Features

Nihal Jayawickrama discusses Alice in Wonderland reasoning, minority rights, and universal jurisdiction with the Anglo- American Lawyer magazine

Published

4 years ago

2023/04/2

The Editor-in-Chief of The Anglo-American Lawyer Magazine, Srinath Fernando continues his interview with Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, former Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. A leading authority on Constitutional Law of Sri Lanka, he is the author of The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law published by the Cambridge University Press.

The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, the Singarasa v Attorney General of Sri Lanka is a classic case which had been referred to by experts and academics all over the world on the human rights discourse. Why do you think the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka failed to respect the decision of the Human Rights Committee and refusal by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka to review the findings of the HRC in Geneva where there had been a patent injustice to the victim?

Dr. Jayawickrama: Singarasa was convicted by the High Court for terrorism-related offences and sentenced to a term of 50 years rigorous imprisonment. The only evidence against him was his own confession made to a police officer while he was under detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reduced the term of imprisonment to 35 years. It took the view that Singarasa had failed to prove that the confession had been made involuntarily, that being the requirement under the PTA. (Under normal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that a confession was made voluntarily).

Singarasa thereafter availed himself of the right to communicate with the Human Rights Committee (the Government having ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR in 1998 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be a victim of a violation by the State of any of the rights set forth in the ICCPR). The Committee found several violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 14) and of the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7). Accordingly, it advised release or retrial and compensation.

The Committee’s Views are communicated to the State party and to the petitioner. The State party is required to give the Views serious consideration in good faith. Accordingly, the Government should have either exercised the presidential power of pardon/remission of sentence, or requested the Attorney-General to consider whether a retrial was a viable option, and compensated the petitioner financially. Instead, the Government appears to have ill-advisedly informed the Human Rights Committee that it did not have the legal authority to execute the decision of the Committee to release the convict or grant retrial.

Singarasa’s legal advisers, in my view also ill-advisedly, applied to the Supreme Court to exercise its revisionary powers to give effect to the Views of the Human Rights Committee. That gave the opportunity for the Attorney-General to argue that the expression of Views by the Human Rights Committee amounted to “an interference with the judiciary” and “a violation of the sovereignty of the people”. Sir Nigel Rodley, the distinguished international jurist, described this submission as “Alice in Wonderland (or Alice Through the Looking Glass) reasoning”. In a critical study of this case published in a law journal, he added that “It took the powerful intellect of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka to come to the unlitigated conclusion that Sri Lanka’s very ratification of the Protocol was ultra vires and invalid”. Sir Nigel Rodley described that decision as “an example of judicial waywardness”.

Subsequent events demonstrate that neither the Sri Lankan Government, nor the Human Rights Committee, have taken seriously the outcome of that revision application to the Supreme Court. I filed a communication at or about that time on behalf of S.B. Dissanayake MP who was sentenced to serve a period of two years rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court imposed by the same Chief Justice, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Government raised any issue of jurisdiction. Nor did the Government argue powerlessness when it received the Views of the Human Rights Committee.

The AAL Magazine: Do you find similar scenarios where conflict of dualism and monism had clashed if you may quote an instance in other countries.

Dr. Jayawickrama: Let me give just one example. India is also described as a “dualist” state. However, there are several instances when the Indian Supreme Court has given effect to provisions in international human rights multilateral treaties which the government of India had ratified but had not taken steps to incorporate in domestic law. Indian judges have taken the view that any international convention that is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution must be read into those provisions to enlarge their meaning and content. Justice Michael Kirby also attempted to do so in the High Court of Australia, but I believe he did not receive much support from his brother judges.

The AAL Magazine: In the Constitution of Sri Lanka social and economic rights have not been expressly defined. Though there is a chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, its observance is complimentary to fundamental rights but there is also an ouster clause in the Constitution of Sri Lanka Article 29 which says ‘’the provisions of this Chapter do not confer or impose legal rights or obligations and are not enforceable in any court or tribunal. No question of inconsistency with such provisions shall be raised in any court of tribunal.’’ How would you comment on this exclusion of what is given by one hand and taken away by the other hand. Would you find this a grotesque way of drafting constitutions?

Dr. Jayawickrama: Sri Lanka has been singularly unfortunate in this regard. Sir Ivor Jennings refused to include a Bill of Rights in the Minister’s Draft Constitution which Mr. D.S. Senanayake submitted to the Soulbury Commission, arguing that the United Kingdom has no Bill of Rights “and we think that we do the job better than those countries which do have one”. Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike proposed to the Select Committee on the Revision of the Constitution which he initiated in 1958 that it recommends the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, and in fact had a draft prepared by Mr. J.A.L. Cooray and Justice T.S. Fernando, but his assassination brought that effort to an abrupt end.

In 1970. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was very reluctant to include an enforceable chapter on fundamental rights in the Republican Constitution, arguing that that would result in placing the Supreme Court above the National State Assembly, which was to be the “supreme instrument of state power”. When such a chapter was eventually included, it was to have no application to “existing law”; nor was any special mechanism established to enforce its provisions in respect of governmental action. The judicial review of laws was also not permitted. A chapter on “Directive Principles of State Policy” containing reference to certain social and economic rights, was not enforceable in any court.

The 1978 Constitution presented by Mr. J.R. Jayewardene selectively designated a few civil and political rights as fundamental rights and subjected even these to numerous restrictions. For example, the right to life is omitted. Others omitted include family rights, the right to privacy (a significant omission in the context of telephone tapping), the right to property, the freedom to leave the country, the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, the right to a fair hearing in respect of civil rights and obligations, and the rights of accused persons. “Birth or other status” is not a prohibited ground of discrimination, thereby enabling the perpetuation of the concept of illegitimate children. And, of course, none of the economic, social, or cultural rights are recognized. Finally, all existing law was declared to be valid and operative notwithstanding any inconsistency with the chapter on fundamental rights. That means that the entire body of law enacted over a period of 176 years, a veritable armoury of archaic powers and more recent intrusions into human dignity, remained in force notwithstanding any conflict with fundamental rights.

When the citizens agree to be governed, what they insist in return from the rulers is that their rights and freedoms be effectively guaranteed. The constitution should provide, as it does in many other countries, that an international treaty, when ratified, will have the force of law, superseding any inconsistent existing law. If the government is unwilling to do so, why ratify a treaty at all? Alternatively, it is imperative that, in a country in which, in recent decades, the human body has been brutalized and the human spirit degraded, at least the provisions of the two international human rights covenants should be incorporated in the constitution. The constitutional recognition of the universally accepted rights and freedoms of the individual is not only a matter of sound commonsense and prudent governance; it is also a solemn treaty obligation.

A minority is a group of individual human beings who share ethnic, linguistic, religious, or cultural bonds and possess a collective desire to live together. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is that many of our politicians still refuse to recognize the fact – the unalterable, immutable and enduring fact – that we are a multicultural country. In the contemporary multicultural state, minority communities have rights in common with, and no less than, everyone else. Indeed, because of the need to protect the distinctive character and identity of minority communities, which is what constitutes the cultural mosaic of the State, they even enjoy additional rights. For example, contemporary international law protects the physical existence of minority groups by criminalizing genocide, by recognizing the right to seek asylum, and by prohibiting discrimination.

International human rights law now provides guidance on the minimum acceptable standards for peaceful co-existence in a multicultural society. They include the right of minorities to use their own language, to profess and practice their own religion and the right to enjoy their own culture. International law also recognizes the right of a minority to determine its political status, and the right to participate effectively in decision-making, both at regional and national levels. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that if a minority is denied meaningful access to government, it has the right to decide to secede. The application of these principles is non-negotiable and cannot be made subject to the will of the electorate. They should form an integral part of a national constitution. We have so far failed to do so, and the consequent events, both tragic and destructive, are now a matter of history.

The AAL Magazine: Despite ouster clauses, can the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka still uphold the rights of people as fundamental rights trumps any other consideration.Dr. Jayawickrama: The Supreme Court of Ceylon of the 1960s, in the absence of any reference to fundamental rights in the Constitution, and indeed before the two international covenants came into force, asserted the Right to a Fair Trial, the Right to Liberty, and the Right to Freedom of Movement. That spirit of judicial activism has not been apparent thereafter.

The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, lastly what’s your view on the application of universal jurisdiction. Do you think not enough focus has been given to this area of prosecution? Do you know any known case where such prosecutions had been done successfully? Do you think prosecution under ‘universal jurisdiction’ is purely a political motivated exercise when it comes to international relations and diplomacy?

Dr. Jayawickrama: As early as 1980, the United States Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for torture committed by a national of a Central American State in his own country, but who happened to be visiting the United States. That court held that “official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations”. More recently, there were two instances of the exercise of universal jurisdiction in, I believe, Germany and France, when a person of Syrian nationality and another of Iranian nationality were tried and sentenced. International human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, do, I believe, possess relevant evidence that could be placed before any judicial tribunal in any part of the world. In Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council has now been authorized to collect and process credible evidence of “crimes against humanity” allegedly committed by Sri Lankan military personnel, for the purpose of providing such evidence to States willing to exercise universal jurisdiction.

In the contemporary world, with several multilateral treaties that are designed to protect human beings, whether they be children, women, or men, it is, in my view, quite legitimate that territorial boundaries do not stand in the way of ensuring that protection. If a person has committed an act that is recognized as a crime under international law, it ought to be possible to bring such person to trial in whichever country he may be, especially if his own country has failed, or is unable, to do so. However, there are several countries that are competent to exercise universal jurisdiction by reason of their accession to relevant international treaties, but which may choose not to undertake that responsibility for political and other reasons. Such countries may avoid that responsibility by ensuring that the alleged criminals do not enter their territories by refusing them visas to do so.

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

5 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

5 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

5 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.