Wednesday 23rd September, 2026

The JVP core of the NPP government makes no bones about its insatiable desire to go beyond governing the country and consolidate its grip on the state; this is something it sought to achieve through extra-parliamentary means on two previous occasions, but in vain. It is busy removing politico-legal obstacles in its path systematically in a bid to achieve its goal. It has apparently adopted the principle that the end justifies the means.

The 22nd Amendment (22A) drama has ended in an anti-climax. Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne has informed Parliament of the much-awaited Supreme Court (SC) determination that 22A can be passed with a two-thirds majority, and there is no need for a referendum. The SC determination must have strongly resonated with the proponents of the controversial Bill.

The text of the SC determination makes interesting reading. Yet some important questions raised by legal experts about 22A remain unanswered. They are bound to be taken up on the political front. The Opposition is going to hold a protest at the Polduwa Junction near Parliament tomorrow.

The JVP-NPP government is over the moon. It can now use its supermajority to steamroller 22A through Parliament. But trouble is far from over. The controversial constitutional amendment will be in the people’s court. Big, bad Bills become law in this country, where politics takes precedence over everything else, as evident from the enactment of the 13th Amendment, the 18th Amendment, and the 20th Amendment. Judicial sanction, conditional or otherwise, and parliamentary approval do not, by themselves, confer legitimacy on questionable legislation. The Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill of 2017 is also a case in point. It was subjected to SC review, but the legislation ultimately enacted, changing the electoral system and introducing a women’s quota, contained substantial Committee Stage amendments. It has since stood in the way of holding the PC elections, and even the chief architects of that bad law are now demanding that the PC polls be held under the previous electoral system.

The quality of any law depends not only on what it says but also on whether it is made transparently and consultatively with adequate scrutiny. If a law is perceived to be politically motivated, no amount of dressing up will make it legitimate in the eyes of the public or the international community.

Future governments that can muster two-thirds majorities will also be able to change the retirement ages of judges, according to the whims and fancies of their leaders. Sri Lanka’s Executive Presidents are driven by a desire to undermine the separation of powers and exercise control over the other branches of government. Zimbabwe has been down this road before.

Now that the government is in overdrive to increase the retirement ages of judges purportedly to clear huge case backlogs, it will come under pressure to adopt the same modus operandi to address delays in other state institutions, particularly the state universities. According to media reports quoting the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA), state universities are operating with only about 6,800 permanent academics though there is a requirement of 12,000–13,000. FUTA has warned that students from two earlier batches are still awaiting enrolment, with the admission of the 2025 GCE A/L batch potentially being delayed by one to two years. State-run hospitals are also characterised by chronic delays, and the question is whether the government will increase the retirement ages of doctors as a solution.

Meanwhile, the SC has held that Clause 17 of the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution, and it may become law only if passed with a special majority and approved by the people at a referendum. The government may consider this a blessing in disguise or otherwise. It now has an opportunity for political theatre. Its leaders, who needed a referendum on 22A like a hole in the head, might find it difficult to resist the temptation to place the Anti-Corruption Bill, or at least Clause 17, before the people at a referendum so that they can mount soapboxes, grab bullhorns and yell, condemning their political opponents as corrupt and drumming up support for the Bill in a bid to gain political mileage and shore up the image of their government.

The current JVP leaders ought to tender a posthumous apology to President J. R. Jayewardene for the terror campaign waged against his government in the late 1980s. They are now emulating the Old Fox and apparently cannot let go of the executive presidency, which they once condemned as a wellspring of evil.

Tuesday 22nd September, 2026

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne is expected to communicate the Supreme Court (SC) determination on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment (22A) Bill to Parliament shortly. All signs are that it will come as no surprise to legal experts and the discerning public. The process of hearing scores of petitions against 22A came under intense global scrutiny, with the impending SC determination arousing much interest among international jurists. It will be interesting to see their reaction when the determination is made public.

The Opposition is planning a protest against 22A near Parliament. It is now shifting the battle against 22A from the legal front to the political front. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has already embarked on a campaign to drum up support for his government as well as 22A. Propaganda war between the government and the Opposition is getting down and dirty, with reputations being dragged through the mud.

President Dissanayake recently created quite a stir when he revealed how he was going to turn 22A into law. Addressing an NPP rally in Kalutara, he said his government had a two-thirds majority in Parliament and could secure the passage of 22A. The Opposition lashed out at him, demanding to know how he could so confidently say that 22A would be passed with the government’s parliamentary majority alone, even before the SC determination was conveyed to the Speaker. One may recall that on a previous occasion, too, President Dissanayake drew heavy flak for making a prediction about the judgement in a case against a prominent Opposition figure.

In his Kalutara speech, the President went on to dismiss as baseless a claim in some quarters that he was planning to hold a referendum to do away with elections. Stressing that he would not do so and elections would be held, he said a referendum would divide voters into the Yes and No camps, but an election would help cause numerous splits in the Opposition, much to the advantage of the government. The subtext of his statement was that he was wary of holding a referendum.

After gazetting 22A, President Dissanayake declared that he would pull out all the stops to ensure its enactment and refused to hold stakeholder consultations, much less take dissenting views on board. The government’s position has been that there is no need for a referendum on 22A, which it says can be passed with only a two-thirds parliamentary majority. It has come under criticism from international organisations of judges and lawyers, including the International Association of Judges, LAWASIA, and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) leading the campaign against 22A from the front.

There have been several controversial constitutional amendments that did not survive the governments that introduced them although they passed muster with the apex court and received special majorities for enactment. This is something that all governments ought to bear in mind.

In 2010, the 18th Amendment (18A) was enacted to enhance the President’s executive powers and do away with the presidential term limit for the benefit of the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Legal experts argued that 18A had to be approved by the people at a referendum, but it was passed with only a two-thirds parliamentary majority. 18A lasted only a few years. Following the 2015 regime change, 19th Amendment eviscerated 18A.

The same fate befell the 20th Amendment (20A), which was enacted by the SLPP government during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency to restore the executive powers taken away by the 19th Amendment and enable dual citizens to enter Parliament, the main beneficiary being Basil Rajapaksa. The 21st Amendment rendered 20A hollow during the SLPP government itself.

Worse, the 13th Amendment, enacted in haste, plunged the country into a bloodbath, with the JVP unleashing terror in a bid to scuttle it in the late 1980s. The JVP-NPP government has learnt little from history.

Monday 21st September, 2026

Sri Lankans always use highways and waterways recklessly as if they had a death wish. This fact is borne out by the chilling statistics about fatal road accidents and drowning incidents. About seven people, including five youths, have drowned in separate incidents during the past week alone, according to media reports. Road accidents snuff out about seven lives a day. Drowning reportedly causes about 600-900 deaths annually.

The disturbing cluster of drowning incidents that received media attention, during the past three weeks, is as follows: a 13-year-old schoolboy drowned in the Maha Oya on 08 September; an 11-year-old Buddhist monk drowned while bathing in the Heen Ganga on 13 September; a 25-year-old Indian tourist drowned during a sea-rafting outing in Sri Lanka on 15 September, and four young people drowned while bathing in the Maha Oya on 19 September. There was also a drowning incident involving two young men, aged 23 and 24, in the Nanu Oya canal earlier in September.

According to media reports quoting the Sri Lanka Life Saving organisation, many fisherfolk cannot swim or even float. The vulnerability of others who do not live close to water bodies is self-evident. Swimming skills and water experience do not necessarily go hand in hand, and one does not have to be a good swimmer to operate a fishing craft, but the general consensus is that swimming or at least the ability to survive in sudden immersions should be in the DNA of the coastal and fishing communities. Shouldn’t a vast majority of inhabitants of a country that boasts an ancient hydraulic civilisation at least be able to float and survive, much less swim like otters?

Sri Lanka’s drowning-prevention efforts are noteworthy. They include Swim for Safety and women’s and children’s swimming programmes, Coast Guard lifesaving training, Navy and Police rescue training, community and fishermen’s water safety education, putting up warning signs, public awareness campaigns, and a national multisectoral drowning prevention action plan. If not for these initiatives, many more lives may have been lost annually. However, going by the sheer number of drowning incidents reported almost daily, it can be argued that much more remains to be done.

The World Health Organization (WHO), which plays an active role in helping Sri Lanka prevent drowning incidents, has identified several gaps in drowning prevention efforts, the main being that swimming education is not mandatory in schools, drowning data are fragmented between agencies and the effectiveness of existing interventions has not been adequately evaluated. It has recommended sustained national campaigns aimed at children, parents, boat users and tourists, as well as the expansion of community-level swimming and water-safety interventions. This, we believe, is the way forward.

There has been much hullabaloo about attempts to introduce sex education into the school curriculum. This is an issue to be dealt with separately, but shouldn’t survival skills take precedence over, or receive the same attention as, sex education in schools?

The best way to determine whether a bathing place is safe is to seek the advice of the people living close to it. Many Sri Lankans consider a dip in a waterway, a reservoir or the sea, or a boat ride, an integral part of a trip; they tend to throw caution to the wind and plunge into unfamiliar waters, particularly when they are sozzled to the gills. They ignore warning signs, which in some cases are not properly visible.

Serious thought should be given to adopting digital solutions to prevent drowning incidents. There is a need to introduce an official national water-safety app, supported by the Police, Coast Guard and lifesaving organisations, to enable people to check the latest safety status of beaches, rivers, reservoirs and other popular bathing places and the availability of lifeguards at such places before entering the water. Sri Lanka can learn from other countries, such as New Zealand, where Safeswim provides location-specific swimming risk information, current hazards, lifeguard patrol information and Australia, whose Beachsafe informs the public of beach locations, surf conditions, hazards and the status of lifesaving services. It may not be difficult to find sponsors for such an app.

A truly national effort is called for to prevent avoidable drowning deaths.