Midweek Review

How former CID Chief Shani ended up in Geneva agenda and clampdown on Ranjan’s tapes

Published

4 years ago

2021/07/7

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Many eyebrows were raised when the Geneva-based UK Mission to the WTO, UN and other International Organizations recently referred to one-time Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Gnendra Shani Abeysekara.

In a brief statement, dated June 22, 2021, that dealt with Sri Lanka, the UK, on behalf of the literally self-appointed Sri Lanka Core Group (whether we like it or not), comprising Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi, Montenegro and the UK, demanded the safety of Abeysekara. The grouping told the world: “We call for former CID director Shani Abeysekara’s safety to be ensured.”

The Geneva statement was made ahead of Abeysekara’s retirement. At the time Abeysekara retired on June 30, 2021, he was on bail having been arrested, in July 2020, in connection with the alleged fabrication of evidence against former DIG Vass Gunawardena and several others. The latter group had been arrested over the alleged abduction and killing of Mohammed Shyam, on May 22, 2013. Along with Abeysekara, the Appeal Court bench consisting of Justices Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne and R. Gurusinghe on June 16, 2021 also granted bail to former Sub Inspector of CID Sugath Mendis. Both were subjected to strict bail conditions.

Attorney-at-Law K.W. Janaranjana, the editor of Annidda, has meticulously dealt with the killing of Mohammed Shyam, investigations conducted by Abeysekara, the 2019 change of government, the probe taking a new turn, Abeysekara’s arrest and, finally, the Court of Appeal granting the former CID Director and SI Sugath Mendis bail. The full page article authored by the civil society activist, formerly with Ravaya, carried on its June 27, 2021 edition, is a must read.

The UK-led Core Group addressed the Abeysekara’s arrest, pertaining to the alleged fabrication of evidence. Yahapalana Justice Minister Thalatha Atukorale, too, called for an end to what she called persecution of Abeysekara. The Sri Lanka Core Group wouldn’t have taken up Abeysekara’s case in Geneva without being pushed by the Colombo-based civil society group. There had never been such a Western intervention on behalf of a law enforcement officer here, though there were intrusions by individual countries. Switzerland accommodating Abeysekara acolyte Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva and his family in its asylum programme is a case in point. CI Silva, accompanied by his family, left the country just over a week after the 2019 presidential election. Their departure to Switzerland paved the way for those who had been involved in the conspiracy to accuse newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government of abducting local Swiss Embassy employee, Francis Garnier, formerly Sriyalatha Perera.

The London headquartered Amnesty International, in late Nov 2020, expressed concerns over Abeysekara’s safety, in prison, after he was tested Covid-19 positive. According to the AI, the police officer who had been interdicted over alleged fabrication of evidence, in respect of Mohammed Shyam’s case, earned the wrath of the second Rajapaksa government for exposing human rights abuses implicating top politicians.

SC endorses HC ruling

One of the high profile cases, handled by Abeysekara, was the killing of four persons, including former lawmaker Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, who had been assigned to handle the UPFA trade union activity. The then Attorney General filed 17 indictments against 13 defendants for the murders of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, Damitha Darshana Jayathilake, Jalaldeen Mohamed Azeem and Manuel Kumaraswamy, on October 8, 2011, the day of the Local Government Elections, at Himbutana, Angoda. Following an extensive trial, High Court judges Padmini M. Ranawaka and M.T.B.S. Moraes (believed to be in Fiji as a judge) sentenced the defendants to death on Dec 8, 2016. However, the President of the trial-at-bar, Judge Shiran Gooneratne (now in the Supreme Court) disagreed. He acquitted 13 defendants from all charges filed against them whereas Judge Padmini Ranawaka, with Judge M.T.B.S. Moraes, agreeing, acquitted 08 of the 13 defendants from all charges.

At the time of the Himbutana incident, Duminda Silva had been Colombo District lawmaker and Monitoring MP for the Defence Ministry. The other Monitoring MP in that Rajapaksa administration was Sajin Vass Gunawardena, assigned to the Foreign Ministry.

The Supreme Court, on Oct 11, 2018, dismissed an appeal filed by Duminda Silva and the three others. The SC bench comprised five judges. Duminda Silva and the three other accuseds, filed an appeal against the death penalty imposed by the High Court on Dec 8, 2016. At the SC proceedings, the 01st accused, Police Constable Anura Thushara de Mel was acquitted of all charges by the bench consisting of the then Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Nalin Perera, Priyantha Jayawardena and Vijith Malalgoda. Thereby the SC reaffirmed the death penalty imposed on Duminda Silva, Srinayake Pathiranage, Chaminda Ravi Jayanath alias Dematagoda Chaminda and Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sarath Bandara.

However, the releasing of audio tapes of conversations among Abeysekara (he hadn’t been appointed Director CID then), Deputy Minister of Social Empowerment Ranjan Ramanayake, the then High Court judge Mrs. Padmini Ranawaka and President Maithripala Sirisena, in the wake of the 2019 Presidential Election, sent shock waves through political parties, the judiciary, the police and the civil society. Controversy still surrounds the circumstances under which the police received the recordings, secretly made by Ramanayake. Selected tapes were released to both the print and electronic media. Social media prevented efforts to hush up the shocking revelations, pertaining to the Himbutana killings, and the subsequent judgment.

Those in authority conveniently refrained from conducting a proper investigation into the scandalous interventions made by Ramanayake, as well as the conduct of HC judge Mrs. Ranawaka, and Abeysekara, though the police recorded some statements, including that of Mrs. Ranawaka. Parliament, through a statement issued by its Director Department of Communication, Shan Wijetunga, explained its position. That statement dated Feb 7, 2021, based on the decisions taken by the Committee on Parliamentary Business, as regards Ramanayake’s tapes, is reproduced here: “The CDs containing the recorded telephone conversations which were handed over to the Hansard Department of Parliament by MP Ranjan Ramanayake was taken into a lengthy discussion during the Committee on Parliamentary Business held today (Feb. 07, 2021).

Accordingly, the Committee Members directed Parliament officials to submit the alleged CDs to the Speaker of Parliament, Karu Jayasuriya, to examine matters concerning national prejudice, insults directed at elite persons and words which are inconsistent with Parliament.

The Committee then decided that the Speaker should examine it further and take appropriate action. The decision to table the CDs and give access to the MPs was deferred for later consideration.”

Parliament never released the CDs. Karu Jayasuriya’s recent call to grant presidential pardon to Ramanayake should be examined against the backdrop of how Parliament responded to the disturbing revelations and the suppression of CDs.

Meeting press outside Temple Trees

Ramanayake got into trouble for a statement he made outside Temple Trees, on August 21, 2017, following a parliamentary group meeting of the then ruling party. A simmering controversy erupted over the leaked tapes in the wake of the Supreme Court sentencing Ramanayake on January 12, 2021. A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Sisira de Abrew, Vijith Malalgoda and Preethi Padman Surasena, sentenced Ramanayake to four years rigorous imprisonment after convicting him of contempt of court. The Attorney General filed the case following a complaint filed in the Supreme Court by Ranawaka Sunil Perera of 43/11, Walawwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. The case has been in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

Ranawaka Sunil Perera moved the Supreme Court on the day after Ramanayake accused lawyers and judges of being corrupt.

Rasika Dissanayake, with Sandun Senadhipathi, appeared for the petitioner, on the instructions of Sanath Wijewardena, whereas Tamil National Alliance lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, with Viran Corea and J.C. Thambiah, appeared for the respondent on the instructions of D. Vithanapathirana. Sarath Jayamanne PC ASG, with Suharshi Herath SSC, represented the Attorney-General.

But, interventions made by Ramanayake, throughout 2016, in respect of judgment in the Himbutana killings, had never been properly investigated, though Parliament, and the police, received the tapes well over a year ago. The bottom line is that the appalling disclosures in audio tapes had never been subjected to judicial proceedings.

Now Karu Jayasuriya, in his new capacity as the Chairperson of the NMSJ (National Movement for Social Justice), pioneered by the late Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha wants President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to pardon Ranjan Ramanayake, the way he freed Duminda Silva. Following the last parliamentary election, in August 2020, Prof Sarath Wijesuriya gave up the NMSJ leadership for Jayasuriya’s entry. Those who are genuinely interested in good governance and accountability should listen to those tapes and take tangible measures to conduct a thorough investigation into the whole affair. The conversations involving Abeysekara and Ramanayake, President Sirisena, Ramanayake and Judge Mrs. Ranawaka depict a pathetic situation.

Before the writer dealt with the leaked conversations, it would be pertinent to mention that Abeysekara received promotion to the rank of SSP on August 8, 2016, and appointed as Director, CID, in the first week of Sept 2017. Abeysekara served as CID Director till he received a transfer, on Nov 21, 2019, as Personal Assistant to DIG, Galle.

Did Ramanayake speak to High Court Judge Mrs. Ranawaka to influence the murder conviction against Duminda Silva, sans permission from the party leadership? Did the then top UNP leadership ask him to approach judges in respect of various cases? Ramanayaka is also on record phoning High Court judge Gihan Pilapitiya and Magistrate Dhammika Hemapala. Following the disclosure of a fraction of the tapes secretly recorded by Ramanayake, the police compiled statements from Mrs. Ranawaka (retired), Pilapitiya and Hemapala. Let me focus on the conversations involving Mrs. Ranawaka, Ramanayake, Abeysekara and President Sirisena (now SLPP Polonnaruwa district MP. Sirisena remains the SLFP leader).

How Prez’s intervention
sought for promotion

Mrs. Ranawaka had no qualms in declaring that she had no confidence in President Sirisena though she subsequently directly pleaded with him to promote her to the Court of Appeal. Mrs. Ranawaka expressed doubts about President Sirisena when Ramanayake phoned her on July 14, 2016, in the wake of Abeysekara expressing serious concerns over the way the Duminda Silva matter, and related issues, were being handled. Nearly two dozen conversations, involving Ramanayaka and Abeysekara, should be examined without taking them in isolation. According to conversations now in public domain, Mrs Ranawaka asked Ramanayaka to intervene on her behalf when the latter pressed her on the pending judgment on the Himbutana killings. The judge also made reference to the then lawmaker and Attorney-at-Law Ajith P. Perera during her conversation, initiated by Ramanayake. The way the conversation continued, clearly indicated that the call taken by Ramanayake, on July 14, 2016, couldn’t have been the first and they knew each other very well. Mrs. Ranawaka, obviously exploited Ramanayake’s intervention to explore the possibility of moving up the ladder with unbridled political patronage.

Let me stress that Ramanayake didn’t mince his words when he repeatedly sought assurances from Mrs Ranawaka and Abeysekara, in separate conversations, whether they were sure of a guilty verdict in respect of the Himbutana killings. Abeysekara repeatedly assured Ramanayake he was convinced of a guilty verdict. At one point, Abeysekara declared all three judges would take a common stand. Abeysekara had been so confident of the impending ruling, at one point he assured Ramanayake that he was 10,000 percent sure of the verdict. Abeysekara warned Ramanayake of dire consequences if he made any further direct interventions, particularly with Mrs. Ranawaka.

Abeysekara, however, pointed out to Ramanayake that calling Mrs Ranawaka was nothing but a mistake but he cut a sorry figure by pleading with the UNP Deputy Minister not to discuss the issue at hand with anyone, including President Sirisena. Ramanayake ignored Abeysekara’s advice.

After the three-member bench delivered judgment on the Himbutana killings, Ramanayake, on Sept 12, 2017, arranged for President Sirisena to talk with Mrs. Ranawaka. She unashamedly sought President Sirisena’s intervention to secure a promotion to the Court of Appeal. Having repeatedly assured good governance and accountability, the yahapalana grandees caused unprecedented turmoil. In the absence of a proper inquiry at any level, Ramanayake’s interventions in judicial matters were never dealt with.

In spite of Ramanayake’s deplorable conduct, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the breakaway faction of the UNP, had no misgivings in accommodating him on its Gampaha District list at the August 2020 General Election. The SJB cannot absolve itself of the UNP’s culpabilities, ranging from Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016, to failure to prevent the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, despite being forewarned with precise intelligence.

Former Speaker Karunaratne Jayasuriya, despite always being clad in immaculate lily white national attire, like most shrewd politicians, however failed to inquire into Ramanayake’s sordid vigilante type justice. What we should understand is that he is foremost a politician. Jayasuriya, one-time UNP Deputy Leader and a member of the 2015 UNP parliamentary group, was named the Speaker, therefore his actions/failures can be explained. However, the pathetic failure on the part of the SLPP to initiate an inquiry into the Ramanayake affair, nearly a year after the last general election, is an indication of the utterly irresponsible Parliament, where many a backroom deal is made.

All parties represented in Parliament, particularly the SLPP, and the SJB, with nearly 200 lawmakers in Parliament should take a clear stand on political interventions in judgments. Whatever the shortcomings, those drafting a new Constitution, at a great cost to the taxpayer, should do away with constitutional provisions in respect of presidential pardons and formulate a mechanism for judicial review of previous rulings in case of the emergence of fresh evidence. Presidential pardon shouldn’t be a ‘tool’ available for the executive, under any circumstances. Political parties should reach a consensus on the need to abolish the presidential pardon, as such powers make a mockery of democracy.

But, in the so-called greatest democracy, the USA, even if we leave aside the erratic and unscrupulous behaviour of President Trump and take for example the actions of President Obama, one of the darlings of the liberal media there, he pardoned nearly 2000 felons before he left office At least in the local instance of Duminda Silva, the presidential pardon managed to undo a grave injustice to a man, who was shot first in the head. So the President overturning his murder conviction for the other killings that took place after he was incapacitated, amidst shenanigans involving Ranjan Ramanayake, Shani Abeysekara and Judge Padmini Ranawaka, was the right thing to do.

The government should go for a thorough inquiry into Ramanayake’s tapes. Let us hope Parliament, without further delay, makes all tapes available to its members and takes tangible measures to facilitate no holds barred investigations. The way Abeysekara used Ramanayake to target Brigadier Suresh Salley of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) is evidence how all stakeholders exploited various situations to their advantage. Abeysekara wanted Ramanayake to set the stage for Salley’s removal. Whatever the circumstances, the then Premier Wickremesinghe unceremoniously removed Salley.

Perhaps, the Foreign Ministry should make available certified translations of all available telephone conversations among former High Court judge Padmini Ranawaka, retired SSP Shani Abeysekara, former lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake and former President Maithripala Sirisena to members of Sri Lanka Core Group. The Foreign Ministry should seriously consider briefing the Core Group members, particularly the UK, Canada and Germany, to prevent them from further exploiting Abeysekara’s case.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

A second killing in a courtroom, a question of national security and overall deterioration of law enforcement

Published

7 days ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sanjeewa Kumara Samararathne alias Ganemulle Sanjeewa

Against the backdrop of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijeyapala’s declaration in Parliament of a nexus between the underworld and some sections of the administration, particularly the police, Pubudu Jagoda of the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) demanded to know as to why Ganemulle Sanjeewa

IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya

had been produced in court on February 19 without a court order. The FSP spokesman emphasized that the crux of the matter is why he had been brought to court in the absence of a court directive and despite there having been specific intelligence that an attempt was to be made on the suspect’s life on that day as disclosed by Acting IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya at a hastily called media briefing at the Information Department over the last weekend.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Two shootings at Kadewatte junction, Middeniya, on Tuesday night (18), and at the Colombo Hulftsdorp Court complex, the following day, quite conveniently deprived Parliament of an opportunity to conduct a proper debate on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s first Budget delivered on February 17th. The reportage of the Budget debate proved that it was a non-event as it was overshadowed by the audacious killing of Ganemulle Sanjeewa as he stood in the dock of the Hulftsdorp Magistrate Court number 05.

The Middeniya shooting claimed the lives of three persons – Aruna Vidanagamage aka Meegas-are Kajja, 39, and his six-year-old-daughter and nine-year-old son. Vidanagamage captured public attention recently when the gangster, in a no holds barred interview with Chamuditha Samarawickrema in ‘Truth with Chamuditha,’ accused the Rajapaksa family and some of its henchmen of criminal activity. Vidanagamage alleged that a person (who was named), close to the Rajapaksas, had given a contract to kill him though he didn’t believe the family was aware of the move.

A policeman, attached to the Tangalle Police, is among the three persons who have been so far taken into custody in connection with the Middeniya triple killings. However, the police constable hadn’t been apprehended for his involvement with the killing but for giving two pairs of handcuffs that were found at the scene of the shooting that had been given to “Kajja” earlier by him. The unauthorized transfer of handcuffs to a criminal by a cop underscored the gravity of the situation. The revelation reflects the overall deterioration of law enforcement. Recently, another cop, attached to the Mount Lavinia Police, gave his service weapon to the drug underworld and escaped to Dubai.

The Hulftsdorp shooting that claimed the life of Sanjeewa Kumara Samararathne, alias Ganemulle Sanjeewa, sent shock waves through the inept law enforcers. The killing inside the No. 05 Magistrate’s Court and the arrest of the gunman under controversial circumstances highlighted the deficiencies in overall law enforcement.

Ganemulle Sanjeewa, who had been arrested on Sept. 13, 2023, at the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA), on his arrival from Nepal, was the second person in custody to die in a hail of bullets inside a courtroom.

The Opposition, in an obvious bid to exploit the developing situation, claimed a breach of national security. The National People’s Power (NPP) was accused of jeopardizing the security of the state. The government dismissed that assertion while claiming the Hulftsdorp shooting as an isolated incident. The actual truth lies somewhere in between with widespread despicable behaviour of law enforcers all over the country, with corrupt cops being brazenly involved in lucrative underworld businesses, especially in facilitating and milking the deadly narcotic trade. Some Opposition lawmakers called for Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijepala’s resignation. The Jathika Jana Balawegya (JJB) would have done the same if some other party wielded political power now.

A member of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) compared the Hulftsdorp security lapse with that of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. SJB lawmaker Rohana Bandara’s appraisal is obviously a case of going overboard. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), too, attacked the Budget calling it an IMF product.

The first courtroom killing took place during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga presidency. Before we discussed that high profile killing of notorious underworld figure Dhammika Amarasinghe on a Friday morning in early January 2004, at the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s court, in the same court complex as last week’s brazen killing of a notorious suspect Sanjeewe, as he stood in the dock, by an Army deserter Chaminda Udaya Kumara, 28. It goes without saying the responsibility on the part of the armed forces to tighten up discipline and recruiting procedures is utmost, especially now long after the earlier debilitating terrorist threat, as there is no longer any necessity to absorb anyone who turns up for recruitment as the forces are no longer desperately short of manpower to fight a debilitating war like earlier against the world’s deadliest terrorist force with a conventional fighting capability.

Assassin Chaminda Udaya Kumara, responsible for the 2004 killing, entered the courtroom as a law student. In the latest such daring killing last week, the gunman disguised himself as an Attorney-at-Law.

Chaminda Udaya Kumara had been apprehended in the record room where he was overpowered by a Lance Corporal of Sri Lanka National Guard (SLNG) and handed over to the police. On both occasions, the assassin hadn’t been subjected to checks. It would be pertinent to mention that Dhammika Amarasinghe’s assassin had made an attempt to escape by taking a person hostage and opened fire causing injuries to two persons before the SLNG soldier swung into action.

Ganemulle Sanjeewa’s killer had joined the Army 12 years after the successful conclusion of the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Therefore, he hadn’t served the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s war-winning Army. Although some speculated that the assassin had joined the Army as a Muslim, inquiries, however, revealed that was not the case. Asked to explain, an authoritative officer pointed out that it wouldn’t be fair to identify the assassin as a commando as he had undergone only the basic course.

According to Army records the assassin joined the Army in 2020 and was legally discharged after he was found guilty of going AWOL (absent without leave) in 2023. Accused of using several identities, the assassin, immediately after his arrest at Palaviya, identified himself as Mohamed Azman Sherifdeen. At the time the Army discharged the assassin, he had been with the 3rd Commando Regiment.

The real identity of the assassin, born in 1997, is Samindu Dilshan Piyumanga Kandanaarachchi, a resident of Dambahena Road, Maharagama.

When did the assassin start using fake identities? How had he obtained a fake BASL ID? Who could have arranged the deadly mission? Let us once again emphasise that shortcomings on the part of the Army could have been ignored if such deceptions took place during the war as the military was desperate to double its strength but over a decade and a half after the war such lapses couldn’t be justified, under any circumstances.

First killing in a courtroom

Contract killer Dhammika Amarasinghe had been under investigation in a headline grabbing case involving the then Telecom and Sri Lanka Cricket (it was called Sri Lanka Cricket Board at that time) chief Thilanga Sumathipala, accused of funding the gangster as a guest of the SLC to watch the 1999 Cricket World Cup in the UK. Investigations revealed that the assassin, who travelled to the UK, allegedly on a fake passport, had received SLC funds to the tune of 1,500 Sterling Pounds.

Amarasinghe was to be produced in court on the following Monday to answer questions regarding the UK sojourn at the SLC’s expense. Sumathipala, who was to appear in court on Thursday, the day before Amarasinghe’s killing, didn’t attend court, claiming sudden illness.

At that time no one alleged it wasbreach of national security though it was a highly politicized case. However, Dhammika Amarasinghe was taken out inside a court when produced before it over two murder cases – one at Borella and the other at Welikada. Before Dhammika Amarasinghe’s killing, his rivals killed 16 of his relatives.

Investigations revealed that the gunman had been in the same court when Dhammika Amarasinghe was produced in court pertaining to Thilanga Sumathipala’s case on the previous day.

The assassin claimed that he took out Dhammika Amarasinghe to avenge the killing of Dhanushka Perera aka Baddegane Sanjeewa of the Presidential Security Division (PSD).

Then President Kumaratunga’s security chiefs accommodated notorious gangster Baddegane Sanjeewa in the PSD and issued him an official weapon. Unfortunately, he hadn’t been the only ruffian taken to the PSD during her tenure as the President. President Ranasinghe Premadasa is believed to have absorbed notorious gangster Soththi Upali to the police reserve as a Sub Inspector.

Investigations revealed that Baddegane Sanjeewa’s assassin travelled with him in the luxury vehicle when he was shot from the back seat. Investigations also revealed that at the time the PSD thug had been shot he was on his mobile with Venessa Selvaratnam who earned significant media coverage over the killing of Papua New Guinean ruggerite Joel Pera inside a casino in a case that also allegedly involved the late Minister Anuruddha Ratwatte’s son Lohan. The killing of the PSD hoodlum took place at a cross street, off Pagoda Road, in Nugegoda.

In spite of accusations that Baddegane Sanjeewa carried out a spate of attacks, including the killing of Sinhala tabloid editor Rohana Kumara, the then SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA) simply ignored complaints. The notorious PSD cop was killed at the height of his political influence. Rohana Kumara, who carried out a relentless campaign through his newspaper, targeting President Kumaratunga’s administration, was shot dead on the evening of Sept. 07, 1999 near his Colombo home.

During Kumaratunga’s tenure, the PSD also attacked popular singing couple Rookantha Goonetilleke and Chandraleka Perera after invading their home in the presence of their children, at Mattegoda, in January 2000. Ten officers were found guilty of the dastardly act and ordered, in 2013, to pay Rs 200,000 compensation each to the two victims and also sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, but they were granted a presidential pardon in 2014.

A budget aligned with IMF

There hadn’t been a previous occasion when a government presented a budget totally in line with dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) though there were numerous agreements/understandings between successive governments and the Washington-based lending bodies.

President Dissanayake, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, revealed in Parliament what his government had agreed with the IMF. There is no doubt Finance Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana and Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe played quite significant roles in keeping the country in line with the IMF’s agenda.

Regardless of a section of the Opposition condemning President Dissanayake for adhering to IMF dictates, it would be pertinent to mention that the Parliament, in July last year, endorsed the Economic Transformation Bill (ETB) without a vote. The Parliament reached consensus on that unprecedented Bill to ensure that the country remained committed to the four-year-long IMF programme, finalized on March 20, 2023 during the previous Wickremesinghe regime.

SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, SLPP National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa, as well as a spokesperson for the New Democratic Front (NDF), was backed by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The five-member NDF parliamentary group, comprising ex-SLPPers and ex-UNP Minister Ravi Karunanayake, should explain why they accepted the ETB without a vote. In terms of the four-year Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement, the IMF approved SDR (Special Drawing Rights) 2.3 bn (about USD 3 bn).

The SJB and SLPP shouldn’t play politics with the issues at hand as both parties are equally responsible for the economic decline caused by long-time mismanagement of the national economy. The SJB conveniently forgets that it had been part of the UNP, during Yahapalanaya, and cannot, under any circumstances, absolve itself of the responsibility for the Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb. 2015 and March 2016, and issuance of USD 10,000 mn in new ISBs (International Sovereign Bonds) between 2015 and 2019 by that treacherous administration, comprising the UNP and the SLFP. New ISBs debilitated the economy. That is the ugly truth. And as to what they did with that money and the USD 1.2 billion they got by leasing out Hambantota International Port to the Chinese on a 99-year-lease, is anybody’s guess. Surely the country’s assets did not increase during the tenure of that government by any stretch of our imagination to show for such influx of US dollars.

At the time Mahinda Rajapaksa had been voted out in January 2015, the outstanding ISB debt was only USD 5,000 mn. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa government (2020-2022) had paid off USD 2,500 million in outstanding ISBs, which meant that only USD 2,500 million in ISBs remained at the time Yahapalanaya took over in 2015.

But when the US-backed Aragalaya overwhelmed the Rajapaksas, they invited the man who oversaw Yahapalanaya, economic strategy Ranil Wickremesinghe, to save their skin. No less a person that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is on record as having said that taking ISB’s amounting to USD 10,000 mn broke the back of the Sri Lanka’s economy. Then why on earth the person who caused that destruction was invited to accept the premiership in May 2022 and then elected President in July through a vote in Parliament. All in fear of deranged or highly drugged mobs unleashed during Aragalaya as was the case later in Bangladesh. But the Aragalaya marauding mobs, who were threatening to die for a system change, just vanished into thin air once Ranil Wickremesinghe was installed in the seat of power. How convenient?

The SLPP shouldn’t find fault with President Dissanayake for adhering to a Bill that received the blessings of all political parties, as well as breakaway factions, represented in Parliament. There cannot be a better example than the dissident SLPP group, led by Prof. G. L. Peiris and Dullas Alahapperuma, as they, too, endorsed the ETB by conveniently backing the decision to go ahead without a vote.

The SLPP that won 145 seats at the 2020 August general election had been reduced to just three lawmakers, including one National List slot, at the last general election. Unfortunately, the party hadn’t yet understood why the electorate dealt with the party so harshly. It should take remedial measures to rebuild the shattered image and attract the public again.

A far worse security breach

The JVP, now in power, caused, perhaps, far worse security breach than the killing of Ganemulle Sanjeewa, though none of the political parties, seeking to take advantage of the developments, failed to mention the JVP bid to wipe out the top UNP leadership in August 1987.

The writer was at The Island editorial on the morning of August 18, 1987 when a JVPer lobbed two hand grenades at the UNP parliamentary group meeting in Committee Room A at the Parliament building. The near simultaneous blasts targeted about 120 MPs present at the meeting, the first group meeting after the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. President J. R. Jayewardene presided over the meeting. Premier Ranasinghe Premadasa was present. Luckily for the UNP, the blasts caused injuries to several lawmakers but only Matara District MP Keerthi Abeywickrema succumbed to his injuries. The writer, having joined The Island just two months before, covered that funeral in Matara held under heavy security as the then government feared the JVP would launch an indiscriminate attack. It was the second killing of an MP by the JVP, following the deployment of the Indian Army in the northern and eastern provinces in terms of the so-called peace accord that was forced on Sri Lanka to halt ‘Operation Liberation’ carried out in the Vadamarachchy region of the Jaffna peninsula.

Later, the police identified the attacker as R.M. Ajith Kumara, an employee at the Parliament after he was arrested at Akaranduwa, Naula, on April 08, 1988, during a raid on an illicit liquor den. The chance and subsequent interrogation of the suspect revealed him as the man who planned the mass murder of lawmakers.

Ajith Kumara and four others were charged with carrying out the August 18, 1987, grenade attacks on the UNP parliamentary group. However, the Colombo High Court at Bar, on Oct. 12, 1990, delivered a unanimous verdict acquitting Ajith Kumara. Delivering the verdict, High Court Judge Ananda Grero declared that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Declaring his allegiance with the JVP, Ajith Kumara entered politics and was later accommodated in the JVP politburo. Ajith Kumara served as a JVP Pradeshiya Sabha member and years later contested Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council poll as the JVP’s Chief Ministerial candidate. The rest is history.

Midweek Review

Will AKD’s ‘Glasnost and Perestroika’ moment redefine Sri Lanka’s destiny?

Published

7 days ago

2025/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Gamini Jayaweera

In 1985, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who assumed the presidency of the USSR, sought to reform the Soviet Union’s centrally planned economic system, which had been stagnant for several years. He recognised that the rigid one-party rule political system, including its politicians, was plagued by corruption, the workforce was inefficient, technology was outdated, and citizens struggled to access basic goods and services. Additionally, democratic rights for the people and the media were severely restricted. All of this was occurring under a communist system of government in a vast nation.

Gorbachev’s attempt to reform Russia’s struggling economic, social, and political systems through his Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) initiatives failed. This was largely due to resistance from the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which was dominated by hardline communist ideologists opposed to Western-style economic and political reforms. This resistance, combined with a failed coup, ultimately weakened Gorbachev’s authority, paving the way for Boris Yeltsin, whose neoliberal reforms transformed Russia’s political landscape.

Decades later and thousands of miles away, Sri Lanka faces its own political, economic, and social challenges. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his coalition, the National People’s Power (NPP), rose to power amidst a bankrupt economy, decades of political corruption, a largely inefficient and overstaffed state workforce, use of outdated technology, and mounting debts hindering development. Despite operating within a democratic system, the underlying challenges appear strikingly similar to those faced by Gorbachev, highlighting a parallel between the two countries’ governance mechanisms, but one under communism and the other under the guise of democracy.

AKD is pursuing his economic policy to balance socialist welfare programmes with capitalist economic reforms to revive the economy. Like Gorbachev, AKD’s reforms aim to modernise the Sri Lankan economy without abandoning socialism. The introduction of limited market reforms, decentralising economic control, and encouraging private enterprise may undermine the central authority of the leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) which control the lion share of the NPP coalition, leading to political instability and the rise of nationalist movements within Sri Lanka.

However, the political dynamics, including resistance from extreme left-wing factions and right-wing opponents, could determine the outcome of AKD’s ambitious agenda. While history does not necessarily repeat itself, the spectre of political instability remains a concern.

AKD’s “Glasnost and Perestroika”

Creating “A Rich and Beautiful Country” is the bold and inspiring vision articulated by the newly elected President and the parliamentary members of the National People’s Power (NPP) government, as detailed in their manifesto and policy documents. The President of Sri Lanka, a charismatic and inspiring leader of the NPP, recently delivered a heartfelt and enthusiastic address to parliament and the nation.

In his address, he outlined his ambitious vision and expectations for steering our country onto a path of sustainable prosperity. Delivered without the aid of written notes, his speech was a commendable demonstration of his dedication and sincerity. As Sri Lankans, we take pride in the President’s energy and unwavering commitment to turning his vision into reality.

However, this vision, no matter how inspiring, faces critical challenges. Can the NPP government translate the ambitious goals outlined in their policy documents and the President’s impassioned words into tangible outcomes? Achieving such a transformative vision requires a meticulous and coordinated effort, along with all the necessary components to overcome the significant hurdles ahead.

My focus here, rather than attempting an exhaustive analysis, is to highlight a few pressing concerns that demand immediate attention in order to secure the success and integrity of this transformative journey of achieving “Glasnost and Perestroika.” As a hopeful Sri Lankan committed to systemic change, I wish to underscore these concerns within the NPP administration that could impede our collective vision for progress.

NPP Leadership

Effective leadership is the cornerstone of good governance, guiding nations towards progress and stability. In the context of the NPP government, the transition from trade union advocacy to ministerial leadership presents unique challenges and opportunities.

The President and the Cabinet hold the highest level of leadership in the government, serving as the architects of national direction and policy formulation. They entrust the heads of departments with the responsibility of implementing these policies through their ministerial secretaries. However, effective leadership demands clarity and unity. If Ministers and their Secretaries fail to provide a cohesive and unambiguous direction to the department heads within each ministry, the result will be organisational chaos. This challenge is particularly relevant given the leadership background of several ministers in the NPP government.

Several ministers in the NPP government were formerly trade union leaders before their recent appointments to ministerial positions. While their prior roles involved leading, advocating, and vigorously championing the demands of the workforce, particularly in the public sector, ministerial responsibilities require a fundamentally different approach. Administering and addressing the needs of the workforce as the primary representative of the government, which acts as both the “Owner” and “Financier” of public organisations, demands a much more nuanced and balanced perspective.

An assertive, advocacy-driven leadership style must evolve into a more balanced approach that considers the needs of all stakeholders. Without adopting this more inclusive mindset, ministers risk alienating sations, thereby jeopardising the systemic changes, and both short and long-term progress envisioned by the President. So far, we have witnessed some ministers who were affiliated with trade unions in the past not having transformed their new roles to act impartially to unite the management and the workforce in their ministries.

It is also important to acknowledge that this cabinet includes ministers who embody these balanced leadership qualities. The President, along with other senior and experienced ministers, must take the lead in mentoring and guiding the younger, energetic, but less experienced members of the team. By providing direction and fostering a collaborative environment, they can ensure that public expectations are met, and the government stays on course toward achieving its overarching goals.

Humility and credibility

Since the inception of NPP’s governance, a recurring and concerning pattern has emerged among certain ministers, a belief in their own infallibility and a persistent perception that the opposition is perpetually wrong. This mindset not only risks stifling constructive debate but also undervalues the diverse experiences, skills, and ideas that others bring to the table.

A similar tendency can be observed globally, where some politicians treat their political ideologies as the ultimate truth, often dismissing differing perspectives. This approach fosters polarisation and inhibits meaningful collaboration. Within the NPP leadership, it is essential to recognise that, no matter how diligently they work, the attitudes and behaviours of the leadership team can significantly hinder progress.

True leadership demands humility, an often-overlooked quality that is far from a weakness. Instead, humility forms the cornerstone of effective leadership, helping to build trust, foster collaboration, and ensure sustainable success. By embracing humility, leaders can create an environment where diverse viewpoints are valued, and progress is achieved through collective effort.

Integrity among Ministers is essential for gaining the trust and recognition of the public. During the former Speaker’s qualifications controversy, the Opposition justifiably announced plans to bring a no-confidence motion against him for dishonesty.

A Minister who was previously a Trade Union leader, publicly dismissed the motion without examining the facts or acknowledging the embarrassment caused to the NPP government. Such statements demonstrate blind loyalty to party colleagues, lack of experience, responsibility, caution, and trade union mentality. The President, in contrast, declared that “wrongdoing would not be tolerated regardless of rank or position,” a stance that led to the Speaker’s resignation. This demonstrates decisive leadership and a commitment to accountability, qualities that others in government should emulate.

The inexperienced, young Minister in question would do well to take a page from the President’s book. Credibility and integrity, once lost, are nearly impossible to regain. Leaders must exercise care and responsibility when commenting on matters of public concern.

So far, no action has been taken for the allegations that some Members of Parliament from the NPP and the Opposition have given misinformation about their educational qualifications during the election campaigns. It is crucial for the President or the Leader of the House to address these claims promptly to prevent further distractions and maintain public trust.

Cultural Changes and Motivation

Culture is not a “soft” subject, yet most political leaders and public sector organisational heads treat it as if it were. Culture embodies the behaviours of employees and the infrastructure of the organisation. It is the foundation on which success is built.

Driving cultural change is no easy task. A key strategy is to provide comprehensive training that fosters employee engagement and ownership. Sustainable change hinges on behavioural performance, reinforced by a structured system of incentives, support, and motivation.

It cannot be transformed merely through lofty speeches extolling the “honesty” of the ruling party, especially when directed at workers in the public sector. Similarly, continually decrying the “dishonesty” of previous regimes does little to foster meaningful change. Leaders in the NPP should avoid complacency regarding their reputation for “honesty,” as their tenure in government is relatively brief and largely untested.

Importance of the human touch, education, and motivation in achieving success,

especially when tackling complex challenges is essential. There are no quick fixes when it comes to changing human behaviour. Organisational transformation is a gradual, deliberate process, but one that is essential for cultivating a high-performing, responsive public sector which is a major part in the System Change.

Govt. Tender Process

A recent parliamentary debate exposed concerns over the Mannar Wind Farm Project’s tender process. Despite the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) and Procurement Appeal Board (PAB) recommending the disqualification of two non-compliant companies, the new Energy Minister annulled the initial process, introduced a fresh tender process, and awarded the contract to an originally rejected bidder. The Minister claimed the new contract was cheaper.

This raises serious concerns about political interference in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy sector. As a professional with nearly 40 years of experience in construction spanning Procurement to Final Accounts in the UK and Sri Lanka, I find this deviation from proper tendering procedures deeply concerning.

A professional tender evaluation considers not just cost but also technical capability, organisational strength, commercial factors, health and safety standards, and relevant experience in similar projects. Low initial bids can often lead to escalated costs through variations and claims, ultimately exceeding the most economically advantageous bid.

If the Minister prioritised cost alone, a direct negotiation with a local contractor would have been more transparent, avoiding wasted public funds and unfair costs to other bidders. This incident casts a serious shadow over the NPP’s commitment to integrity and fair play in the tendering process, raising critical questions about accountability in public procurement.

Conclusion

While the NPP government has been in power for nearly six months, it is understandable that the public’s expectations and scrutiny are high. The trust and hope that the Sri Lankan people have placed in the NPP come with heightened vigilance, as even the smallest misstep by the new administration could be seen as jeopardising what many view as the nation’s last chance to set a sustainable course for the future.

The path to reform will undoubtedly be challenging and fraught with obstacles. Yet, it is a journey we must undertake, not only to honour the hopes of the present but to secure a brighter future for generations to come. It will be interesting to witness the successful implementation of Sri Lanka’s version of AKD’s “Glasnost and Perestroika,” especially since the originator of this concept, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, faced significant challenges and ultimately did not achieve his intended outcomes three decades ago.

However, for AKD’s vision to succeed, it is crucial for all citizens to actively support but demand accountability from the President and his Cabinet as they navigate this difficult transformative phase. Their leadership will be vital in uplifting the economic, social, legal, and political systems while enhancing democracy as the foundation for realising Sir Lanka’s own “Glasnost and Perestroika.”