Connect with us

Editorial

Who will guard the guards?

Published

on

Tuesday 8th April, 2025

The Opposition has been protesting against what it describes as a veiled threat issued by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, at a recent NPP Local Government (LG) election rally. The United Republican Front led by former Minister Champika Ranawaka has complained to the Election Commission (EC) that President Dissanayake has made a statement, implying that his government will make financial allocations expeditiously only to the local councils the NPP will win in the upcoming LG polls, and others will find it difficult to obtain state funds.

One can argue that it is not legally possible for a government to deprive the local councils controlled by the Opposition of funds, but threats of fund cuts or restrictions, made by the President himself, could demoralise the people who intend to vote for parties other than the NPP in next month’s LG polls. Political power takes precedence over the law, ethics and morals, in this country, and therefore anything is possible.

In politics, words can be as impactful as actions, shaping public opinion and influencing decisions. One may recall that in 2015, the then President Maithripala Sirisena, as the SLFP leader, queered the pitch for his bete noire, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was contesting that year’s general election as the prime ministerial candidate of the SLFP-led UPFA. In the run-up to that crucial election, Sirisena said in a television interview something to the effect that Rajapaksa would not be appointed Prime Minister even if the UPFA won enough seats to form a government. His statement had a devastating impact on the morale of UPFA supporters who wanted to make Rajapaksa Prime Minister. The rest is history. Besides, former Minister S. B. Dissanayake was sentenced to prison for contempt of the Supreme Court over a derogatory remark he made, at a public rally in 2003, about the judiciary and its rulings.

Meanwhile, there are numerous questionable practices pertaining to Sri Lankan elections. Political leaders in power, such as the President, the Prime Minister and Ministers, conduct election campaigns at a substantial cost to the state coffers, as we have argued over the past so many years. When the Presidents and other government leaders stump for their parties, across the country, the public has to bear the cost of their travel, security, etc. The Presidents and Prime Ministers even travelled in the Air Force helicopters for campaign purposes. The state-owned media outfits are misused as propaganda organs of the party in power although they belong to the people who hold diverse political views. A large number of meetings of state officials are held on some pretext or another, ahead of elections, to give a boost to the ruling party’s campaign. These practices are not only unethical but also tantamount to violations of the election laws, as they place the ruling party at an advantage at the expense of its rivals in elections. All Presidents, namely J. R. Jayewardene, R. Premadasa, D. B. Wijetunga, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe unflinchingly used state resources for election campaigns. The public expected a radical departure from the past when they voted the JVP-led NPP into office last year. But what is unfolding on the political front does not offer much hope.

As for presidential statements, it was while speaking at a temple ceremony in the South in 1989 that the then President Premadasa announced his decision to ask India to withdraw the IPKF (Indian Peacekeeping Force) from Sri Lanka. Thus, the Executive Presidents’ statements should not be taken lightly, no matter where they are made.

How can a level playing field be ensured in the upcoming LG polls when the incumbent President himself goes around, issuing a veiled threat that the local councils will face fund cuts or restrictions unless they are controlled by his party––the NPP? It has been revealed in Parliament that at the height of a rice shortage, a few months ago, the NPP government did not supply some popular varieties of rice to the cooperative societies won by its rivals. Such action amounts to collective punishment meted out to the public for defeating the NPP in elections. So, the presidential threat in question, albeit veiled, cannot be dismissed as mere platform rhetoric. The JVP has demonstrated that it is capable of far worse things than fund cuts. The EC therefore must act on the complaints the Opposition has lodged in respect of the presidential statement if it is to arrest the erosion of public trust and confidence in the electoral process. That is also the only way the EC can prevent the public from thinking less of it.

As for President Dissanayake’s statement at issue and the EC’s alleged lukewarm response thereto, Juvenal’s famous question comes to mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Who will guard the guards themselves?



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Fuelling discontent and protest

Published

on

Saturday 3rd October, 2026

Private fuel bowser owners were up in arms, yesterday, claiming that they were incurring huge losses because the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) had not increased commissions for fuel distribution. Unless the CPC responded favourably to their demand for a substantial increase in commissions, they would be left with no alternative but to stop fuel distribution completely with immediate effect, they warned, noting that the CPC had promised to announce its final decision yesterday.

The Ceylon Petroleum Private Tanker Owners’ Association (CPPTOA), which is leading the fuel bowser owners’ struggle, said yesterday that it expected their commission to be raised at least to 20%, as the cost of fuel distribution had increased sharply. A meeting between the CPPTOA representatives and the CPC officials was going on at the time of writing.

It defies comprehension why the CPC lets the grass grow under its feet without addressing issues that have the potential to cripple fuel distribution. The CPPTOA had been protesting for weeks, but the CPC ignored fuel distributors’ demand. It may have expected the problem to go away with the passage of time. Everything possible must be done to prevent pumps from running dry at filling stations, causing hardships to the public and adversely impacting the economy.

The CPC should have taken immediate action at the first sign of trouble and invited the CPPTOA to talks instead of waiting until the eleventh hour. Prudence demands that a game of chicken be averted in a crucial sector like petroleum distribution.

Issues that could cripple the petroleum sector are best sorted out at the negotiating table, which is the ideal place for bargaining. We are not in a position to say whether it is fair for the CPPTOA to demand a 20% commission, but the fuel distributors’ grievances should be addressed and the CPC ought to hold talks with them and negotiate solutions as and when issues crop up. Flexibility is a prerequisite for resolving trade union problems. Intransigence and brinkmanship only aggravate such issues, much to the detriment of the country’s interests. If bowser operators stopped distributing fuel for a couple of days, perish the thought, it would take a considerable time to replenish supplies thereafter, and fuel queues would reappear. Disruptions to fuel distribution could have a domino effect on virtually every other sector of the economy.

The fragile economy, which is recovering from an unprecedented crisis, cannot take any more shocks, and the patience of the public is manifestly wearing thin. Petroleum sector trade unions have claimed that the CPC is selling fuel from older stocks at higher prices, while fuel distributors have called upon the government to scrap the loss-recovery levy immediately, arguing that the CPC’s legacy debt has now been fully repaid. These are the issues the Opposition should take up in Parliament instead of making loud noises that signify nothing.

One can only hope that the CPC and the CPPTOA will resolve the commission issue through negotiations, and the CPC will act more responsibly in the future without trying to wish away trade union issues that could cripple the petroleum sector.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Colombo Port drug bust: The plot thickens

Published

on

Friday 2nd October, 2026

An inquiry conducted by the Police Special Investigation Unit (SIU) into some allegations concerning the circumstances that surrounded the 31 August drug detection at the Colombo Port has revealed that there may have been dereliction of duty on the part of Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police (SDIG) Ranmal Kodituwakku and several other officers, according to media reports. The plot thickens.

Acting on information reportedly received from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB) searched a shipping container, bound for Cameroon, at the Colombo Port, and detected a large quantity of crystal methamphetamine weighing about 471 kg. The intelligence that led to the drug detection had been conveyed to SDIG Kodithuwakku, who was overseeing the CCIB. It was reported that the officers of the CCIB had obtained a search warrant from a Magistrate before opening the container, with the help of some personnel from the Police Narcotics Bureau and Sri Lanka Customs. Now, there is another version of how the drug detection was made.

SIU is reported to have found that both SDIG Kodithuwakku and the Police Narcotics Bureau received information about the drug consignment, on 14 August, but no action was taken immediately. On 22 August, a sub Inspector of the CCIB also received the same information. He subsequently took action and on 31 August, the container was opened in the presence of the Customs officers. The SIU investigators are reported to have found that some officers of the Police Narcotics Bureau were also present at the scene, but the initial detection of the drug consignment was carried out primarily by officers of the CCIB. SIU has recommended that in addition to the internal inquiry a criminal investigation should be conducted, according to media reports. But was the opening of the container strategically delayed, as has been claimed in some quarters? There have been numerous such instances around the world. The SIU investigators therefore ought not to rush to conclusions before establishing whether the delay, if any, formed part of a deliberate investigative strategy.

It has been reported that French Customs found 139 kg of cocaine in a shipping container at Marseille last year but instead of seizing the drug consignment immediately, it resorted to a controlled delivery of the big box to Barcelona, where a stevedore, two recipients and a transporter were arrested.

In 2023, after detecting 240 kg of methamphetamine in a 40-foot-container, Hong Kong Customs arranged for an international controlled delivery to Australia, where the box was bound for, and several arrests were made there. In May 1985, U.S. Customs allowed a drug-laden shipping container arriving at Port Newark to proceed under surveillance in a controlled-delivery operation in order to identify the people who would take delivery of it.

Police investigations have not always inspired public confidence in this country. There have been many instances where they conducted investigations hurriedly and arrived at the wrong conclusions. In 2015, the CID arrested two suspects, including a schoolboy, over the abduction, rape and murder of a little girl in Kotadeniyawa. It was later found that the perpetrator was someone else. Another striking example is the arrest of two former LTTE cadres after the execution-style killing of two policemen in Vavunathivu in 2018. But after the Easter Sunday terror attacks the following year, the CID found that the two policemen had been murdered by the National Thowheed Jamaath, which carried out the 2019 carnage.

So, one can argue that there is nothing inherently implausible about the claim that the opening of the container carrying narcotics at the Colombo Port was postponed in a bid to catch all those responsible for the illegal operation. Only a thorough probe will reveal whether this method was actually adopted in the case of the port drug bust.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Drug busting, transfers and trust deficit

Published

on

Thursday 1st Octobber, 2026

Media reports about a Police Headquarters decision to transfer Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police (SDIG) Ranmal Kodithuwakku, who oversees the Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB), and several other senior police officers involved in uncovering a massive drug haul recently have raised many an eyebrow. The Police Department is reported to have sought the National Police Commission’s approval for their transfers, citing organisational/service requirements. The news about the proposed transfers has come while an inquiry is underway into the recent seizure of a large quantity of crystal methamphetamine (Ice) at the Colombo Port. Kodithuwakku has already made a statement to the Criminal Investigation Department in connection with that inquiry. The sequence of events is noteworthy.

On 31 August 2026, the police, acting on intelligence passed by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, searched a shipping container at the Colombo Port and seized a large quantity of crystal methamphetamine weighing about 471 kg. The intelligence had been received by SDIG Kodithuwakku. Officers of the CCIB had obtained a search warrant from a Magistrate before opening the container, together with some officers of the Police Narcotics Bureau and Sri Lanka Customs. The drugs were concealed among towels or body wipes.

The Police Special Investigation Unit lost no time in commencing the inquiry under discussion into alleged shortcomings, omissions and possible lapses in the handling of the drug investigation. However, it is generally believed that those who carry out successful operations of this nature deserve praise and rewards. The challenge for the police therefore is to prove that the ongoing inquiry and controversial transfers are not aimed at taking the gloss off the successful anti-narcotics operation.

Police have also claimed that the internal inquiry will not interfere with the main criminal investigation being conducted by the CCIB. However, it may be recalled that the leaders of the incumbent administration accused the SLPP government of having disrupted investigations into the Easter Sunday terror attacks and other major cases by transferring the then CID Director SSP Shani Abeysekera in late 2019. So, how can the police top brass convince the public that the transfers of SDIG Kodituwakku and others will not adversely impact the ongoing probe into the port drug haul?

One can argue that the reasons given by the police for the inquiry and the transfers in question are not plausible, for it is widely believed that whenever senior officers conduct investigations or operations that are not to the liking of their superiors or politicians in power, they face inquiries and transfers. The National Police Commission is also widely perceived as a rubber stamp for the Executive. It is therefore hardly surprising that the media and the discerning public do not readily accept the explanations offered by the Police Spokesman and his superiors about internal inquiries and lightning transfers. There is a huge trust deficit.

Meanwhile, one may recall that nobody was transferred over the Colombo Port container scandal. As many as 323 red-flagged freight containers were released from the Colombo Port without mandatory Customs inspections, in January 2025, and what those big boxes carried is anybody’s guess. The Customs made a shameful attempt to defend the indefensible, and its Spokesman who trotted out lame excuses in a bid to mislead the media and the public became the Customs Chief and received a top position at the Presidential Secretariat after his retirement.

Sri Lankans are familiar with the local folk-story character, King Kekille, who invariably let wrongdoers off and punished the innocent in cases brought before him. Going by the way Sri Lankan politicians have been handling crucial issues under successive governments, one wonders whether King Kekille actually lived in this country and whether the present-day rulers are his descendants. Kekille once punished a goldsmith over a defect in a newly built wall around his palace. When questioned by the king, the mason who built the wall claimed that he had been distracted, during construction work, by a good-looking woman, who passed the worksite several times a day. The woman, summoned by the king, said she had been forced to visit the goldsmith frequently as he had not finished making her jewellery. So, the king shifted the blame to the goldsmith and punished him.

One need hardly be surprised even if those who smuggled drugs into the country through the Colombo Port walk free while the police officers who conducted the successful operation find themselves in the dock. Anything is possible in this country. The onus is on the police top brass to provide a credible justification for the controversial internal inquiry and transfers ordered by them.

Continue Reading

Trending