News
Sajith accepts far-reaching legal reforms, vows to thwart Ranil’s strategy
SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, MP, has accepted a set of far reaching and comprehensive legal reforms proposed by SJB Lawyers’ Association.Speaking at a well-attended event in Colombo this week, Premadasa, having received the proposals, vowed that President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s efforts to keep the Constitutional Council under his thumb would be thwarted.
MP Premadasa said that as a member of the CC he would along with other members stand up against Wickremesinghe’s agenda to put off the scheduled presidential poll in the guise of doing away with the executive presidency through constitutional means.
One of the most important proposals was to establish a truly independent Public Prosecutor (independent of the Attorney General) to facilitate prosecution of crimes that take place within such areas to be dealt with expeditiously and in an effective manner. Also consider optimal decentralisation of the prosecution function. There were altogether 116 proposals.
The following are some of the key proposals: 1) President to be required to engage in a consultative process with stakeholders prior to making judicial appointments. Views emerging through such consultative process to be conveyed to the Constitutional Council along with the name/s nominated for the approval.
2) There shall be a Constitutional Court. Retirement age of the judges shall be higher than the Judges of the Supreme Court. All appointments to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal the Members of the Judicial Service Commission other than the Chairman shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
3) In the discharge of its function relating to the appointment of the President and Judges of the Constitutional Court, Judges of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Council shall obtain the views of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.
4) A more transparent criterion will be proposed for judicial appointments. Including a collegiate system to recommend, based on transparent criteria.
Selection of such High Court Judges should be by a mixed and eminent panel consisting of most senior President’s Counsel, Attorney General, President BASL, President Court of Appeal and presided by the Chief Justice. Under normal circumstances the age limits will be as stipulated.
5) Allegations of misbehavior or incapacity contained in a resolution in the House of Representatives for the presentation of an address for the removal of a Judge of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court or Court of Appeal shall be inquired into by a panel consisting of three retired Judges of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court. Such a panel shall be appointed by the Speaker on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
Parliament shall by law provide for all matters relating to the presentation of such an address, including the procedure for the passing of such resolution, the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity and the right of such Judge to appear and to be heard in person or by a representative. Where the panel determines that the allegations of misbehavior or incapacity contained in the resolution are not proved, the resolution shall lapse.
6) There shall be a Code of Conduct applicable to Judges of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Allegations of serious infractions of the Code of Conduct with negative implications for the Judiciary’s independence, integrity and public trust shall be inquired into by a panel consisting of three retired Judges of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. The panel shall submit its report to the President and the Constitutional Council for appropriate action.
7) All judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court shall be entitled to enjoy the same salary, same facilities and benefits until death, maintaining total independence of the Judiciary, economically and otherwise. However they shall not hold other offices except that are prescribed by Law.
8) The Court of Appeal to be decentralized (to sit like the Courts of Assize) to take the Appeal Court closer to the people. Senior President’s counsel and President BASL to be consulted in appointing temporary judges
9) The Court of Appeal shall conduct its sittings in each Province. It shall have an original fundamental rights and language rights jurisdiction. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court with leave from the Court of Appeal or special leave from the Supreme Court. The civil appellate jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts shall be transferred to the Court of Appeal sitting in the provinces.
10) In the case of special courts such selected persons should be over the age of 62 years and below the age of 75 years. They should be selected from among retired High Court Judges with a proven track record. Only thereafter the President shall recommend such names to the Constitutional Council.
11) All judicial promotions shall be considered on the basis of completion of the ongoing cases and the delivery of orders and judgements and number of such cases sustained in the appellate court.
12) All judgments of court shall be complied immediately. In instances wherein frivolous appeals have been lodged by the state and damages along with legal interest has accumulated unconscionably, such officers shall be held personally liable for such enhanced damages.
13) A law relating to contempt of courts on the lines of Indian statute shall be passed.
14) The Office of the Attorney-General shall be an independent entity. The Attorney-General shall be the Chief Legal Officer of the Republic and shall uphold and safeguard the sovereignty of the People. It should be ensured that the Attorney General will hold the scales of justice evenly maintaining the highest traditions of the office of Attorney General without being a mouthpiece of the regime in power, in particular issuing certificates on draft legislation.
15) An independent Office of Public Prosecutor shall be set up by law.
16) An independent Office of the Public Defender shall be set up by law.
17) The Attorney-General, Chief Public Prosecutor and Public Defender shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
18) Consider the feasibility and scope to recruit external lawyers to the AG’s Department at all levels based on objective criteria calculated to promote better competence and integrity. However, those internal candidates would be given due consideration.
19) Any appointee to the post of Attorney General or the Solicitor General shall not hold office in excess of three years.
20) Delays in serving indictments should be curtailed. All indictments should be filed within three months or the most 6 months of the alleged crime. In order to complete the backlog private Lawyers should be hired under the supervision of the AG. Allocation and coordination of such cases will be conducted by a decentralised public prosecutor.
21) In order to curtail delays in trials no postponement shall be granted on the basis that the Lawyer is in another court as is the practice in Indian Courts. This will also give more opportunities to younger Lawyers.
22) Consider timeframes for expeditious conclusion, such as if a criminal trial isn’t completed within a given time span, day to day trials should be held. The right to bail to be enhanced where prosecution isn’t commenced within a determinate time frame.
News
Gnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero was not at his temple in Rajagiriya when prison officials visited the premises yesterday to take steps following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified the presidential pardon granted to him, police sources said.
Prison officials who visited the temple on Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, were reportedly informed by those present that the Thero’s whereabouts were unknown. The development comes a day after the Supreme Court declared former President Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Gnanasara Thero null and void.
The three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath B. Abayakoon held that the pardon was arbitrary, violated the public trust and principles of natural justice, and was made beyond the proper exercise of the President’s constitutional discretion.
The case arose from Gnanasara Thero’s conduct at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court in January 2016 during proceedings relating to the disappearance of journalist and political cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda.
The Court of Appeal convicted him on four counts of contempt of court in 2018 and imposed concurrent prison terms amounting to six years. He had served about nine months when Sirisena granted him a presidential pardon on May 23, 2019.
The Supreme Court found that although Article 34 empowers the President to grant pardons, that power is held in trust for the people and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. The Court concluded that Sirisena had effectively acted on the recommendation of the Additional Secretary (Legal) without demonstrating that he had independently considered the relevant material.
Justice De Silva held that the pardon was “arbitrary”, violated public trust and the rules of natural justice, and was ultra vires the President’s powers. The Court consequently found that the decision violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
The ruling effectively restores the legal position under the original conviction, leaving Gnanasara Thero without the benefit of the 2019 pardon. The Supreme Court also clarified that a pardon does not erase a conviction or sentence, but merely relieves an offender from serving the sentence to the extent specified in the pardon.
Gnanasara Thero, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, had been convicted over his conduct during proceedings concerning the disappearance of Eknaligoda, who went missing in January 2010 and has not been located.
Sandhya Eknaligoda, Prageeth Eknaligoda’s wife, was among those who challenged the presidential pardon before the Supreme Court, alongside the Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.
The detailed account of the judgment indicates that the Court’s ruling primarily nullified the pardon and restored the legal effect of the original sentence, with the implementation of the sentence falling to the relevant authorities.
Police sources said that the Supreme Court, however, did not permanently close the door on executive clemency. It held that a future President could grant Gnanasara Thero another pardon, provided the power is exercised lawfully and after proper consideration of all relevant material.
The Supreme Court has so far overturned three presidential pardons granted to two former Presidents. In January 2024, the Court declared former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s pardon of former MP Duminda Silva unlawful and invalid. In June 2024, it invalidated two pardons granted by former President Maithripala Sirisena to Royal Park murder convict Jude Shramantha Anthony Jayamaha — the first in May 2016, which commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, and the second in October 2019, which released him from prison. Jayamaha, who was convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Yvonne Johnson, remains at large. Most recently, on September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court declared Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero null and void, ruling that it was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Constitution.
News
House to debate 22A, Judicature Bill next week
Parliament is scheduled to debate the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on September 24 and 25, subject to the Speaker’s announcement following the delivery of the Supreme Court determination on petitions filed against the Bills.
The programme for the Parliamentary Week from September 22 to 25 was decided at a meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business held on Thursday (10) under the chairmanship of Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne.
On each sitting day, Parliamentary Business under Standing Orders 22(1) to 22(6) will be taken up from 9.30 am to 10 am, followed by Questions for Oral Answers from 10 am to 11 am Questions under Standing Order 27(2) will be taken up from 11 am to 11.30 am.
On Tuesday (22), the Orders published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2497/37 under the Petroleum Resources Act and the Promotion of Export Agriculture (Amendment) Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm.
The Tredso Development Foundation (Incorporation) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, will then be taken up for Second Reading before being referred to the Legislative Standing Committee.
An Opposition motion at the Adjournment Time will follow.
On Wednesday (23), the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill will be debated from 11.30 am to 5 pm, followed by Questions at the Adjournment Time.
The Second Reading debate on the 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill is scheduled for 11.30 am to 7 pm on Thursday (24) and Friday (25).
News
Wrong house targeted in underworld grenade attack: Two children killed
Two children aged 11 and 17 were mistakenly killed and their 55-year-old father injured in an early morning hand grenade attack on Sirisangabo Mawatha on Friday. Police investigations later revealed that the attackers targeted the wrong house during an ongoing underworld clash.
Three police teams have been deployed to investigate the attack, which occurred at around 3 am.
According to police, a man who arrived near the house in a three-wheeler knocked on the front door before throwing a grenade into the premises and fleeing.
The victims were identified as 17-year-old Kasun Rashmika and 11-year-old Duminda Gihan. Their 56-year-old father, Nalin Thusantha Perera, was seriously injured and admitted to the Kalubowila Teaching Hospital.
Police said the injured man’s brother was allegedly a close associate of a drug trafficker known as ‘Sando’ and had also been accused of involvement in drug trafficking.
The brother lives in a house adjoining the one targeted in the attack, and police suspect the grenade may have been thrown at the wrong house.
Police are also investigating information that the attack was allegedly carried out at the direction of several overseas-based drug traffickers, identified as Pandithage Shantha Kumara alias ‘Kos Malli’, Samantha Perera alias ‘Chuwa Samantha’, ‘Kudu Avishka’ and ‘I.D.’
Police said the attack was believed to be linked to an ongoing conflict between two underworld factions, which have targeted each other’s associates in shootings and grenade attacks. More than 20 people have reportedly been killed in such attacks.
Security agencies are also investigating alleged links between one faction and overseas-based criminals including Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya.
Security agencies have also received information that overseas-based criminals identified as Kanjipani Imran, Unakuruwe Shantha, Dubai Gagana and Handaya are allegedly behind the supply of firearms and drugs to the faction associated with Kos Malli and Chuwa Samantha.
-
Sports2 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
Features6 days agoAfter the parade: What a traffic OIC’s walk-out tells us
-
Editorial6 days agoArrests as theatre
-
News5 days agoThailand shuts door on undesirables from Sri Lanka
-
Latest News6 days agoHarshitha’s composed knock seals Sri Lanka’s semi-final berth
-
News2 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Business5 days agoCEB successor company breaks into top three in competitive BESS tender
-
News6 days ago‘Choka Malli’ slips out of country before travel ban
