME LAW of the country. It was Sri Lanka’s first republican constitution and its second since independence in 1948.
The country was officially designated “The Republic of Sri Lanka,” which came to be known as “The 1972 Republican Constitution.” The Sri Lankan Constitution of 1972 changed the country’s name to Sri Lanka from Ceylon and established it as an independent republic. The country was officially designated “Republic of Sri Lanka,” leading to this constitution being known as “the 1972 Republican Constitution” paving the way for Sri Lanka to become a republic.
When Sri Lanka joined the UN in 1955 ratifying all the main UN International Human Rights Conventions on the immutable republican principles of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY assuring all Peoples, FREEDOM, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS, and INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, Sri Lanka became a signatory to Article 21 of the ICCPR and the International human rights law that lays down the obligations of the Governments.
‘The Covenant of Human Rights deals with such rights as freedom of movement; equality before the law; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; freedom of association; participation in public affairs and elections was among those. Human rights on the other hand are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. Accordingly, the Constitution came to guarantee the following Fundamental Rights under Chapter III of the Constitution :(a) Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (b) Freedom from torture (c) Right to equality (d) Detention, and punishment, and prohibition of retrospective penal legislation (e) Freedom of speech, assembly, association, occupation, movement, etc.(f) person of conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. (g) No person shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (h) All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. (i) No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth, or any one of such grounds:
Further, (j) No person shall, on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, or any one of such grounds, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition concerning access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment and places of public worship of his religion. (k) No person shall be arrested except according to the procedure established by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest. (l) Every person held in custody, detained, or otherwise deprived of personal liberty shall be brought before the judge of the nearest competent court according to procedure established by law and shall not be further held in custody, detained, or of liberty except upon and in terms of the order of such judge made in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The list continues:(m) Any person charged with 5 an offense shall be entitled to be heard, in person or by an attorney-at-law, at a fair trial by a competent court. (n) No person shall be punished with death or imprisonment except by order of a competent court, made in accordance with the procedure established by law. The arrest, holding in custody, detention, or other deprivation of personal liberty of a person, pending investigation or trial, shall not constitute punishment. (o) Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty.
The result was that ALL THE ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT were required to respect, secure, and advance the Fundamental Rights declared and recognized by the Constitution. The Oath of Allegiance to this Constitutional requirement, a person appointed to any office referred to in Chapter IX of the Constitution was required to enter upon an Oath of Office set out in the Fourth Schedule and Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic before such a person enters upon duties of his office. The Oath simply is an undertaking that the person referred to will perform the duties and discharge the functions of that office (a) in accordance with the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the law; and (b) that person will uphold and defend the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
This is a constitutional obligation applicable to ALL THE ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT under the Supreme Law of the Constitution, be they a Minister or individual Police Officer. So, this was the main constitutional obligation that came to be addressed when the Ministry of Public Security and the Police under their auspice drew up their Vision & Mission Statements. Making Sri Lanka the Safest & most secure, and Peaceful Nation is the Vision of the Ministry of Public Security ((http://www.pubsec.gov.lk/hon-minister/) ” and its Mission is to Formulate and Execute Policies and Strategic Plans to ensure Public Security through a Strong Multi-stakeholder Mechanism to create safer SRI LANKA by reducing crime, ensuring the safety of public and building trust in partnership with our Community.
The responsibility of the newly established National Police Commission https://www.police.lk/page_id=8508) on the other hand is to transform the Sri Lanka Police Force into a disciplined, credible, and community-responsive service by entertaining and investigating complaints from members of the public or any aggrieved person against a police officer or against the Police Force and to provide redress under the provisions of any law enacted by Parliament to upgrade Human Rights, Public Accountability for the Rule of Law and respect for the Rule of Law.
The Vision of the police, however, is committed to providing a Peaceful environment to live with confidence, without fear of Crime and Violence, and its Mission is committed to upholding and enforcing the law of the land, preserving public order, and preventing crime and Terrorism with prejudice to none – equity to all (www.poice.lk). So, it is the Rule of Law that the Police in the main and the Ministry of Public Security were constitutionally committed to at least by their Vision & Mission Statements.

The Rule of Law
The rule of law is one of the most important features of a democratic system of governance and a prerequisite for a good democracy. The Rule of law implies that all those involved in the state are bound by the law and are subject to the law. And that all officials from the Head of State to the lowest official should act within the limits of the powers conferred by law. Albert Venn Dicey (1835-1922) is said to be one of the most respected English scholars on constitutional law that has emphatically stressed the importance of the Doctrine of the Rule of Law.
Dicey concluded that: “The twin pillars upon which our system rests are the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the common law, administered in the ordinary courts independent of the executive over everyone within the realm, whether public official or private citizen.” Aristotle on the other hand is considered to be the original author of this concept of the Rule of Law. Rule of law calls for equal justice under the law for all citizens immaterial of social, political, and economic status. This also calls for total independence of the criminal justice system. In other words when there is a likely case of laws being violated, law enforcement – the police – should move into action on its own.
That is their constitutional obligation. They do not need to wait for orders from the political establishment. That negates the separation of powers.
Conclusions
As widely reported in the media, Senior Superintendent Gayantha Hasanth Marapana had to tell the Minister bluntly on that eventful day, Tuesday November 15, 2022, undefended by his seniors in the Department, where he stood concerning the Rule of Law. It reverberates against yet another story (as reported in the official minutes kept of this meeting) and later reported in newspaper headlines, about how the then Inspector-General of Police, Osmund de Silva (1955 – 1959) responded to the remarks of the then PM, that the Police should have that ’extra bit of loyalty to the Government. Summoning a meeting of OICC Stations by police message to inform them of the PM’s remark, he exhorted them to do their duties impartially regardless and that what they should uphold is the ‘Rule of Law’.
This assertion by the Inspector-General came at a time when there was no Bill of Rights in the Parliament or no Republican Constitution with Fundamental Rights to fall back on. Marapana on the other hand had all these constitutional safeguards to worry about, with the Attorney General’s Department leaning over the police against violations of Fundamental Rights like the Sword of Damocles. So, Marapana’s fear of having to face Rights Cases in court for violating Fundamental Rights is fully justified in the circumstances.
In yet another incident, even as late as 1958, when the Assistant Director of Training (ADT) Fred Brohier asked the question at an interview with some of the those applying for recruitment to the police as to whom a police officer’s loyalty is due, the ADT’s answer in response to various replies given such as: to the Prime Minister; to the Inspector General of Police, etc., was given in very categorical terms: That a Policeman owed his loyalty to no mother’s son, but to the law of the land. He was repeating the same sentiments as that of the IGP Osmund de Silva about the Rule of Law. There were yet others too who followed his example. It was the legendary DIG Sydney de Zoysa who defied such interference by yet another Prime Minster requesting that a certain constable applicant be recruited to the Department even though he did not have the required physical qualifications and yet survived to tell the tale.
A basic constitutional obligation that every policeman has to perform when joining the Police Service is taking an Oath of Allegiance. The Oath simply undertakes to perform one’s duty by the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Law. In other words, it is an undertaking to uphold the Constitution as the SUPREME LAW of the land – protecting Fundamental Rights under the Constitution. In theory, this is a Noble Concept. But how it works in practice in Sri Lanka is entirely a different story as practiced by different governments since Independence.
The Rule of Law has become something of a lip service rather than a Rule of Law – a Law only in the hands of those who call the shots for their benefit raising the usual question ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes’? ‘Who will guard the guards themselves’? in the minds of ordinary citizens. Senior Superintendent Marapana was merely reiterating his constitutional obligations, following in the footsteps of Inspector-General Osmund de Silva and others. The issue he rightly raised with the Minister was one of a basic principle of Constitutional Law and not that of obeying orders blindly, just because it came from a political authority. The message, therefore, is loud and clear: ‘A POLICEMAN OWED HIS LOYALTY TO NO OTHER BUT TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND’. A Post Script A basic constitutional obligation that every policeman has to perform when joining the Police Service is taking an Oath of Allegiance. The Oath is as follows:
Features
Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart
For more than a century, Sri Lankan society has lived with a quiet contradiction at the heart of its religious life. On the one hand, the Buddhist monk is revered as the embodiment of moral discipline, selfrestraint, and renunciation. On the other, the modern monk has become a public figure, political actor, administrator, media personality, and in some cases power broker whose influence extends far beyond the temple. This contradiction has been tolerated, even celebrated, for decades. But recent events, most notably a widely publicised case involving a senior monk accused of grave moral misconduct, have forced the country to confront a painful truth: the institutional conditions that make such scandals possible are not new. They are the predictable outcome of a long historical process that H. L. Seneviratne described with remarkable clarity in The Work of Kings. The moral deterioration visible today is not an aberration. It is the culmination of a centurylong transformation in the identity, function, and authority of the Sangha.
To understand how we arrived at this moment, it is necessary to revisit the argument Seneviratne made nearly three decades ago. His thesis was simple but profound: the modern Sri Lankan monkhood has taken on the ‘work of kings.’ By this he meant that monks, instead of confining themselves to the renunciant life prescribed by the Vinaya, have assumed the secular responsibilities once associated with precolonial kingship, such as protecting the religion, organising society, guiding the nation, and enforcing moral order. This shift, he argued, was not a natural evolution of Buddhist tradition but a modern invention shaped by colonialism, nationalism, and the anxieties of a society struggling to redefine itself in the face of foreign domination. The monk became a symbol of national identity, a guardian of cultural authenticity, and a leader in the struggle for political autonomy. In the process, the boundaries that once separated the monastic from the worldly began to dissolve.
Transformation
The consequences of this transformation were not immediately visible. For decades, the activist monk was celebrated as a patriot, a reformer, and a moral guide. His involvement in education, social welfare, and nationalist mobilisation was seen as a necessary response to colonial pressures and missionary competition. But beneath the surface, the foundations of monastic discipline were slowly eroding. The Vinaya, which had served for centuries as a rigorous framework for regulating monastic life, was increasingly overshadowed by the demands of public engagement. The communal structures that once ensured accountability, senior supervision, collective confession, and the daily rhythms of monastic routine, were weakened by the pressures of modernity. Monks who travelled constantly, managed institutions, or lived independently in urban temples found themselves outside the traditional systems of oversight that had long protected the integrity of the Sangha.
Scandal
It is within this historical context that the recent scandal must be understood. The case shocked the nation not only because of the severity of the allegations but because it shattered the public’s assumption that the monkhood remains a bastion of moral purity. Yet the shock itself reveals a collective denial. For years, Sri Lankan society has been aware, sometimes quietly, sometimes openly—of the growing gap between the ideal of the monk and the realities of modern monastic life. Stories of misconduct, financial irregularities, political manipulation, and abuse of authority have circulated with increasing frequency. But each incident has been treated as an isolated failure, a personal weakness, or an unfortunate exception. What has been missing is recognition that these incidents are symptoms of a deeper structural problem.
Seneviratne’s analysis helps illuminate this problem. When monks take on the work of kings, they inevitably enter domains of power that expose them to temptations the Vinaya was designed to avoid. Handling money, managing institutions, cultivating political patrons, and exercising authority over laypeople create opportunities for ego, ambition, and moral compromise. The monk who becomes a public figure is no longer shielded by the anonymity and humility of the renunciant life. Instead, he becomes a celebrity, a leader, and in some cases an object of uncritical devotion. This elevation brings with it a dangerous form of immunity. Laypeople who revere a monk for his public achievements may hesitate to question his behaviour. Politicians who rely on monastic support may protect him from scrutiny. The media, which often treats monks as moral authorities, may be reluctant to investigate allegations that challenge the sanctity of the robe.
The recent scandal illustrates how these dynamics can converge. The monk at the centre of the case was not an obscure figure. He was a respected preacher, charismatic leader, and head of a prominent institution. His public image was built on years of service, teaching, and community engagement. Yet it was precisely this public stature that allowed him to operate without meaningful oversight. The institutional structures around him, administrators, lay supporters, and junior monks, were either unwilling or unable to challenge his authority. The very qualities that made him a respected figure in the eyes of the public also made him untouchable within his own institution. When allegations finally emerged, they revealed not only personal wrongdoing but a systemic failure of accountability.
Failure that is not unique
This failure is not unique to one temple or one monk. It reflects a broader pattern within the modern Sangha. As monastic institutions have grown in size, wealth, and influence, their internal governance has struggled to keep pace. Many temples operate as semiautonomous entities controlled by a single monk or a small group of monks. Financial transparency is limited, administrative oversight is weak, and the mechanisms for addressing misconduct are often informal or ineffective. The traditional structures of monastic discipline, such as the Sangharama procedures for adjudicating offences, are rarely used in modern contexts, partly because they require collective participation and partly because they are illsuited to the complexities of contemporary institutional life. In practice, this means that monks who wield significant authority can act with little fear of internal sanction.
The politicisation of the Sangha has further complicated matters. Since the midtwentieth century, monks have played an increasingly prominent role in electoral politics, nationalist movements, and public policy debates. This involvement has given them access to political networks that can be mobilised to protect their interests. It has also created a culture in which monks are valued not for their adherence to the Vinaya but for their ability to influence public opinion, mobilise voters, or lend moral legitimacy to political causes. In such an environment, the monk who is politically useful may be shielded from criticism, while the monk who adheres strictly to the renunciant ideal may find himself marginalised or ignored.
The result is a profound distortion of monastic identity. The monk who once sought liberation from worldly attachments is now encouraged to cultivate influence, authority, and public recognition. The monk who once lived under the strict supervision of senior elders now operates in a world where independence is celebrated and oversight is minimal. The monk who once relied on laypeople for basic sustenance now controls vast resources, manages institutions, and commands the loyalty of thousands of followers. This inversion of traditional roles has created a fertile ground for moral deterioration.
Yet it would be a mistake to interpret this deterioration as evidence that the Sangha as a whole is corrupt. Many monks continue to live lives of remarkable discipline, humility, and spiritual dedication. In remote forest monasteries, small village temples, and meditation centres across the country, monks quietly uphold the ancient ideals of the renunciant life. They are not the ones who appear on television, lead political rallies, or manage large institutions. Their work is invisible, their influence subtle, and their commitment unwavering. The crisis facing the Sangha today is not a crisis of individual morality but a crisis of institutional identity. It is the product of a centurylong transformation that has blurred the boundaries between the monastic and the secular, the spiritual and the political, the renunciant and the worldly.
If Sri Lanka is to address this crisis, it must begin by acknowledging the structural nature of the problem. The temptation to treat each scandal as an isolated incident must be resisted. Instead, the country must confront the uncomfortable reality that the modern configuration of monastic life is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the Vinaya. The Sangha cannot simultaneously function as a political force, a social service provider, a media institution, and a spiritual community without compromising its integrity. The more monks are drawn into the world, the more vulnerable they become to the moral dangers that the Buddha warned against.
Reform, therefore, must focus not only on punishing individual offenders but on rethinking the institutional structures that enable misconduct. This includes strengthening internal governance, enhancing financial transparency, restoring the authority of senior elders, and reestablishing the communal practices that once ensured accountability. It also requires a broader cultural shift in how laypeople relate to monks. Blind devotion must give way to informed respect. Reverence must be balanced with responsibility. The robe must be honoured, but it must not be used as a shield against scrutiny.
Seneviratne’s work offers a valuable starting point for this rethinking. His analysis reminds us that the crisis facing the Sangha is not the result of moral decline alone but of historical forces that reshaped the identity of the monkhood. By tracing the evolution of the activist monk, he shows how the Sangha became entangled in the political and social structures of the modern nationstate. This entanglement has brought both benefits and dangers. It has allowed monks to play important roles in education, social welfare, and national development. But it has also exposed them to the corrupting influences of power, wealth, and public acclaim.
The challenge now is to disentangle the Sangha from these influences without undermining its ability to serve society. This will not be easy. The activist monk has become deeply embedded in the cultural and political fabric of the country. Many laypeople expect monks to be leaders, reformers, and guardians of national identity. Politicians rely on monastic support to legitimise their agendas. Media institutions depend on monks for content, commentary, and moral authority. Reversing this trend will require a collective effort from monks, laypeople, and political leaders alike.
Ultimately, the future of the Sangha depends on its ability to reclaim the renunciant ideal that lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism. This does not mean withdrawing from society entirely, but it does mean reestablishing the boundaries that protect the monk from the dangers of worldly involvement. It means recognising that the true strength of the Sangha lies not in its political influence or institutional power but in its moral authority, its spiritual discipline, and its commitment to the path of liberation. The recent scandal, painful as it is, may serve as a catalyst for this reevaluation. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the modern monastic system and forced the country to confront the consequences of a centurylong transformation.
To understand how the Vihara Devalegam Act relates to the perceived moral deformation of the clergy, it is necessary to examine how property management, state law, and monastic discipline intersect in the modern era. Historically stemming from the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance No. 19 of 1931, this act serves as the primary legal framework governing the ‘temporalities’—meaning the secular wealth, extensive landholdings, and material donations belonging to Buddhist temples and shrines. While ancient kings granted these vast tracts of land to support the monkhood’s spiritual pursuits, the modern codification of this law has inadvertently fostered a system where property rights frequently supersede spiritual accountability.
The core of the crisis lies in the commercialisation of the monastic order that this legal framework enables. By treating temple lands as economic assets and vesting absolute administrative power in individual chief monks or lay trustees, the act has contributed to the rise of what critics term a monastic middle class. Access to vast, unregulated financial resources, rent from lands, and corporate donations has fundamentally shifted the focus of certain segments of the clergy away from the traditional path of worldly renunciation and spiritual guidance. Instead, it has driven a preoccupation with business investments, the accumulation of private capital, and luxury lifestyles, which deeply alienates a public looking to the Sangha for moral leadership.
The institutional flaws embedded in the Vihara Devalegam Act find a stark, real-world manifestation in the recent criminal case involving Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero. As the chief priest of Anuradhapura and the custodian of the Atamasthana—the eight highly venerated Buddhist shrines, including the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi—Hemarathana Thero occupied one of the most powerful and wealthy positions within the Sri Lankan Sangha. His arrest on charges of sexual abuse of a minor girl perfectly illustrates how the structural defects of the Act facilitate not only moral decay but also the systemic obstruction of justice.
The core of this intersection lies in the vast, unaccountable wealth generated by the temporalities of the Anuradhapura shrines. Under the Vihara Devalegam Act, the chief custodian exercises immense, virtually unchecked control over temple revenues, state-backed land management, and millions of rupees in daily donations from millions of global pilgrims. It is precisely this immense financial liquidity that enabled the alleged deployment of vast sums of money to the victim’s family.
Furthermore, the situation underscores the profound policy failures cited regarding the helplessness of the monastic hierarchy and state enforcement. When child protection authorities initially attempted to act, the National Child Protection Authority noted severe delays and institutional resistance, stating they practically had to force the police to execute the arrest. The monk’s immediate retreat to a private hospital in Colombo upon the advancement of the criminal probe, followed by his release on bail, mirrors the exact loop described where wealthy monastics deploy high-priced legal defence teams funded directly or indirectly by their institutional positions. Because the Vihara Devalegam Act does not provide a mechanism for the immediate, unconditional forfeiture of temporal administrative rights upon a criminal indictment, the accused retains his structural power throughout the legal process. The Pallegama Thero scandal stands as definitive proof that without a fundamental overhaul of how temple wealth is legally governed and disciplined, the material benefits guaranteed by ancient temporalities will continue to shield the worst elements of moral deformation from the rule of law.
If Sri Lanka can learn from this moment and if it can recognise the structural roots of the crisis and commit to meaningful reform, then the Sangha may yet emerge stronger, more disciplined, and more faithful to its ancient ideals. But if the country continues to treat each scandal as an isolated failure and if it continues to ignore the deeper institutional problems that Seneviratne identified, then the moral deterioration we see today will only deepen. The work of kings, when performed by monks, carries a heavy price. It is time to decide whether that price is worth paying.
by Professor Amarasiri de Silva
Features
Kondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary
The Power and Energy Ministry’s drive towards energy security and renewable energy expansion received a major boost yesterday with the signing of a tripartite cooperation agreement for the development of the 150 MW Kondachchi Wind Power Project and an integrated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Mannar.
The agreement was signed at the Ministry of Power auditorium under the patronage of Power Minister Anura Karunatilaka and Deputy Power Minister Arkam Ilyas.
Speaking at the event, Ministry Secretary G. M. R. D. Aponsu described the project as a transformative investment that would strengthen the country’s electricity network while supporting Sri Lanka’s transition towards cleaner energy sources.
“The Kondachchi Wind Power Project represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy journey. By combining large-scale wind generation with advanced battery energy storage technology, we are creating a more resilient and reliable power system capable of meeting future energy demands while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels,” Aponsu said.
The project will be developed at Silavathurai in the Kondachchi area of Mannar on lands owned by the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation. It is expected to utilise some 31 modern wind turbines with a total installed capacity of at least 150 MW.
Aponsu said the inclusion of an integrated battery storage facility would help address the variability associated with wind power generation and ensure stable electricity supply to the national grid.
“The battery energy storage component is a key feature of this project. It will enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the grid and enhance overall system stability, which is essential as Sri Lanka increases the share of renewables in its energy mix,” he said.
According to the Ministry, the wind farm is expected to generate nearly 525 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually, significantly reducing the country’s expenditure on imported fuel and strengthening national energy security.
The project is also expected to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate commitments by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 372,750 tonnes annually.
“This investment delivers both economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support sustainable development objectives and help Sri Lanka move closer to achieving its renewable energy and climate targets,” Aponsu noted.
The project will be implemented under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement using the Build, Own and Operate (BOO) model. The Asian Development Bank is providing technical and financial advisory support through its Transaction Advisory Services programme.
The signing ceremony was attended by Pradeep Perera, Chairman of the National System Operator (Pvt) Ltd., and Takeyo Koike, Head of Market Development and Public-Private Partnership Division of the ADB, among other distinguished guests.
The Ministry said comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and avifaunal studies have been undertaken to ensure minimal impacts on bird populations, nearby communities and agricultural lands. A dedicated 220-kilovolt transmission system will also be constructed to connect the project to the national grid.
“The Kondachchi Wind Farm is a strategic national project that will help secure Sri Lanka’s energy future while accelerating the country’s transition towards sustainable and affordable electricity generation,” Aponsu said.
Energy sector experts view the project as one of the most important renewable energy initiatives currently being pursued in Sri Lanka, combining utility-scale wind generation with modern energy storage technology to enhance grid reliability and long-term energy sustainability.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Saudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey
Interview with Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka
Saudi Arabia has once again demonstrated its unparalleled capacity to manage one of the world’s largest annual religious gatherings, with this year’s Hajj pilgrimage concluding successfully despite extreme temperatures and the immense logistical challenge of accommodating more than 1.7 million pilgrims from around the world.
In an exclusive interview with The Island, Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, described the 2026 Hajj season as a resounding success, crediting the achievement to the visionary leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, and the coordinated efforts of multiple government agencies working around the clock to serve pilgrims.
The Ambassador noted that nearly 3,500 Sri Lankan pilgrims participated in this year’s Hajj under the quota allocated to Sri Lanka, benefiting from enhanced healthcare services, sophisticated crowd-management systems, expanded shaded areas and cutting-edge digital solutions introduced by the Kingdom.
With Saudi Arabia continuing to invest heavily in infrastructure, technology and pilgrim services under Vision 2030, Ambassador Al-Kahtani said the Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that pilgrims from around the world perform their religious duties in safety, comfort and tranquility.
The Saudi envoy also highlighted the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, emphasising expanding cooperation not only in Hajj affairs but also in trade, investment, education, culture and institutional exchanges.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Q: How do you assess this year’s Hajj season?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: This year’s Hajj season was a resounding success, thanks to the Almighty Allah and the integrated efforts of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, led by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister. This success was reflected in the efficiency of crowd management, the quality of services provided to the Hajj pilgrims and the effective coordination among the various relevant authorities, which enabled pilgrims to perform their rituals in an atmosphere of security, tranquility and ease.
Q: How many Sri Lankan pilgrims performed Hajj this year?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The number of Hajj pilgrims from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reached approximately 3,500, within the quota allocated to Sri Lanka for this season.
Q: Are there any discussions regarding increasing Sri Lanka’s quota in the future?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani:Hajj quotas are determined according to approved regulatory mechanisms that take into account a range of considerations. The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continue to study various aspects related to developing Hajj services and accommodating the allocated numbers for all countries, in coordination with the concerned parties.
Q: What were the most prominent special arrangements implemented this year?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The operational plans for this season focused on enhancing the safety and comfort of the Hajj pilgrims, especially given the climatic conditions and high temperatures. Measures included expanding shaded areas, increasing water distribution points and enhancing health and ambulance services, in addition to developing the transportation system and traffic management within the holy sites.
Q: What are the most prominent digital systems and smart services that were provided?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani:The Kingdom continues to implement its digital transformation objectives for the Hajj and Umrah system. The scope of electronic services offered through the Nusuk platform and application has been expanded, along with the development of digital systems for issuing permits, managing crowds, guidance and health services. This contributes to increasing the efficiency of services and improving the pilgrim’s experience at all stages of their journey.
Q: How were the challenges of overcrowding and heat addressed?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities adopted an integrated crowd-management system based on modern technologies and real-time data analysis. This was coupled with intensified health-awareness campaigns, expanded organised movement routes and increased deployment of field, medical and emergency teams. These measures support the safety of the Hajj pilgrims and reduce the risks associated with crowd density and climatic conditions.
Q: Were there special services for the elderly and sick?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Yes. The Kingdom paid special attention to the elderly and people with special health needs by providing specialized medical services, assistive transportation and facilities equipped to meet their needs, in addition to field teams working to provide humanitarian support and necessary healthcare throughout the Hajj period.
Q: How successful was the Kingdom in combating irregular Hajj permits?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continued to rigorously implement the regulations and instructions governing Hajj, utilising modern technologies and advanced monitoring procedures to reduce violations related to irregular Hajj. These efforts contributed to enhancing the safety of pilgrims, improving crowd-management efficiency and maintaining the smooth flow of movement within the holy sites.
Q: How would you describe Saudi-Sri Lankan cooperation in organising Hajj?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka is characterised by continuous and constructive coordination in all matters related to Hajj. The relevant authorities in both countries work jointly to ensure the provision of the best services for Sri Lankan pilgrims and enable them to perform their rituals with ease and peace of mind.
Q: How many Hajj pilgrims were there globally, and what were the main challenges?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: According to official statistics, the number of Hajj pilgrims this year reached 1,707,301 from various countries around the world. The main challenges included managing large crowds, ensuring public safety and providing health, transportation and accommodation services within a specific geographical and temporal scope. These challenges were addressed through advanced and integrated operational plans, which contributed to the smooth and successful completion of the Hajj season.
Q: Are there any future expansion projects?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The Kingdom continues to implement strategic development projects within the framework of Vision 2030, including developing the infrastructure in Makkah and the Holy Sites, and enhancing transportation networks and smart services. This contributes to raising the quality of services provided to pilgrims and Umrah performers and improving their long-term experience.
Q: How are Saudi-Sri Lankan relations strengthened outside the context of Hajj?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka are witnessing continuous development in many areas, including political, economic, trade, cultural and educational cooperation, in addition to developing exchanges between institutions and the private sector. This reflects the two countries’ keenness to strengthen the bilateral partnership and achieve common interests.
Q: What message would you like to convey to Sri Lankan Muslims?
Ambassador Al-Kahtani: We extend our sincere congratulations to the Hajj pilgrims who have completed their Hajj rituals, and we ask Almighty Allah to accept their pilgrimage. We also assure Muslims in Sri Lanka that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia places serving the Two Holy Mosques and the guests of Almighty Allah at the forefront of its priorities and continues to develop the Hajj and Umrah system to achieve the highest standards of quality and safety.
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days agoLankan duo emerge winners in Latin dance championship held in Blackpool, UK
-
Business6 days agoIMF’s unstated rate:Sri Lanka’s $695m loan costs about 5.33% per annum
-
Latest News3 days agoKusal Mendis, Pathum Nissanka, bowlers put Sri Lanka 1-0 up
-
News3 days agoNew US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka
-
Business6 days agoSri Lankan scientist-innovator Milinda Edirisinghe introduces AI-integrated gem testing system to gemological world
-
Features7 days agoAre threats to Buddha Sasana external or from within?
-
News6 days agoUNP challenges NPP move to amend Vihara – Devalagam Act
-
Features2 days agoPower crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart
