In recent times there have been far too many road accidents most of which could have been prevented if punitive measures were taken in time. Innocent passengers riding buses, three wheelers, and cars have lost their lives as a result of such crashes.

The recent fatal accident where a SLTB bus plying from Kataragama to Kurunegala ran off the road and went down a 300-foot precipice at Gerendiella in Kotmale killing 23 passengers and injuring many more is a case in point.

According to one survivor who had crawled out of a window, the bus had been driven at excessive speed and the driver had suddenly applied the brakes and sent the bus careering down the pallang. In his sleepiness, the driver may have accidentally trod on the brake pedal causing this fatal accident.

The bus had been carrying 60 to 80 passengers at the time. When the wreck was lifted by a crane up on to the road, people wondered how some passengers escaped death as it was so badly damaged.

In my memory, this was the second SLTB bus that had veered off the road and gone down a precipice. The first was when a CTB bus similarly went down a precipice in Dowa, near Bandarawela in the last century. Fortunately, there were not this many deaths.

The worst bus accident before Kotmale was in 2005 when a bus was hit by a long-distance train at the level crossing in Polgahawela, due to the negligence of the driver who had tried to get across with the approaching train in sight!

It was good of the Speaker and the Deputy Minister of Transport to visit the scene of the accident in Kotmale, and hopefully they will instruct the SLTB management to take proper precautionary action to avoid accidents of this nature in the future.

The SLTB Depot Mangers should ensure that drivers assigned to drive long distance buses in the night have had a good rest during the day so that they do not feel drowsy on the road. It would also be good if such drivers are tested for drugs or inebriation.

It has always been a practice of the owners of wayside eating houses to serve the drivers and conductors liquor and a free meal to attract them to stop at their outlets for the passengers to have a meal or other refreshments. The SLTB management should occasionally get the flying squads to check this too.

At present, most recently recruited drivers of the SLTB are those who have driven private buses and cannot shed their reckless driving habits. This is quite in contrast to the old drivers of the then CTB who kept to the rules and drove carefully.

It is time now for the police to be deployed on various roads where people drive at excessive speed to check on the drivers’ papers and ascertain whether they are inebriated. This must be done continuously and the wrongdoers brought to book. The police can do this now as there will be no political interference as earlier. The police should be very strict with the drivers of private buses and school vans to see that they do not change lanes without signaling and drive at excessive speeds even within city limits.

It has become very difficult and hazardous for older drivers who stick to the rules and obey even unwritten laws such as giving way to the traffic on the right at crossroads and roundabouts; and those entering main roads from side roads in heavy traffic and giving way to pedestrians at crossings. The main culprits are the bus drivers, both SLTB and private, three-wheeler drivers and motor cyclists.

HM NISSANKA WARAKAULLE

Each year, the anointed elite flew to Davos to witness Klaus Schwab’s pageantry—where lofty proclamations drowned out the unresolved crises of poverty, health emergencies, and food insecurity. They gathered in alpine luxury, more suited to honeymoons than humanitarian reckoning, to moralize about catastrophes unfolding continents away. The spectacle revealed not merely paradox, but a deliberate choreography of geopolitical theatre—where privilege cloaked itself in altruism and global suffering was repurposed as elite currency.

Klaus Schwab, the architect of this icy Olympus, the World Economic Forum’s omnipresent paterfamilias, has long styled himself as the cerebral messiah of stakeholder capitalism. With almost oracular cadence, he declared: “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world.” It was the kind of proclamation that sounded benevolent to some and Machiavellian to others. To his admirers, he was a prophet of multilateralism and sustainable development; to his critics, a grandiose technocrat cloaked in the language of humanism, who sought not to dismantle the system of inequity but to re-brand it.

Schwab’s legacy, now embroiled in scandal and precipitous retreat, was always a palimpsest: the elegant prose of visionary change obscuring darker subtexts of elitism, opacity, and manipulation. The recent whistleblower allegations—detailing misuse of institutional funds, methodological tampering in flagship reports, and attempts to solicit a Nobel Peace Prize—have only validated the long-held suspicions of those who viewed Davos as a vaudeville of virtue signaling. The Financial Times called it a “downfall in Davos,” yet it is not merely the toppling of a man, but the implosion of a grand narrative that spanned five decades.

One cannot ignore the irony that the very man who exhorted the world to “build back better” is accused of bending institutional mechanisms to bolster personal prestige. That Schwab allegedly altered the methodology of the Global Competitiveness Report to curry favour with petulant governments speaks volumes—not only about his imperium within the WEF, but about the pliability of ‘truth’ within elite consensus. “Over the years I continued to engage with the methodology to improve and maintain the credibility of the report,” Schwab protested. But in the realm of epistemic governance, “engagement” too often becomes a euphemism for expedient distortion.

That Schwab’s decline coincides with his octogenarian twilight lends the entire episode a tragic Shakespearean air—Lear exiled from his castle not by storm or sword, but by memo. A figure who once dined with monarchs and ministers now pens rebuttals to anonymous emails and threatens defamation lawsuits. His supporters insist he is the target of “character assassination”; others call it karmic revelation. In his 1 April email to the trustees, Schwab remarked with characteristically self-assured solemnity, “It is evident that I do not have to strive any more to create a legacy.” And yet now, with his departure expedited and ignominy encroaching, that legacy appears less a monument and more a mausoleum.

Few remember that Schwab’s intellectual lineage was forged not merely in the groves of academia but in the grey spaces between policy, industry, and ideological hegemony. His 1971 book Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering proposed the then-novel idea that corporations ought to serve all stakeholders, not just shareholders. On the surface, this was prescient. But the WEF he built around that idea became a quasi-aristocracy of corporate nobles, where virtue was worn as adornment and seldom as burden.

He mastered the theatre of global benevolence, wrapping laissez-faire capitalism in the warm hues of inclusivity and green ambition. In Davos, climate activists mingled with oil executives, AI ethicists with surveillance capitalists. To attend was to be consecrated among the responsible elite—a spectacle of noblesse oblige, where the powerful confessed the sins of others while affirming their own salvific role.

Behind the curtains of this alpine symposium, Schwab reportedly centralized control, maintaining a grip so unrelenting that one senior WEF member remarked: “He should have left years ago, but he obviously couldn’t. I am sure he’ll fight tooth and nail.” That insight now reads as prophecy, as Schwab’s once-invulnerable façade disintegrates under the weight of new probes, internal dissent, and boardroom tremors.

To speak of Schwab without addressing the WEF’s governance is to narrate Hamlet without Denmark. The 2015 Swiss designation of WEF as an “international organization for public-private cooperation”—complete with tax privileges and special legal status—revealed not neutrality, but institutional sanctification of elite opacity. The requirement that a Schwab family member remain on the board perpetuates not merely nepotism, but a dynastic arrogance that belies the Forum’s democratic posturing. What began as an initiative for transnational dialogue became, over time, an ecclesiastic council for technocratic orthodoxy.

And still, despite these revelations, Schwab clings to the mythos of personal sacrifice: he waived bonuses, accepted below-market salaries, and saw his spouse offer unpaid labour. One is reminded of Talleyrand’s dictum: “They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” That Schwab, at the end, saw his predicament through the lens of personal martyrdom rather than institutional accountability is less surprising than it is depressingly emblematic.

Uncommonly recounted is Schwab’s fierce control over the Forum’s narrative architecture. Staff have long whispered of ghostwritten books produced under WEF auspices, generating royalties attributed to Schwab, marketing funded by the Forum, arguments constructed by its analysts. While commonplace in think tanks, the scale and lack of disclosure here were part of a broader pattern: an empire of ideas with a singular sovereign. Even his aspirational bid for a Nobel Peace Prize—allegedly encouraged by staff at his behest—reveals a man intoxicated not only by influence, but by immortality.

What remains of Klaus Schwab’s WEF is uncertain. Børge Brende and Peter Brabeck-Letmathe may attempt to re-legitimize its mission, to dust off its public trust and reaffirm its relevance. But among the Forum’s financiers and acolytes, there is growing apprehension: does Davos remain magnetic without its high priest? One insider put it plainly: “That is the biggest worry at the moment. Does it die with him or stick to WEF?”

As Klaus Schwab recedes into the footnotes of history, his final chapter remains unwritten—perhaps he will pen memoirs to catalogue his intentions and proclaim his innocence. Yet, even if he evades formal censure, the myth he so carefully constructed is unravelling. He may be remembered less for the ideals he championed than for the grand illusion he perpetuated: that Davos was a fortress of solutions rather than a gilded stage of detached spectacle.

Men like Schwab are often seen as the disease itself, but in truth, they are the symptoms—the parasites—deeply versed in the art of manipulation, thriving within societies long afflicted by such endemic corruption. Like all ideologues who outlive their eras, Schwab is not merely fading; he is being unmasked, his carefully woven illusions stripped away by the very crises he sought to orchestrate. The page turns, the Forum endures, but the man who made it immortal now stands conspicuously mortal, and the mountain echoes differently when its oracle falls silent.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

It has been six years since the establishment of the Office for Reparations in Sri Lanka. There is however no clear understanding among many as to its mandate or role within the broader context of transitional justice in a country that seeks to recover from a civil conflict, promote reconciliation and ensure non recurrence. This article seeks to clarify the concept and highlight the statutory mandate of the Office for Reparations (“OR”) established in terms of the Office for Reparations Act, No, 38 of 2018 (“the OR Act”).

Reparations is one of the measures recognised within the broader context of Transitional Justice. Transitional Justice is defined by the United Nations as “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.” Interventions to address transitional justice challenges became necessary at the end of the North East conflict as Sri Lanka sought to restore democratic systems and promote unity among its multi ethnic and multi religious peoples.

Reparations in the context of human rights and humanitarian interventions, is granted to victims of conflict who have suffered harm, to alleviate their situation which has arisen consequent to the harm suffered as a result of conflict. It is accepted that some of these violations are irreparable and nothing granted by way of reparations can restore the status quo ante of the victim.

Among the basic tenets recognised in the transitional justice regime are the following-

(a) the State obligation to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, including sexual violence, and to punish those found guilty;

(b) the right to know the truth about past abuses and the fate of disappeared persons; (c) the right to reparations for victims of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law; and

(d) the State obligation to prevent, through different measures, the recurrence of such atrocities in the future.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/147 on 16 December 2005 on “”

Each State identifies what mechanisms and interventions must be set in place to address these issues. There is no one size fits all formula to determine the methodologies that must be adopted by countries. Clearly, in Sri Lanka the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) by Act No. 14 of 2016 was to deal with component (b) above and the establishment of the OR by the Act of 2018 was to deal with component (c) above. Neither of these institutions have responsibility for (a) above. Importantly, it must be noted that there is no expectation that the OR handles law enforcement functions to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators. Nor is the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) vested with that responsibility given that its principal mandate as set out in the statute is to search for and trace missing persons and to protect the rights and interests of missing persons and their relatives. Investigation and prosecution of alleged human rights violations are functions to be discharged by existing law enforcement Authorities that are adequately vested with powers to do so.

The OR Act came into operation on October 22nd, 2018 and was operationalised with effect from April 2019 with the appointment by the President of 5 Members on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Its provisions went beyond merely providing for monetary relief measures. It articulated the basis for granting relief and the macro level expectations. In its preamble it stated that the Constitution of Sri Lanka recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable human rights of all Sri Lankans and recognized the obligation of the State to respect, secure and advance these rights. It also stated that a comprehensive reparations scheme which is anchored in the rights of all Sri Lankans to an effective remedy will contribute to the promotion of reconciliation for the well-being, and security of all Sri Lankans including future generations.

There was thus an acceptance that reparations were designed to contribute to the broader objective of reconciliation. In introducing the Bill, the then Prime Minister stated that ““

The OR Act provides for the grant of reparations to specified categories of victims, ie, persons who have suffered loss (ie. personal injury, death and damage to property) arising from the armed conflict that took place in the Northern and Eastern Provinces or its aftermath, or due to political unrest or civil disturbances or due to enforced disappearances. It established a regime to deal with past as well as future incidents.

In pursuance of its mandate, the OR commenced its work by formulating its policies and guidelines after conducting stakeholder consultations in several regions of the country. The consultations revealed similar needs among the aggrieved persons, be they inhabitants in the North, East, South or West of the country and are common to the wider communities as a whole, and consequently, although some of the interventions that can be offered as reparations are those that are needed by the wider community, the increased vulnerability of the victims of conflict were identified to recognise that their needs be addressed as a priority. The Policy document was laid before Parliament and can be accessed via the OR website at www.reparations.gov.lk. The Policy identifies 8 areas of interventions.

The COVID pandemic and staff shortages that were imposed during the economic crisis across government, impacted the work of the OR. Within these constraints OR decided to implement activities that were considered to be most meaningful to the aggrieved communities.

As regards the victims of the North East conflict, the focus was on providing interventions that empowered the people. The Members of the OR accepted that handouts by way of monetary grants while useful to a limited extent will however not empower victims, but knowledge transfer and skills development programmes that will enhance capacities to undertake sustainable revenue generating activities will be meaningful. Hence, while some amount of financial grants were made, more importantly activities to provide psychosocial support and support livelihood development were implemented. A psycho social support programme especially designed for the post conflict victim community was carried out in some parts of the country with the assistance of the UN through the IOM, and livelihood development programmes were implemented, as a priority. In pursuance of its gender sensitive approach, programmes to empower women to cultivate skills that generate sustainable income generation activities were designed and implemented.

The categories of victims that received monetary relief from the OR have included victims of the North East conflict, victims of the Easter Bomb Attack Of 2019 and victims of the 2022 civil disturbances. Details of monetary relief granted to all categories of victims can be found on the OR website.

In January 2023, the OR was mandated by the Supreme Court to establish a Victim Fund to receive monies ordered by the Supreme Court to be paid by respondents in Fundamental Rights litigation, and to formulate a scheme for disbursements and to make grants thereform. Schemes to provide grants to families of those who died, to persons injured, to children for secondary school education support, to students for tertiary education support and to vulnerable elders, were formulated and disbursements made from the Victim Fund. All of these tasks have been handled and details can be accessed via the OR website. Reports on monies credited to the Fund and disbursements made are also periodically submitted to the Supreme Court.

The OR has completed 6 years since its establishment in April 2019, and while there was a period of inactivity during the COVID pandemic and staff constraints impacted its work due to the economic crisis that the country went through, all of which are common to all of government institutions, the OR has been able to complete a significant workload, including the completion of monetary grants to applicants from the North East conflict. Details may be accessed via the website.

by Dhara Wijayatilake,
Attorney at Law and Chairperson Office for Reparations