News
Opposition accuses govt. of trying to tamper with evidence

PCoI report on Easter Sunday carnage:
… fears move to take legal action selectively
By Saman Indrajith
The SJB yesterday accused the government of trying to tamper with evidence to take legal action against those responsible for the Easter Sunday carnage selectively.
Addressing the media at the Opposition Leader’s office in Colombo, Chief Opposition Whip and Kandy District MP Lakshman Kiriella said that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry had completed its investigation into the Easter Sunday terror attacks after studying evidence for nearly one and half years and handed over its report to the President recently.
“Thereafter, instead of referring the report to the Attorney General or Bribery Commission to take legal action on the basis of the report’s recommendations, a new committee of ministers has been appointed to study the recommendations. This is unacceptable and illegal. During the previous government, we passed a new law enabling the Attorney General to use commission reports as evidence to file legal action. I, as the then Leader of the House, moved that bill. As per the law, when a presidential commission completes its investigation and hands over its report it should be referred to the Attorney General for legal action. The government is not doing so because some of those the commission has found responsible for the lapses that led to the terror attacks are now in the government.
“The government wants to save them and take action against only others. The ministerial committee has been appointed to suppress evidence.”
Kiriella said that Colombo Archbishop Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith too had called on the government to give a copy of the report to the Attorney General. “The Cardinal has stated that the government is trying to hide some facts. He is right. A member of the committee of politicians has stated that they would study the PCoI report and make recommendations to the President. It is clear now the President is going to take action on the basis of those recommendations. This is not legal. We demand that the PCoI report in its entirety be referred to the Attorney General for legal action. There are enough legal experts in the AG’s Department to study the report.”
The PCoI report had been compiled by three judges. Kiriella said, questioning the qualifications of those who had been appointed to study the PCoI report.
SJB Colombo District MP Dr. Harsha de Silva also addressed the press.
News
Indo-Lanka MoUs unlikely to be tabled in Parliament any time soon

…of seven SOCs only one constituted so far
Sri Lanka’s controversial MoU on Defence Cooperation with India was unlikely to be taken up any time soon in Parliament in spite of the House Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection that has been assigned defence, authoritative sources told The Island.
Of the seven SOCs only one was activated with the recent election of Dr. Najith Indika, MP, as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice, and Civil Protection of the Tenth Parliament.
The inaugural meeting of the current parliament was held on 21 Nov., 2024.
Sources said that the parliament had met for the last time yesterday (10) before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year holiday. It is scheduled to meet again on May 8.
The UNDP that has financially backed the establishment of the SOC system to help strengthen the role of the parliament recently reached a consensus with the government to reduce the number of SCOCs from 17 to seven. The Island, in writing, asked for the UNDP’s reaction to the operation of SOCs but had not received a response at the time this edition went to press.
The SOCs have the power to examine any Bill, except the Bills defined in Article 152 of the Constitution, Treaty, Reports including the Annual and Performance Reports relating to the institutions coming under its purview or any other matter referred to the Committee by Parliament or any Committee or a Minister relating to the subjects and functions within their jurisdiction.
Sources said that out of the seven SOCs only one had been activated during the past five months though the government and the Opposition agreed to share the leadership of them.
Accordingly, it was agreed that the government would appoint chairpersons to four SOCs –– Economic Development and International Relations, Health, Media and Women’s Empowerment, Science, Technology and Digital Transformation and Governance, Justice and Civil Protection .
It was also agreed that the Opposition would appoint chairpersons to the SOCs on Infrastructure and Strategic Development, Education, Manpower and Human Capital, and Environment, Agriculture and Resource Sustainability to the Opposition.
India and Sri Lanka on April 5 signed six MoUs on HVDC interconnection for import/export of power, cooperation in the field of sharing successful digital solutions implemented at population scale for digital transformation, defence cooperation, multi sectoral grant assistance for Eastern province, health and medicine and pharmacopoeia cooperation. In addition to them, India, Sri Lanka and UAE signed a tripartite MoU cooperation in development of Trincomalee as an energy hub.
The Island asked Ali Sabry, PC, who served as foreign minister during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President (July 2022 to Sept 2024) whether the seven MoUs had been discussed during that period. We also asked him whether those MoUs should have been discussed at SOCs before finalisation.
Sabry said: “Most of the MOU to my knowledge were discussed except the one on Defence Cooperation, which I am unaware of. General procedure is the relevant line ministry prepares the initial draft and gets the input from the Foreign Ministry and goes for stakeholder consultation of all ministries and agencies involved. Then the President’s Office grants its sanction and with the approval of the AG, it goes before the cabinet of ministers. With Cabinet approval, the government could sign the MOU.”
Sabry said that he was of the opinion that once the government signed a particular MoU, it should be placed before the parliament. “MOU’s are generally not legally binding and only signify the desire to work together. If the signed MoUs were to be implemented, then they have to be followed by agreements or laws.”
He emphasised the pivotal importance of transparency in the whole process. The ex-minister said: “I think transparency is crucial in these matters. Concealment leads to speculation and assumption of the worst. The MOUs should be tabled in Parliament for public information. Discussion at the relevant SOCs would have been helpful. There are growing fears fueled by lack of information in the public domain. This is a private comment, not to be attributed to me.
Asked whether MoUs, particularly the ones on defence and energy had to be approved by the Attorney General, the former minister said that the AG has to advise the MoUs compatibility with the Constitution. “But Article 157 of the Constitution does not apply; the 2/3 majority stipulated there envisages only investment treaties.” Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath assured Parliament on April 8 that the AG had cleared all seven MoUs and none of them were inimical to the country.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
News
LG polls: Appeal Court orders EC to accept 35 additional nomination papers

The Court of Appeal yesterday ordered the Election Commission (EC) to accept 35 additional nomination papers for the 2025 local government elections, which had been previously rejected by election officials.
The ruling was issued yesterday by a bench comprising Acting President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mohamed Lafar Tahir, and Justice Priyantha Fernando. The court ordered the relevant Returning Officers to accept the nominations following hearings on several petitions filed by political parties and independent groups challenging the rejections.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered the EC to accept 37 previously rejected nomination papers.
by A.J.A. Abeynayake
News
Defence MoU with Quad member will drag Sri Lanka further into new cold war: CP

The Communist Party (CP) of Sri Lanka yesterday (10) expressed grave concern over the NPP government’s unilateral decision to enter into a defence MOU with Quad-member India.
The CPSL urged All democratic and progressive forces to pressure the government to reveal the contents of the defence agreement with India. It also asked the NPP government to revive the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal at the UN and mobilise global opposition to militarisation in the region. All democratic and progressive forces had to build a United Front against a New Cold War, the CP has said.
General Secretary of CP Dr. G. Weerasinghe has issued the following statement: “This decision has been taken without consultation or debate in Parliament and in the context of a New Cold War and heightened militarisation of the Indian Ocean.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka from 4-6 April, a defence MOU was exchanged between Secretary of the Ministry of Defence of Sri Lanka retired Air Vice Marshal H.S. Sampath Thuyacontha and Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
Indian media has framed this MOU as being part of Indian strategy to counter China’s presence in the region.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake assured Modi that Sri Lanka, “will not permit its territory to be used in any manner inimical to the security of India as well as towards regional stability”. While the CPSL has no fundamental objection to this, questions remain over India’s own commitment to regional stability.
The fact is that India is a member of the Quad and has partaken in US efforts to contain China in a New Cold War. In 2024, current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tabled a bill in congress to grant India a status on par with NATO members. During a meeting between Modi and US President Donald Trump in February, India and the US entered into a 10-year defence partnership framework to transfer technology, expand co-production of arms, and strengthen military interoperability.
By entering into defence agreements with India, there is a very real danger of Sri Lanka being dragged into the Quad through the back door as a subordinate of India. Sri Lanka could become a de facto part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and compromise its non-aligned status. This would be antithetical to Sri Lanka’s interests as China is a major investor and trade partner for the country and has supported our sovereignty in international fora.
Sri Lanka is currently not directly embroiled in any conflict with an external actor and therefore has no need to enter into defence agreements. The last defence agreement that Sri Lanka entered into was with the UK-Ceylon Defence Pact (1947-1957), which was a neocolonial arrangement detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and international relations.
The defence MOU with India could also be interpreted as a step towards further militarisation of the Indian Ocean, which is a violation of the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace which both countries supported.”
-
Business4 days ago
Colombo Coffee wins coveted management awards
-
Business6 days ago
Daraz Sri Lanka ushers in the New Year with 4.4 Avurudu Wasi Pro Max – Sri Lanka’s biggest online Avurudu sale
-
Features5 days ago
Starlink in the Global South
-
Business6 days ago
New SL Sovereign Bonds win foreign investor confidence
-
Features2 days ago
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part III
-
Features5 days ago
Modi’s Sri Lanka Sojourn
-
Midweek Review2 days ago
Inequality is killing the Middle Class
-
Features4 days ago
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part I