News

22 A: Jt. Opp.calls for referendum

Published

2 months ago

2026/08/14

The Joint Opposition yesterday requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to hold a referendum on the 22 Amendment to the Constitution.

The text of the letter released by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Office:

“We write to convey to you our firm conviction that the amendments to Article 107(5) of the Constitution, proposed by the Government, require the holding of a referendum in terms of Chapter XIII of the Constitution to ascertain the will of the people in respect of the fundamental changes contemplated.

“The foundational principle, in our view, receives expression in Article 3 of the Constitution: “In the Republic of Sri Lanka, sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable”.

“The judicial power of the people, it is expressly provided, “shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognised by the Constitution, or created and established by law” [Article 4(c) of the Constitution].

“While Article 3 is an entrenched provision, in the sense that Article 83 compulsorily requires a referendum, in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament, for amendment or repeal, there is clear judicial authority for the proposition that Articles 3 and 4 are inextricably interlinked, so that Article 4 is accorded comparable sanctity.

“By way of direct support for this view, we would like to refer to the judgment of three judges of the Supreme Court (Malalgoda J. and Nawaz and Janak de Silva JJ.) in A.V.N.Perera v. Attorney-General in SC (SD) No. 30/ 2022: “In terms of Article 3, sovereignty is in the people, and according to Article 4, the organs of government exercise the executive, legislative, and judicial power of the people. No useful purpose is served by giving constitutional recognition to judicial power if there is no independent judiciary to protect itself from executive and legislative intrusions. Similarly, no useful purpose is served by giving constitutional recognition to fundamental rights if there is no independent judiciary to protect them from executive and administrative excesses. In the end, the full implementation of all rights of the people depends upon the proper administration of justice by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary, by upholding the rule of law. In this context, it is important to note that the SVASTI of the Constitution assures to all people the independence of the judiciary. Hence, sovereignty in Article 3 of the Constitution must be read to include the right to an independent judiciary”.

“This is an emphatic assertion of the view, which we unequivocally subscribe to, that the independence of the judiciary is integral to the sovereignty of the people, acknowledged to be sacrosanct in the architecture of our Constitution.

“While there is no immutable norm in respect of the retirement age of judges, a matter which admits of extensive differences of approach across jurisdictions, our basic objection to the proposed government measure pertains to its ad hoc and ad hominem character.

“The principles we hold to be inviolable have been upheld in the most explicit form possible in authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court.

“As a clear example, we would cite the following passage in the determination of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill in 2022: “Unlike public officers and others holding office under the Constitution, the retirement age of the judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are specified in the Constitution. Any constitutional amendment to the retirement age or the period of service impacting on incumbent judges, whether directly or indirectly, will impinge on the independence of the judiciary and violative of Article 3, which requires a Referendum” (Buwaneka Aluwihare J and Murdhu Fernando and Janak de Silva JJ).

“There cannot be a more compelling formulation of the principle we consider indispensable for protecting the Rule of Law in our country. The judicial pronouncement in the 2022 Determination is precisely applicable to the present situation.

“We are greatly perturbed by the total absence of consultation, in contrast with the experience of other countries where changes of this kind have been preceded by long periods of consultation with stakeholders, such as the Bar Associations, academia, and civil society. The complete lack of transparency in respect of the current exercise gives cause for anxiety.

“The present position is strikingly at variance with the requirement stipulated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission), that “genuine and meaningful consultation” is an essential element of good governance, the Rule of Law, and constitution-making.

“Consideration of this matter by the Supreme Court, the direct beneficiary of the impugned measure, is directly contrary to the rule against actual or presumed bias.

“Value 2.5 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) states that “a judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which a judge is unable to decide the matter impartially, or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially”.

“This has been endorsed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

“It is trite law that appearance of bias, even without proof of actual prejudice, can invalidate a judgment. See Lord Goff in R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 2) 2001 AC 119.

“This criterion of objectivity and impartiality has been supported consistently in international instruments. Examples are provided by the Mount Scopus International Standards of Judicial Independence (Jerusalem 2008), and the Applicable Standards and Regulation of Recusals and Self-Recusal of Judges, formulated by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Warsaw 2025).

“We state categorically that the sovereignty of our people, protected by the Constitution, is unacceptably infringed by the power to determine this matter being taken away from them. This authority, in accordance with principle as well as established precedent, belongs inalienably to the people alone.

“We therefore insist on a referendum as the only lawful course of action to take this issue forward. We call upon Your Excellency, with due deference, to require the Cabinet of Ministers, in terms of Article 85(1) of the Constitution, to certify a Bill purporting to amend Article 107(5) that the proposed measure is intended to be submitted to the people at a referendum.”

All News Advertisement

News

New prison regulations for monks serving jail terms soon: President’s Office

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/12

Thilina Walpola

President

The Presidential Secretariat (PS) yesterday said that prison regulations concerning Buddhist monks serving prison sentences were expected to be adopted within the next two weeks.

The PS said: “Once they come into effect, arrangements will be made for Buddhist monks to be taken outside prison in their robes, based on the recommendation of the relevant Nikaya or chapter.”

The process to amend prison regulations was initiated on 08 October following discussions between President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the Maha Sangha. The President called the meeting amidst controversy over producing General Secretary of Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara in civilian attire in court.

A special five-member Committee was in the process of studying the current regulations and standing orders under the Prisons Ordinance, the PS said.

The Committee is chaired by Prince Senadheera, Secretary to the Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs. Its other members are Piyumanthi Peiris, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, Wasantha Ariyaratne, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, R. M. G. Senaratne, Commissioner-General of Buddhist Affairs, and A.C. Gajanayake, Commissioner-General of Prisons.

The first meeting of the special Committee was held at the Presidential Secretariat on the 9th, chaired by Prince Senadheera. Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, provided the necessary policy guidance for the Committee’s work.

The proposals concerning Buddhist monks would be presented to the Maha Sangha by the middle of next week to obtain their views and recommendations before their implementation, PS stated.

News

CP alleges NPP has taken the blame for illegal US sanctions on Iranian vessels

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/12

Thilina Walpola

Dr. G. Weerasinghe

The Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) has alleged that the ruling UNP, in a ridiculous bid to whitewash illegal US sanctions on Iranian oil carriers stranded off Sri Lanka, has taken on itself the blame for refusing to supply humanitarian aid to the trapped crews of the oil tankers.

The text of the statement issued by Dr. G. Weerasinghe,

General Secretary, CPSL: “The Communist Party of Sri Lanka condemns the attempts by the USA to prevent essential supplies of food and water to the 19-20 Iranian oil tankers stranded off the coast, which are running short of food, fuel, and fresh water. It urges the Government of Sri Lanka to face up to the criminal actions of the US Government and do its duty under international humanitarian law.

On 30 September 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that US officials had threatened Sri Lanka with sanctions if it continued supplying the tankers. These tankers (stranded about 24 km off Sri Lanka, within the Exclusive Economic Zone) which already discharged their cargoes, are empty and unable to return to Iran owing to the illegal war being waged against that country by the USA and Israel.

In response to this report, on 4 October, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath denied that Washington put pressure on the Government of Sri Lanka which, he claimed, always abides by international maritime law. However, he clarified that the Government would enforce US sanctions.

A US Embassy spokesman had earlier stated that Washington is working with allies to cut off “illicit Iranian revenue,” warning that supplying fuel, food, or provisions to sanctioned vessels could expose companies and individuals to US sanctions, including civil or criminal penalties.

Furthermore, from 9-11 September, the US Embassy in Colombo carried out a three-day maritime sanctions compliance workshop. Officers of the Sri Lanka Navy and Coastguard, as well as officials of the Ministry of Defence, Central Bank, Ports Authority and Merchant Shipping Secretariat, participated in this workshop. The officials were warned that any services (including fuel, food, or water) rendered to US-sanctioned vessels, such as the Iranian-linked tankers stranded off Sri Lanka’s coast, could expose companies and individuals to secondary sanctions, civil penalties, or criminal liability.

In fact, it is actions of the USA which are illicit. The US-imposed unilateral and secondary sanctions violate international law, sovereign equality, and the principle of non-intervention. Furthermore, the unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against Iran itself, which had shown no belligerent intent, is illegal in international law. Participation of government officers in the workshop itself is controversial.

According to unofficial reports, Sri Lanka’s national security establishment objected to the demands made by US officials and urged the government to lodge a protest with Washington, pointing out that under UNCLOS Article 98, SOLAS 1974, and the SAR Convention 1979, Sri Lanka is obligated to assist the crews.

However, the response of the National People’s Power (NPP) regime has been to attempt to whitewash the illegal actions of the USA and to take on itself the blame for refusing to supply humanitarian aid to the trapped crews of the oil tankers.

The pusillanimous behaviour of the NPP regime rips aside any pretence that it is in any way progressive or patriotic. Together with its major constituent, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), it stands exposed as the handmaiden of US President Donald Trump’s reckless, warlike and imperialist foreign policy establishment. It begs the question whether the Government has signed secret war-related deals with the USA and thereby ditched Sri Lanka’s 70-year history of non-alignment.

The Communist Party of Sri Lanka, therefore, condemns these illegal attempts by the USA to prevent Sri Lanka from carrying out its humanitarian duty. It calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to abide by international humanitarian law, work-out suitable strategies and to supply the stranded crews with essential supplies, including food and water. It also calls upon the Government to reveal any secret deals it has entered with the USA.”

News

Ex-Tiger witness claims Ekneligoda proposed to fire missile at MR’s plane

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/12

Thilina Walpola

An ex-LTTE cadre Sumathipala Suresh Kumar, alias Thavendran ‘Murali’, has told a three-member bench of the Colombo High Court, hearing the disappearance of media personality Prageeth Ekneligoda, that during the war they discussed plans to assassinate President Mahinda Rajapaksa and a group of government people. The alleged meeting took place in Habarana.

The bench consisted of A.G.U.S. N. K. Seneviratne (Chairperson), Dr. Nalin Hewawasam and Lakmali Hewawasam.Kumar said so giving evidence as the fourth witness on behalf of first, second and sixth accused in this case.

Ekneligoda disappeared on the eve of 2010 January 26 presidential election.

Kumar told court that Ekneligoda proposed to fire a missile at an aircraft carrying President Rajapaksa and other top people. There had been another person, identified as Nadan, there.

Asked by the prosecution whether he served as a leader of LTTE intelligence at the time he met Ekneligoda, Kumar said that he was a prisoner at that time. The witness claimed that he had gone with the Army and it was his first visit to that place where the meeting took place.

When the prosecution proposed that what he said was not true, Kumar denied that.

The nine accused are Army officers and men, including Lieutenant Colonel Shammi Arjun Kumararatne. The others are R.M.P.K. Rajapaksa alias Nathan, W.V. Priyantha Dilanjan Upasena alias Suresh, Seneviratne Mudiyanselage Ravindra Rupasena alias Ranji, Yapa Mudiyanselage Chaminda Kumara Abeyratne, Seneviratne Mudiyanselage Kanishka Gunaratne, Aiyasami Balasubramaniyam, Dangaha Gamaralage Tharanga Prasad Gamage and T.E.R. Peiris.

The fourth witness surrendered to the Army in May 2009 and during investigations it transpired that he was used by Military Intelligence to contact Ekneligoda in a bid to ascertain his intention during the presidential polls campaign.