Monday 16th February, 2026

SLPP MP Namal Rajapaksa has called for a special presidential commission to investigate undisclosed funds received by various individuals and organisations linked to Aragalaya. One may recall that Aragalaya ceased to be a genuine, leaderless people’s protest campaign after being hijacked by some political forces with hidden agendas. Now that a sinister move to pressure the then Speaker of Parliament to violate the Constitution at the height of Aragalaya has come to light, one cannot but endorse the demand for an investigation into the so-called money trail.

However, Namal may go on shouting until he is blue in the face, but his call for an investigation into the Aragalaya funds will go unheeded for obvious reasons. The JVP-led NPP owes its meteoric rise to power mostly to Aragalaya, which was born out of a tsunami-like surge of public resentment at the mainstream political parties that had been in power since Independence. Therefore, the JVP-NPP government will not do anything that may help bolster the SLPP’s efforts to portray Aragalaya as a conspiracy against the Rajapaksa rule and the country. The Gampaha High Court judgement in the MP Amarakeerthi Athukorale murder case has already shed light on the seamy side of Aragalaya. Twelve persons have been condemned to death for murdering Athukorale and his security officer during the violent phase of Aragalaya in 2022.

The SLPP managed to retain its hold on power by craftily elevating Ranil Wickremesinghe to the presidency amidst political upheavals in 2022, and therefore it had two years to investigate and find out where the money for Aragalaya had come from and who the beneficiaries of those undisclosed funds were. Why didn’t Namal call for a presidential commission to probe the Aragalaya funds then?

A probe into Aragalaya must not be limited to the money trail. A high-level investigation must be conducted into former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s claim that he came under pressure during Aragalaya to act in violation of the Constitution over the appointment of the Acting President.

Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, who was Senior Advisor (Media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, has disclosed in his book, ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ (‘Power of Aragalaya’), that on 13 July 2022, Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Gopal Baglay visited Abeywardena and asked him to take over as president, but the latter said in no uncertain terms that he would never violate the Constitution. Abeywardena has revealed that soon after Baglay’s departure, a group of Sri Lankans led by Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, arrived at the Speaker’s official residence and asked him to take over the presidency. When he repeated what he had told the Indian envoy, Sobitha Thera sought to intimidate him into doing their bidding. The group consisted of another Buddhist monk, some Catholic priests, and a trade unionist, according to Abeywardena.

According to Prof. Maddumabandara, Baglay told Abeywardena that if the latter took over the presidency, protests could be brought under control within 45 minutes. Prof. Maddumabandara has told this newspaper in a brief interview that only a person who had control over the protesters could give such an assurance. One may recall that it was the JVP that led the protesters who surrounded Parliament in July 2022. Minister K. D. Lal Kantha himself has admitted that the JVP tried to lead the Aragalaya protesters to capture Parliament, but without success.

Why hasn’t Namal called for a probe into Abeywardena’s damning allegation? Will he pledge to order an investigation into the alleged move to plunge the country into anarchy if the SLPP forms a government? He has his work cut out to convince the discerning people that his call for an investigation into the Aragalaya funds, at this juncture, is not aimed at diverting public attention from the ongoing probes against him and his family members.

There is already a substantial and growing corpus of analytical work criticising the proposed anti-terror laws, which are no less draconian than the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) they are expected to replace. What the campaigners for democracy and good governance expected of the JVP-led NPP was the abolition of the PTA and not another set of bad laws in its place.

Unsurprisingly, many legal experts have voiced serious concern over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Prominent among them is former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, and Foreign Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris, who presented a well-argued critique of the proposed anti-terror legislation, at a media briefing on Thursday. He and some other senior Opposition politicians called the PSTA a grave danger to democracy. Anyone who has studied the proposed anti-terror laws will have no difficulty in agreeing with him and other critics of the PSTA.

One of the main campaign promises of the JVP-led NPP was to abolish the executive presidency. During their opposition days, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and other JVP/NPP seniors were instrumental in having the powers of the Executive President reduced through the 17th, 19th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution. They also vehemently condemned the PTA, demanding its abolition. Now, an opportunity has presented itself for the JVP/NPP leaders to carry out what they wanted their predecessors to do—abolition of the executive presidency and the PTA. But they are soft-pedalling the dictatorial powers vested in the executive presidency and trying every trick in the book to retain the PTA in the form of the PSTA. If the proposed anti-terror laws are ratified—perish the thought—President Dissanayake will have more dictatorial powers including the one to ban any organisation simply by issuing a gazette notification to that effect. What guarantee is there that the government will not abuse that power to ban political parties the way President J. R. Jayewardene did; he proscribed the JVP in the early 1980s by falsely accusing it of being involved in anti-Tamil violence. The JVP stands accused of working towards the establishment of a one-party system. There is hardly anything an outfit like the JVP will not do to retain its hold on power.

Another serious issue Prof. Peiris has rightly flagged is that the PSTA seeks to empower the Defence Secretary to issue detention orders to have suspects in judicial custody transferred to police custody. Thus, the JVP, whose leader—President Dissanayake—appoints the Defence Secretary and has the police under its thumb, will be in a position to circumvent the judicial process and have anyone detained for a maximum of one year.

Pointing out that the proposed PSTA has categorised 13 offences as acts of terrorism although they can be dealt with under other laws, Prof. Peiris has argued that the PSTA is riddled with ambiguities. This, he has said, blurs the critical distinction between ordinary criminal offences and acts of terrorism, which require “clear and unambiguous definition with no scope for elasticity of interpretation.” Grey areas in any legislation are minefields; they lend themselves to misuse, if not abuse, and therefore must be eliminated in the name of democracy and the people’s rights and liberties.

Another danger in the proposed PSTA is the sweeping powers to be vested in the Defence Secretary, a political appointee, including the one to designate ‘prohibited areas’, Prof. Peiris has revealed. Entering such places will constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment up to three years and a fine of up to Rs. 3 million. One cannot but agree that such provision will have a chilling effect on media personnel as they will be prohibited from photographing, video recording and sketching or drawing them.

The deplorable manner in which the JVP/NPP is trying to safeguard the interests of the incumbent dispensation on the pretext of protecting the state against terror makes one hope and pray that Sri Lanka will not end up being like Oceania in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, with Big Brother watching every citizen menacingly. Pressure must be brought to bear on the government to deep-six its PSTA forthwith.

Saturday 14th February, 2026

A nine-day protest by beach seine fishers against a ban on the use of tractor-mounted winches to haul their nets was called off yesterday following a discussion with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The protesting fisherfolk had been demanding a meeting with the President, but in vain. Why did the President wait for nine days to invite them to a discussion? He could have stepped in to have the fishers’ protest called off on the first day of agitation itself.

Governments usually do not agree to negotiate with any protesters immediately after the launch of their agitations lest others should be encouraged to do likewise. Politicians in power seek to wear down protesters by resorting to brinkmanship. They consider it infra dig to blink first, so to speak. This is the name of the game, but governments and the public stand to gain when the issues that lead to protests and strikes are resolved promptly.

Minister of Fisheries Ramalingam Chandrasekar and his deputy Ratna Gamage opted to play a game of chicken with the protesting fishers, refusing to soften their position that the ban on ‘mechanised’ beach seine fishing must continue. They declared that the ban at issue was non-negotiable, provoking the fishermen into intensifying their protest. They should have invited the protesters to the negotiating table.

There are two schools of thought about the use of tractors fitted with winches to drag fishing nets. Environmentalists are of the view that the use of winches to haul nets causes serious environmental issues, such as the destruction of coral reefs. Those who practise this fishing method argue that there are no corals in the areas where they practise beach seine fishing, and they avoid reefs, which damage their nets. Tractors do not cause sea erosion, they insist. Daring the government to prove scientifically that the homegrown method of hauling nets causes environmental damage, they demanded that they be allowed to use tractors and winches pending an investigation. Why the government did not adopt the proposed course of action is the question. It should have taken up the fishermen’s challenge.

Cabinet Ministers and top bureaucrats rarely succeed in resolving labour disputes under their own steam. They only confront strikers or protesters, provoking the latter into escalating their trade union action, much to the inconvenience of the public. The President has to intervene to do the work of ministers and ministry secretaries and resolve labour issues. This has been the situation under successive governments.

One of the main arguments against the executive presidency is that the President tends to run a one man/woman show, undermining the Cabinet and the state service. Unbridled powers vested in the President have been blamed for this situation, which however is also due to the failure of Cabinet Ministers and top bureaucrats to carry out their duties and functions effectively.

If ministers cannot tackle serious issues without presidential interventions, which are frequent, why should the public pay through the nose to maintain a Cabinet of Ministers?