Editorial
Elephant in the room gets spotted
Wednesday 7th April, 2021
Never a dull day in Sri Lanka, where controversies crop up so rapidly that nobody can keep track of them. The latest issue is the government’s contention that the removal of Chief Justice (CJ) Mohan Peiris, in January 2015, was unconstitutional. Justice Minister Ali Sabry himself said so in answer to a question raised by a government MP, in Parliament, on Monday. He promised to take remedial action after consulting Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Why has this issue been catapulted to centre stage all of a sudden?
It is being argued in some quarters that the ruling party propagandists engineer controversies, from time to time, to prevent their opponents from flogging an issue hard and long enough to turn public opinion against the government.
It is a supreme irony that Mahinda Rajapaksa, under whose presidency Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was removed as CJ in 2013 amidst protests and Mohan Peiris appointed to that post, and Maithripala Sirisena, who used his presidential powers in 2015 to defenestrate Peiris and reinstate Bandaranayake as the CJ, are now together in the SLPP coalition. One may recall that Sirisena, as a senior member of the Rajapaksa Cabinet voted for the impeachment of Dr. Bandaranayake, in Parliament.
Opinion is divided on the removal of CJ Bandaranayake. The Rajapaksa government should have refrained from resorting to such a course of action for the sake of democracy, which is underpinned by the principle of separation of powers. Intoxicated with power, it was no respecter of democracy.
The UNP’s arguments against the impeachment of CJ Bandaranayake were compelling; the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), which probed her, refused to allow her witnesses and failed to specify what the due process was. Most of all, the UNP said the Rajapaksa government had bungled its impeachment project; the resolution passed in a hurry to impeach the CJ sought and secured parliamentary approval for the appointment of the PSC, which probed her; it did not specifically seek approval for her removal, according to the Order Paper, the then UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella told the House.
But if the impeachment process had been flawed and the removal of CJ Bandaranayake wrong, as argued by the UNP and some legal experts, a proper way to right the wrong would have been for President Sirisena to have Parliament undo what it had done. The yahapalana government, which mustered a two-thirds majority for the 19th Amendment, could have accomplished that task easily. Instead, President Sirisena chose to override Parliament. Sadly, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka egged him on to do what he did, unmindful of the politico-legal consequences of his arbitrary action.
President Sirisena’s line of reasoning was that Dr. Bandaranayake had been removed from office wrongfully in January 2013, and the post of CJ had therefore not fallen vacant. He declared the appointment of Peiris as the CJ null and void ab initio, and reinstated Dr. Bandaranayake, who retired soon afterwards. Sri Lanka had three CJs on three consecutive days—Peiris, Bandaranayake and her successor K. Sripavan!
A person has recently been arrested for posing as a President’s Counsel. But, strangely, the yahapalana government, which claimed that Peiris had functioned as the CJ ‘illegally’ and removed him unceremoniously, stopped short of taking any action against him for having been in that post for two years. If it is true that his appointment was invalid, as Sirisena and the UNP claimed, then it follows therefrom that everything he did as the CJ lacked legality. Peiris drew the CJ’s salary, enjoyed the perks of office, functioned as the Chairman of the Judges’ Institute of Sri Lanka, heard cases, gave judgments and signed vital documents. Why didn’t the yahapalana government take any action against Peiris and/or the person who appointed him CJ? Sirisena and his erstwhile yahapalana chums owe an explanation.
Interestingly, the implication of Justice Minister Sabry’s statement at issue is that Sirisena, as the President, violated the Constitution by removing CJ Peiris. If so, action will have to be taken against Sirisena. The SLPP ought to explain why it is keeping Sirisena within its ranks.
If the current Parliament resolves that the government’s contention that the removal of CJ Peiris, in January 2015, was unconstitutional is valid, then it will follow from such a resolution that the reinstatement of Dr. Bandaranayake as the CJ in January 2015 was not legal, and, worse, doubts may even be cast on the legality of the appointment of her successor as well in that if Peiris had not been removed, his term would not have come to an end in mid-January 2015. It will be interesting to see how legal luminaries look at this issue.
One need not be surprised if the government does not proceed beyond the Justice Minister’s statement on the removal of CJ Peiris. Troubled by many problems including intraparty rivalries and clashes and the prospect of the SLFP breaking away in case of action being taken against Sirisena over his failure in 2019, as the President, to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks, the government obviously does not need another issue to contend with.
Editorial
Jekylls and Hydes
Monday 29th December, 2025
Sri Lankan politicians love the media dearly and take up the cudgels for the rights of journalists when they are out of power. The JVP/NPP leaders also defended the media to the hilt while they were languishing in the Opposition. Jekylls become Hydes after being ensconced in power, with the media exposing their failures and malpractices. Those who can, do; those who cannot, attack the media, one may say of the governments in this country, with apologies to Bernard Shaw.
The JVP-led NPP government, angered by bad press, is all out to intimidate the media it cannot control. Previous governments had the police on a string and used them to attack and harass independent journalists. The incumbent administration has gone a step further; the police have reportedly written to the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC), asking for action against Hiru TV for what they describe as broadcasting unverified, misleading news. Thus, the government has used the police to give Hiru a choice between toeing the official line and losing its licence. Thankfully, its efforts have run into stiff resistance, with media institutions and various associations circling the wagons around Hiru.
If the government thinks Hiru or any other media institution disseminates false information to the detriment of its interests, legal avenues are available for it to seek redress. The police must not be used as a political tool to intimidate the media.
Among the current defenders of the media are the SLPP, the UNP, the SLFP, etc. Their leaders are shedding copious tears for Hiru. But it was while the UNP and SLPP leaders were in power that the suppression of media freedom and violence against journalists became institutionalised for all intents and purposes. UNP governments not only throttled media freedom but also murdered journalists. SLFP regimes had media institutions attacked and journalists killed. An SLFP-led government, with the current SLPP leaders at the helm, had media institutions torched and journalists abducted, assaulted and murdered. These sinners currently in the political wilderness are condemning other sinners in power for suppressing media freedom.
The government deserves the bad press it gets. The police have been reduced to a mere appendage of the JVP/NPP. Two of the NPP’s Retired Police Collective members, namely former Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne and former SSP Shani Abeysekera, have been appointed Secretary to the Public Security Ministry and CID Director, respectively. Absurd claims the police make in defence of the government remind us of Matilda, whose dreadful lies made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes.
When the police were asked why NPP MP Asoka Ranwala had not been subjected to a breathalyser test immediately after a recent road accident he caused, they had the chutzpah to claim they had run out of test kits. They transferred two of their officers over the incident to enable the government to save face. They arrested one of their own men assaulted by an NPP MP following a recent police raid on a cannabis cultivation in Suriyakanda. Acting just like legendary King Kekille, they let the MP off the hook and arrested the policeman, who was bailed out; they went on to suspend him from service. A few months ago, they unashamedly sided with a group of JVP cadres who stormed a Frontline Socialist Party office in Yakkala and forcibly occupied it. They go out of their way to ensure that the arrests of drug dealers with links to the Opposition get maximum possible publicity, but they do their best to keep the media in the dark when narcotics dealers with ruling party connections are taken into custody. They crack down on Opposition politicians and activists but steer clear of government members and their supporters. The despicable manner in which they are doing political work for the government reminds us of the Gestapo. Now, they are zeroing in on Hiru TV at the behest of their political masters for exposing their sordid actions.
The only way the NPP government can overcome problems and challenges on the political front and shore up its crumbling image is to mend its ways and fulfil its election pledges while taking action against its errant members who have brought it into disrepute and turned public opinion against it. Shooting the messenger is not the way to set about the task.
Editorial
Executive brinkmanship
Pressure is mounting on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to ensure that an Auditor General is appointed without further delay. But he has remained unmoved. He is determined to wear down the Constitutional Council (CC) and appoint one of his party loyalists as Auditor General. The CC has rejected his nominees—and rightly so; they are not eligible. Former Executive Presidents went all out to railroad the CC into rubber-stamping their decisions. They had no qualms about doing so while claiming to uphold the independence of the public service. President Dissanayake has failed to be different. His refusal to compromise amounts to brinkmanship; he is waiting until the CC blinks.
The NPP’s election manifesto, A Thriving Nation: A Beautiful Life, attributes the deterioration of the public service to ‘political appointments’ and state workers making political decisions. Among the steps the NPP has promised to take to straighten up the public service are ‘merit-based appointments and promotions’. This principle has fallen by the wayside where the question of appointing the Auditor General is concerned.
The government should take cognisance of the possible negative effects of the prolonged delay in appointing the Auditor General during a period of disaster response and international relief and rebuilding support.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has called upon President Dissanayake to appoint a person with proven competence, integrity, and independence, who commands wide acceptance as Auditor General forthwith. It has stressed the need to appoint a nonpartisan professional as the Auditor General to safeguard the integrity of the National Audit Office and inspire the confidence of both citizens and international partners in the financial governance of the State.
Transparency International Sri Lanka, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the other good governance activists, too, have faulted President Dissanayake and his government for the inordinate delay in appointing the Auditor General. They are of the view that a strong, independent Auditor General enables Parliament and the public to scrutinise government expenditure, identify irregularities, prevent misuse of funds, and ensure that those entrusted with public resources are held to account. The delay in appointing the Auditor General has weakened the effectiveness, authority, and the independence of the entire public audit system and created space for inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption, they have noted. The situation will take a turn for the worse if the government succeeds in having one of its cronies appointed Auditor General.
The government is apparently playing a waiting game in the hope that the reconstitution of the CC due next year will provide a window of opportunity for it to appoint one of its loyalists as Auditor General.
Why the government is so desperate to place a malleable person at the helm of the National Audit Office is not hard to understand. If it succeeds in its endeavour, the next Auditor General will be beholden to the JVP/NPP. When an ineligible person is elevated to a high post, he or she naturally becomes subservient to the appointing authority. Such officials go out of their way to safeguard the interests of their political masters in case of irregularities involving state funds and other accountability issues.
A protracted delay in appointing the Auditor General or the appointment of a government supporter to that post will increase the risk of mismanagement of state funds and corruption, lead to the erosion of public trust and confidence in the National Audit Office, undermine legislative oversight and impair fiscal discipline. Most of all, the government’s failure to appoint a competent, independent person of integrity as Auditor General will diminish donor confidence especially at a time when the country is seeking disaster relief funds from the international community. There is no way the government can justify its refusal to appoint the current Acting Auditor General as the head of the supreme audit institution. He is obviously the most eligible candidate.
Editorial
Selective transparency
Saturday 27th December, 2025
The NPP government has released a cordial diplomatic letter from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, and gained a great deal of publicity for it as part of a propaganda campaign to boost Dissanayake’s image. Such moves are not uncommon in politics, especially in the developing world, where the heads of powerful states are deified and their visits, invitations and letters are flaunted as achievements of the leaders of smaller nations. However, the release of PM Modi’s letter to President Dissanayake is counterproductive, for it makes one wonder why the government has not made public the MoUs it has signed with India?
PM Modi’s Sri Lanka visit in April 2025 saw the signing of seven MoUs (or pacts as claimed in some quarters) between New Delhi and Colombo. Prominent among them are the MoUs/pacts on the implementation of HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) Interconnection for import/export of power, cooperation among the governments of India, Sri Lanka, and the United Arab Emirates on developing Trincomalee as an energy hub, and defence cooperation between India and Sri Lanka.
The NPP government has violated one of the fundamental tenets of good governance––transparency; there has been no transparency about the aforesaid MoUs or pacts, especially the one on defence cooperation. They cannot be disclosed without India’s consent, the government has said. This is a very lame excuse. The JVP/NPP seems to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the public, who made its meteoric rise to power.
When the JVP/NPP was in opposition, it would flay the previous governments for signing vital MoUs and pacts without transparency. But it has kept even Parliament in the dark about the MoUs/pacts in question.
Ironically, the JVP, which resorted to mindless violence in a bid to scuttle the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987, has sought to justify the inking of an MoU/pact on defence cooperation between Sri Lanka and India and keeping it under wraps, about three and a half decades later. The signing of that particular defence MoU/pact marked the JVP’s biggest-ever Machiavellian U-turn. How would the JVP have reacted if a previous government had entered into MoUs with India and kept them secret? It opposed the proposed Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) between Sri Lanka and India tooth and nail, didn’t it?
Whenever one sees the aforesaid letter doing the rounds in the digital space, one remembers the MoUs/pacts shrouded in secrecy, which have exposed the pusillanimity of the NPP government, whose leaders cannot so much as disclose their contents without India’s consent.
-
News7 days agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
News5 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
Features7 days agoGeneral education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?
-
News7 days agoSuspension of Indian drug part of cover-up by NMRA: Academy of Health Professionals
-
Sports5 days agoChief selector’s remarks disappointing says Mickey Arthur
-
News4 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Editorial7 days agoA very sad day for the rule of law
-
News7 days agoUS Ambassador to Sri Lanka among 29 career diplomats recalled
