Opinion
What is ‘Reparations’ in the context of Transitional Justice
It has been six years since the establishment of the Office for Reparations in Sri Lanka. There is however no clear understanding among many as to its mandate or role within the broader context of transitional justice in a country that seeks to recover from a civil conflict, promote reconciliation and ensure non recurrence. This article seeks to clarify the concept and highlight the statutory mandate of the Office for Reparations (“OR”) established in terms of the Office for Reparations Act, No, 38 of 2018 (“the OR Act”).
Reparations is one of the measures recognised within the broader context of Transitional Justice. Transitional Justice is defined by the United Nations as “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.” Interventions to address transitional justice challenges became necessary at the end of the North East conflict as Sri Lanka sought to restore democratic systems and promote unity among its multi ethnic and multi religious peoples.
Reparations in the context of human rights and humanitarian interventions, is granted to victims of conflict who have suffered harm, to alleviate their situation which has arisen consequent to the harm suffered as a result of conflict. It is accepted that some of these violations are irreparable and nothing granted by way of reparations can restore the status quo ante of the victim.
Among the basic tenets recognised in the transitional justice regime are the following-
(a) the State obligation to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, including sexual violence, and to punish those found guilty;
(b) the right to know the truth about past abuses and the fate of disappeared persons; (c) the right to reparations for victims of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law; and
(d) the State obligation to prevent, through different measures, the recurrence of such atrocities in the future.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/147 on 16 December 2005 on “”
Each State identifies what mechanisms and interventions must be set in place to address these issues. There is no one size fits all formula to determine the methodologies that must be adopted by countries. Clearly, in Sri Lanka the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) by Act No. 14 of 2016 was to deal with component (b) above and the establishment of the OR by the Act of 2018 was to deal with component (c) above. Neither of these institutions have responsibility for (a) above. Importantly, it must be noted that there is no expectation that the OR handles law enforcement functions to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators. Nor is the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) vested with that responsibility given that its principal mandate as set out in the statute is to search for and trace missing persons and to protect the rights and interests of missing persons and their relatives. Investigation and prosecution of alleged human rights violations are functions to be discharged by existing law enforcement Authorities that are adequately vested with powers to do so.
The OR Act came into operation on October 22nd, 2018 and was operationalised with effect from April 2019 with the appointment by the President of 5 Members on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Its provisions went beyond merely providing for monetary relief measures. It articulated the basis for granting relief and the macro level expectations. In its preamble it stated that the Constitution of Sri Lanka recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable human rights of all Sri Lankans and recognized the obligation of the State to respect, secure and advance these rights. It also stated that a comprehensive reparations scheme which is anchored in the rights of all Sri Lankans to an effective remedy will contribute to the promotion of reconciliation for the well-being, and security of all Sri Lankans including future generations.
There was thus an acceptance that reparations were designed to contribute to the broader objective of reconciliation. In introducing the Bill, the then Prime Minister stated that ““
The OR Act provides for the grant of reparations to specified categories of victims, ie, persons who have suffered loss (ie. personal injury, death and damage to property) arising from the armed conflict that took place in the Northern and Eastern Provinces or its aftermath, or due to political unrest or civil disturbances or due to enforced disappearances. It established a regime to deal with past as well as future incidents.
In pursuance of its mandate, the OR commenced its work by formulating its policies and guidelines after conducting stakeholder consultations in several regions of the country. The consultations revealed similar needs among the aggrieved persons, be they inhabitants in the North, East, South or West of the country and are common to the wider communities as a whole, and consequently, although some of the interventions that can be offered as reparations are those that are needed by the wider community, the increased vulnerability of the victims of conflict were identified to recognise that their needs be addressed as a priority. The Policy document was laid before Parliament and can be accessed via the OR website at www.reparations.gov.lk. The Policy identifies 8 areas of interventions.
The COVID pandemic and staff shortages that were imposed during the economic crisis across government, impacted the work of the OR. Within these constraints OR decided to implement activities that were considered to be most meaningful to the aggrieved communities.
As regards the victims of the North East conflict, the focus was on providing interventions that empowered the people. The Members of the OR accepted that handouts by way of monetary grants while useful to a limited extent will however not empower victims, but knowledge transfer and skills development programmes that will enhance capacities to undertake sustainable revenue generating activities will be meaningful. Hence, while some amount of financial grants were made, more importantly activities to provide psychosocial support and support livelihood development were implemented. A psycho social support programme especially designed for the post conflict victim community was carried out in some parts of the country with the assistance of the UN through the IOM, and livelihood development programmes were implemented, as a priority. In pursuance of its gender sensitive approach, programmes to empower women to cultivate skills that generate sustainable income generation activities were designed and implemented.
The categories of victims that received monetary relief from the OR have included victims of the North East conflict, victims of the Easter Bomb Attack Of 2019 and victims of the 2022 civil disturbances. Details of monetary relief granted to all categories of victims can be found on the OR website.
In January 2023, the OR was mandated by the Supreme Court to establish a Victim Fund to receive monies ordered by the Supreme Court to be paid by respondents in Fundamental Rights litigation, and to formulate a scheme for disbursements and to make grants thereform. Schemes to provide grants to families of those who died, to persons injured, to children for secondary school education support, to students for tertiary education support and to vulnerable elders, were formulated and disbursements made from the Victim Fund. All of these tasks have been handled and details can be accessed via the OR website. Reports on monies credited to the Fund and disbursements made are also periodically submitted to the Supreme Court.
The OR has completed 6 years since its establishment in April 2019, and while there was a period of inactivity during the COVID pandemic and staff constraints impacted its work due to the economic crisis that the country went through, all of which are common to all of government institutions, the OR has been able to complete a significant workload, including the completion of monetary grants to applicants from the North East conflict. Details may be accessed via the website.
by Dhara Wijayatilake,
Attorney at Law and Chairperson Office for Reparations
Opinion
The policy of Sinhala Only and downgrading of English
In 1956 a Sri Lankan politician riding a great surge of populism, made a move that, at a stroke, disabled a functioning civil society operating in the English language medium in Sri Lanka. He had thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
It was done to huge, ecstatic public joy and applause at the time but in truth, this action had serious ramifications for the country, the effects have, no doubt, been endlessly mulled over ever since.
However, there is one effect/ aspect that cannot be easily dismissed – the use of legal English of an exact technical quality used for dispensing Jurisprudence (certainty and rational thought). These court certified decisions engendered confidence in law, investment and business not only here but most importantly, among the international business community.
Well qualified, rational men, Judges, thought rationally and impartially through all the aspects of a case in Law brought before them. They were expert in the use of this specialised English, with all its meanings and technicalities – but now, a type of concise English hardly understandable to the casual layman who may casually look through some court proceedings of yesteryear.
They made clear and precise rulings on matters of Sri Lankan Law. These were guiding principles for administrative practice. This body of case law knowledge has been built up over the years before Independence. This was in fact, something extremely valuable for business and everyday life. It brought confidence and trust – essential for conducting business.
English had been developed into a precise tool for analysing and understanding a problem, a matter, or a transaction. Words can have specific meanings, they were not, merely, the play- thing of those producing “fake news”. English words as used at that time, had meaning – they carried weight and meaning – the weight of the law!
Now many progressive countries around the world are embracing English for good economic and cultural reasons, but in complete contrast little Sri Lanka has gone into reverse!
A minority of the Sinhalese population, (the educated ones!) could immediately see at the time the problems that could arise by this move to down-grade English including its high-quality legal determinations. Unfortunately, seemingly, with the downgrading of English came a downgrading of the quality of inter- personal transactions.
A second failure was the failure to improve the “have nots” of the villagers by education. Knowledge and information can be considered a universal right. Leonard Woolf’s book “A village in the Jungle” makes use of this difference in education to prove a point. It makes infinitely good politics to reduce this education gap by education policies that rectify this important disadvantage normal people of Sri Lanka have.
But the yearning of educators to upgrade the education system as a whole, still remains a distant goal. Advanced English spoken language is encouraged individually but not at a state level. It has become an orphaned child. It is the elites that can read the standard classics such as Treasure Island or Sherlock Holmes and enjoy them.
But, perhaps now, with the country in the doldrums, more people will come to reflect on these failures of foresight and policy implementation. Isn’t the doldrums all the proof you need?
by Priyantha Hettige
Opinion
GOODBYE, DEAR SIR
It is with deep gratitude and profound sorrow that we remember Mr. K. L. F. Wijedasa, remarkable athletics coach whose influence reached far beyond the track. He passed away on November 4, exactly six months after his 93rd birthday, having led an exemplary and disciplined life that enabled him to enjoy such a long and meaningful innings. To those he trained, he was not only a masterful coach but a mentor, a friend, a steady father figure, and an enduring source of inspiration. His wisdom, kindness, and unwavering belief in every young athlete shaped countless lives, leaving a legacy that will continue to echo in the hearts of all who were fortunate enough to be guided by him.
I was privileged to be one of the many athletes who trained under his watchful eye from the time Mr. Wijedasa began his close association with Royal College in 1974. He was largely responsible for the golden era of athletics at Royal College from 1973 to 1980. In all but one of those years, Royal swept the board at all the leading Track & Field Championships — from the Senior and Junior Tarbat Shields to the Daily News Trophy Relay Carnival. Not only did the school dominate competitions, but it also produced star-class athletes such as sprinter Royce Koelmeyer; sprint and long & triple jump champions Godfrey Fernando and Ravi Waidyalankara; high jumper and pole vaulter Cletus Dep; Olympic 400m runner Chrisantha Ferdinando; sprinters Roshan Fernando and the Indraratne twins, Asela and Athula; and record-breaking high jumper Dr. Dharshana Wijegunasinghe, to name just a few.
Royal had won the Senior & Junior Tarbats as well as the Relay Carnival in 1973 by a whisker and was looking for a top-class coach to mould an exceptionally talented group of athletes for 1974 and beyond. This was when Mr. Wijedasa entered the scene, beginning a lifelong relationship with the athletes of Royal College from 1974 to 1987. He received excellent support from the then Principal, late Mr. L. D. H. Pieris; Vice Principal, late Mr. E. C. Gunesekera; and Masters-in-Charge Mr. Dharmasena, Mr. M. D. R. Senanayake, and Mr. V. A. B. Samarakone, with whom he maintained a strong and respectful rapport throughout his tenure.
An old boy of several schools — beginning at Kandegoda Sinhala Mixed School in his hometown, moving on to Dharmasoka Vidyalaya, Ambalangoda, Moratu Vidyalaya, and finally Ananda College — he excelled in both sports and studies. He later graduated in Geography, from the University of Peradeniya. During his undergraduate days, he distinguished himself as a sprinter, establishing a new National Record in the 100 metres in 1955. Beyond academics and sports, Mr. Wijedasa also demonstrated remarkable talent in drama.
Though proudly an Anandian, he became equally a Royalist through his deep association with Royal’s athletics from the 1970s. So strong was this bond that he eventually admitted his only son, Duminda, to Royal College. The hallmark of Mr. Wijedasa was his tireless dedication and immense patience as a mentor. Endurance and power training were among his strengths —disciplines that stood many of us in good stead long after we left school.
More than champions on the track, it is the individuals we became in later life that bear true testimony to his loving guidance. Such was his simplicity and warmth that we could visit him and his beloved wife, Ransiri, without appointment. Even long after our school days, we remained in close touch. Those living overseas never failed to visit him whenever they returned to Sri Lanka. These visits were filled with fond reminiscences of our sporting days, discussions on world affairs, and joyful moments of singing old Sinhala songs that he treasured.
It was only fitting, therefore, that on his last birthday on May 4 this year, the Old Royalists’ Athletic Club (ORAC) honoured him with a biography highlighting his immense contribution to athletics at Royal. I was deeply privileged to co-author this book together with Asoka Rodrigo, another old boy of the school.
Royal, however, was not the first school he coached. After joining the tutorial staff of his alma mater following graduation, he naturally coached Ananda College before moving on to Holy Family Convent, Bambalapitiya — where he first met the “love of his life,” Ransiri, a gifted and versatile sportswoman. She was not only a national champion in athletics but also a top netballer and basketball player in the 1960s. After his long and illustrious stint at Royal College, he went on to coach at schools such as Visakha Vidyalaya and Belvoir International.
The school arena was not his only forte. Mr. Wijedasa also produced several top national athletes, including D. K. Podimahattaya, Vijitha Wijesekera, Lionel Karunasena, Ransiri Serasinghe, Kosala Sahabandu, Gregory de Silva, Sunil Gunawardena, Prasad Perera, K. G. Badra, Surangani de Silva, Nandika de Silva, Chrisantha Ferdinando, Tamara Padmini, and Anula Costa. Apart from coaching, he was an efficient administrator as Director of Physical Education at the University of Colombo and held several senior positions in national sporting bodies. He served as President of the Amateur Athletic Association of Sri Lanka in 1994 and was also a founder and later President of the Ceylonese Track & Field Club. He served with distinction as a national selector, starter, judge, and highly qualified timekeeper.
The crowning joy of his life was seeing his legacy continue through his children and grandchildren. His son, Duminda, was a prominent athlete at Royal and later a National Squash player in the 1990s. In his later years, Mr. Wijedasa took great pride in seeing his granddaughter, Tejani, become a reputed throwing champion at Bishop’s College, where she currently serves as Games Captain. Her younger brother, too, is a promising athlete.
He is survived by his beloved wife, Ransiri, with whom he shared 57 years of a happy and devoted marriage, and by their two children, Duminda and Puranya. Duminda, married to Debbie, resides in Brisbane, Australia, with their two daughters, Deandra and Tennille. Puranya, married to Ruvindu, is blessed with three children — Madhuke, Tejani, and Dharishta.
Though he has left this world, the values he instilled, the lives he shaped, and the spirit he ignited on countless tracks and fields will live on forever — etched in the hearts of generations who were privileged to call him Sir (Coach).
NIRAJ DE MEL, Athletics Captain of Royal College 1976
Deputy Chairman, Old Royalists’ Athletics Club (ORAC)
Opinion
Why Sri Lanka needs a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office
Sri Lanka is now grappling with the aftermath of the one of the gravest natural disasters in recent memory, as Cyclone Ditwah and the associated weather system continue to bring relentless rain, flash floods, and landslides across the country.
In view of the severe disaster situation, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne had to amend the schedule for the Committee Stage debates on Budget 2026, which was subsequently passed by Parliament. There have been various interpretations of Budget 2026 by economists, the business community, academics, and civil society. Some analyses draw on economic expertise, others reflect social understanding, while certain groups read the budget through political ideology. But with the country now trying to manage a humanitarian and economic emergency, it is clear that fragmented interpretations will not suffice. This is a moment when Sri Lanka needs a unified, responsible, and collective “national reading” of the budget—one that rises above personal or political positions and focuses on safeguarding citizens, restoring stability, and guiding the nation toward recovery.
Budget 2026 is unique for several reasons. To understand it properly, we must “read” it through the lens of Sri Lanka’s current economic realities as well as the fiscal consolidation pathway outlined under the International Monetary Fund programme. Some argue that this Budget reflects a liberal policy orientation, citing several key allocations that support this view: strong investment in human capital, an infrastructure-led growth strategy, targeted support for private enterprise and MSMEs, and an emphasis on fiscal discipline and transparency.
Anyway, it can be argued that it is still too early to categorise the 2026 budget as a fully liberal budget approach, especially when considering the structural realities that continue to shape Sri Lanka’s economy. Still some sectors in Sri Lanka restricted private-sector space, with state dominance. And also, we can witness a weak performance-based management system with no strong KPI-linked monitoring or institutional performance cells. Moreover, the country still maintains a broad subsidy orientation, where extensive welfare transfers may constrain productivity unless they shift toward targeted and time-bound mechanisms. Even though we can see improved tax administration in the recent past, there is a need to have proper tax rationalisation, requiring significant simplification to become broad-based and globally competitive. These factors collectively indicate that, despite certain reform signals, it may be premature to label Budget 2026 as fully liberal in nature.
Overall, Sri Lanka needs to have proper monitoring mechanisms for the budget. Even if it is a liberal type, development, or any type of budget, we need to see how we can have a budget monitoring system.
Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office
Whatever the budgets presented during the last seven decades, the implementation of budget proposals can always be mostly considered as around 30-50 %. Sri Lanka needs to have proper budget monitoring mechanisms. This is not only important for the budget but also for all other activities in Sri Lanka. Most of the countries in the world have this, and we can learn many best practices from them.
Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office is essential for strengthening Sri Lanka’s fiscal governance and ensuring that public spending delivers measurable value. Such an office would provide an independent, data-driven mechanism to track budget implementation, monitor programme outcomes, and evaluate whether ministries achieve their intended results. Drawing from global best practices—including India’s PFMS-enabled monitoring and OECD programme-based budgeting frameworks—the office would develop clear KPIs, performance scorecards, and annual evaluation reports linked to national priorities. By integrating financial data, output metrics, and policy outcomes, this institution would enable evidence-based decision-making, improve budget credibility, reduce wastage, and foster greater transparency and accountability across the public sector. Ultimately, this would help shift Sri Lanka’s budgeting process from input-focused allocations toward performance-oriented results.
There is an urgent need for a paradigm shift in Sri Lanka’s economy, where export diversification, strengthened governance, and institutional efficiency become essential pillars of reform. Establishing a National Budget Performance and Evaluation Office is a critical step that can help the country address many long-standing challenges related to governance, fiscal discipline, and evidence-based decision-making. Such an institution would create the mechanisms required for transparency, accountability, and performance-focused budgeting. Ultimately, for Sri Lanka to gain greater global recognition and move toward a more stable, credible economic future, every stakeholder must be equipped with the right knowledge, tools, and systems that support disciplined financial management and a respected national identity.
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera ✍️
-
Features5 days agoFinally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight
-
News7 days agoOver 35,000 drug offenders nabbed in 36 days
-
News6 days agoCyclone Ditwah leaves Sri Lanka’s biodiversity in ruins: Top scientist warns of unseen ecological disaster
-
News7 days agoRising water level in Malwathu Oya triggers alert in Thanthirimale
-
Features5 days agoHandunnetti and Colonial Shackles of English in Sri Lanka
-
Business4 days agoCabinet approves establishment of two 50 MW wind power stations in Mullikulum, Mannar region
-
Business7 days agoSri Lanka betting its tourism future on cold, hard numbers
-
News7 days agoJetstar to launch Australia’s only low-cost direct flights to Sri Lanka, with fares from just $315^
