Features

WHY THE HURRY ABOUT 20A?

Published

5 years ago

2020/09/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Professor G. L. Peiris

Minister Of Education

May I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Kandy Professionals Association for embarking on this very timely initiative of meeting every month, on a Sunday, to discuss in depth the issues involving constitutional reform, and the way forward in our country. I consider this an exercise of immediate relevance and value.

The decision by the Government to present to the Cabinet of Ministers the text of the 20th Amendment to modify significantly the contents of the 19th Amendment and, after obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, to move the Amendment in Parliament, has attracted considerable public interest and discussion. As a preliminary to this, I think it is important to explain to the country the need for this. The public should have a clear understanding of the rationale underpinning this reform. This is all the more necessary because of the elaborate myths which have been assiduously cultivated, skilfully spread, by vested interests throughout the spectrum of our society.

The core of their argument is that the retention of the 19th Amendment is essential to preserve seminal values which we all believe in – the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. They contend that removal or reform of the 19th Amendment is an act of treachery and that all must stand firm against it. If this is allowed to happen, so they contend, the result will be a mortal blow struck against human rights, democracy and seminal institutions including Parliament. The argument, set forth in the most emotional terms, needs to be assessed in the light of cold reason. What is the truth of this? Nothing is more crucial at this point than to inform the public mind about the reality of the current situation.

It is strenuously contended by interested parties that the 19th Amendment brought immense benefits in its wake, and that it has to be protected at any cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is for the entrenchment of narrow vested interests that this intricately orchestrated campaign, fortified by abundant resources and closely knit organization, has been launched. Why is 20A necessary? For a variety of reasons, no doubt. But chief among them, indisputably, is the maintenance of law and order – essential as it is for the protection of life and limb. This takes precedence over all other obligations – development in the economic, social and cultural fields.

This, then, is the principal and indispensable obligation of the State. If this duty is not fulfilled, all else become illusory.

What impact did the 19th Amendment have in this regard? The 19th Amendment categorically states that the President is debarred from holding any portfolios. Who is the President? He is the leader elected by the entire population of the country by the free exercise of the franchise. The inalienable duty of the President is the security of the State and the People. But the 19th Amendment prevents him from functioning as the Minister of Defence. We emphatically reject this position.

The 19th Amendment did contain a transitional provision. That, however, was limited in its operation to former President Maithripala Sirisena, who was permitted to hold the portfolio of Environment and Mahaveli Development during his tenure of the Presidency. This was an individual-centric provision which did not apply to Presidents who succeeded him.

For all other Presidents, the 19th Amendment imposes an inflexible bar against the holding of any portfolio, including Defence. Arguably, Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, read together, allow and indeed require, the President to hold the Defence portfolio, but this is a matter that would require judicial interpretation, in the event of a challenge in the Courts. Is this uncertainty and ambiguity desirable? Does it buttress or destroy the human rights and democracy which are sanctimoniously appealed to?

The 19th Amendment involves a basic conundrum. Articles 3 and 4 have the effect that the President is the repository of the Executive power of the State. Article 4(b) makes it clear that the defence of the nation is an integral and inseparable element of Executive power.

The defence of the country, then, is the sacred duty of the President. This is, without question, his responsibility. What he lacks, however, is the authority required to fulfil this responsibility. Here lies a fundamental contradiction, entailing as it does dire consequences for the nation’s security.

Prior to the enactment of the 19th Amendment, the Constitution of Sri Lanka contained explicit provision in respect of Urgent Bills. In the event of an unexpected contingency, an Urgent Bill could be presented to Parliament within seven days. The legislative process in ordinary circumstances, Is cumbersome and protracted: it may not enable a swift response to an unanticipated situation. To cater for this, the pre-19A law made provision for rapid intervention through the mechanism of Urgent Bills. It is this statutory provision that is abolished by 19A which compulsorily requires an interval of 14 days before legislation is introduced in Parliament. It is scarcely difficult to conceive of contexts in which this could imperil the safety and security of our country.

We have recently seen before our very eyes the horrendous consequences that were brought about by 19A. It created, in its foundation, two potentially warring centres of power. If the President and the Prime Minister belong to different political parties, we saw for ourselves the intensity of the conflicts, in terms of values, policy and even personalities, which arose in the day to day practice of Governance. It is the people of this country that paid an exorbitant price for this state of affairs. As many as 265 valuable lives were lost in the Easter Sunday carnage. To whom do we attribute responsibilities for this calamity? The Prime Minster says: “What can I do? I am not even invited to the National Security Council”. Indeed, meetings of the Council were not held for months on end. Was information conveyed to the President available to the Prime Minister, and vice versa? There was an internal tug of war – working not together but at odds with each other.

It is in the heat of this battle that the security of the nation collapsed altogether. The evidence being given on a daily basis before the Presidential Commission investigating this tragedy, is truly alarming. On the day this occurred, I was in Munich, Germany. On the following day the New York Times – a world renowned newspaper – carried on its first page the names, telephone numbers and addresses of those who were said to be involved in planning and executing this catastrophe.

Indian intelligence had brought these particulars to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government not once, but repeatedly. However, because of the internal dissensions which went from bad to worse, nothing whatever was done to avert the tragedy.

If there had been no 19A, responsibility would have been clear and undivided. What 19A did was to split it up and create chaos. The results are a permanent blemish on our national conscience. These are the matters of which the public should be informed.

What is the constant refrain of those who insist on the retention of the 19A? They proclaim the sanctity of the separation of powers, and regard authority in an individual or institution as the death knell of democracy and the basic elements of democratic culture. They assert their resolve to resist with the utmost vigour any attempt to dismantle the dual structure embedded in 19A. Is this an acceptable position?

At its very root, 19A elevated several institutions above the President. It took away the authority, hitherto vested in the President, to make appointments to high offices in the public service and the security establishment, including the Police. It characterised the retention of this authority in the hands of the President as a danger against which the public need to be protected.

On this footing the President was shorn of these powers. But to whom were they then transferred? To a Constitutional Council dominated by representatives of non-governmental organisations. This Constitutional Council is at the apex of the structure established by 19A, and wields the authority to constitute each and all of the Commissions which are said to be independent. Without the recommendations, or the approval, of this all-powerful body, the President is no longer empowered to make crucial appointments to the public service and the Police. In this regard the President is subordinated to this body – the Constitutional Council – which is sought to be sanctified as the embodiment of integrity, impartiality and probity.

Let us take a closer look at this body, close to being deified. Its membership includes persons who can in no way be regarded as legitimate representatives of the people. The whole object of the exercise, so the protagonists of the 19A whereby, stridently tell us, is to ensure depoliticisation of the State. Their contention is that everything in our country has become progressively politicised, and that the time has come to evolve a constitutional process where persons of undoubted rectitude, far removed from partisan politics, and professing fidelity to the highest moral and ethical standards, are vested with this awesome responsibility.

This is an absolute myth. Can it be maintained, by any stretch of the imagination, that the personnel constituting these Commissions are not tainted by partisan politics? A few examples will suffice. Professor Hoole is a member of the supposedly independent Elections Commission. He is expected to be apolitical. And yet, in an interview with a TV channel, he exhorted the public not to vote for the SLPP; he said that, if they were to do so, they would certainly regret their decision in the future. Can there be a more partisan intervention, coming as it has from a member of a Commission exalted as the zenith of objectivity and political neutrality? The yawning chasm between aspiration and reality is all too evident. Practice on the ground belies the grandiose pretence.

The Elections Commission is itself the creature of the Constitutional Council, identified by 19A as the source from which all the Commissions derive their authority. Mr. Javid Yusuf is a member of this overarching body. His impartiality is, therefore, by definition, axiomatic. Nevertheless, he makes so bold as to declare to the country at large in uncompromising terms, at a public forum: “Whatever you do refrain from giving the Lotus Bud a two-thirds majority. If you do this, you cannot evade responsibility for pushing the country to the brink of disaster”. Words to this effect are unabashedly uttered by a representative of the supreme body which functions as the fons et origo of all the “independent” Commissions.

Faced with this uninspiring reality, I state without hesitation that these “independent” Commissions brought into being by 19A are far more politicised than any other practicing politician in this country. It is to Commissions of this ilk that powers denied to the President of the country are supinely entrusted.

Here is a state of affairs which defies rational understanding, by any criterion. The position of apologists for 19A is, at bottom, the following: conferment of these powers on the President is preposterous and unthinkable; they represent an intolerable affront to the basic elements of democratic culture, and to the essence of human rights. However, these same powers, in the hands of institutions created in the manner defined by 19A, are innocuous and entirely acceptable.

Does this bear scrutiny for a moment? The President of the Republic is elected by all the people of our country, for the finite period of five years, at an Islandwide election. If they are dissatisfied with his performance at the end of his tenure, they have every right and power to reject him at the conclusion of this period. But can the people, in whom sovereignty resides according to the Constitution, make a similar decision is respect of the members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions? They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one.

During the last few months, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament have all changed in keeping with the democratically expressed will of the People. But members of the Constitutional Council and the “independent” Commissions remain entrenched in their positions, impervious to the winds of change. Is this defensible as the epitome of a structure of democratic governance, to be acclaimed widely?

Nowhere are the effects of the dichotomy established by 19A more apparent than in the domain of the economy. Ever increasing volumes of debt cannot provide a sustainable avenue for economic advancement. President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, in his Manifesto, has explicitly underlined the importance of resiling from the debt trap. The answer is investment, which is certainly feasible, but subject to obvious conditions. The essential requisite is confidence.

In the current intensely competitive international environment for investment, confidence has to be engendered by appropriate policy initiatives. Would any investor look seriously at Sri Lanka as a destination for investment, given the conditions generated by 19A?

The contemporary Yahapalana experience under the aegis of 19A was that the Prime Minister, in the exercise of authority conferred on him, established a Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) which, in effect, arrogated to itself, under his Chairmanship, the authority to make major decisions straddling the whole spectrum of the economy, these decision being submitted to Cabinet for its mere formal imprimatur. President Sirisena, increasingly incensed by what he saw as the relegation of the Cabinet with regard to economic matters, in due course found his patience exhausted, and eventually intervened by doing away with the Prime Minister’s brainchild and substituting for it a novel institution, the National Economic Council, under his own superintendence and direction. A few months later, however, he dismissed his own handpicked Chairman of this body, declaring that the officer concerned, although drawing a handsome salary, was seldom in the country. This state of things is hardly likely to offer any incentive for investment in Sri Lanka.

These developments provide the backdrop for a series of reflections. Empirical experience has convincingly demonstrated the weakness of the foundations of 19A. In truth, political power is not to be viewed with innate fear or obsessive suspicion. The contrary is a facile assumption, intuitively made with a total lack of dispassionate thought. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia are telling examples of Asian countries which could not have achieved the remarkable economic development they did accomplish without the advantage of strong Executive authority.

Admittedly, any system of democratic governance must contain viable checks and balances. However, as with everything else in life, there needs to be a sense of proportion. If the Executive is to be so constrained and hamstrung in every way as to make coherent decision making and movement forward impossible, the inevitable outcome is stagnation, or worse, anarchy.

This is the sad legacy of 19A which is now sought to be swept away as a matter of urgent priority.

All News Advertisement

Features

Establishing the Supremacy of the Constitution over Parliament

Published

14 hours ago

2025/06/20

Thilina Walpola

In a country where the Constitution is supreme, all conduct that is inconsistent with it is invalid. This includes parliamentary legislation, which may be reviewed by the judiciary, potentially resulting in inconsistent provisions being declared invalid. Ideally, other actions of Parliament, such as the conduct of its proceedings and the adoption of resolutions, should also be subject to constitutionality review. Conversely, in countries where parliamentary sovereignty prevails, legislation or processes of Parliament are not open to review.

This article emphasises the importance of permitting judicial review of actions by Parliament and its officials, thereby ensuring the Constitution’s supremacy in practice. It must be emphasised that this also applies to the executive, judiciary, independent institutions, and the citizenry.

Sri Lankan Constitutions

In the Independence (Soulbury) Constitution of Ceylon, although there was no explicit provision conferring upon courts the power to declare legislation invalid, such power was implicitly acknowledged and exercised, as demonstrated in Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe and Liyanage v. The Queen.

Under the Republican Constitution of 1972, the National State Assembly (NSA) was the supreme instrument of state power and possessed unlimited legislative authority, including the power to amend and to replace the Constitution with a two-thirds majority. A Bill inconsistent with a constitutional provision can be passed with a two-thirds majority without amending that provision. All laws that existed when the Constitution came into effect remained valid, notwithstanding any inconsistency with fundamental rights. The Public Security Ordinance, a pre-independence law, was deemed to have been enacted under the Constitution, thereby validating its provisions in relation to the entire Constitution. Legislation can be challenged only at the Bill stage. Section 39 stipulated that the proceedings of the NSA, or anything done, purported to be done, or omitted to be done by the NSA, were immune from judicial review.

The 1978 Constitution declares in the Preamble that it is the Supreme Law of the country. However, several provisions of the Constitution undermine the very concept of its supremacy. Provisions from the 1972 Constitution relating to judicial review, existing laws, passing Bills inconsistent with the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance remain in effect. The President’s unconstitutional acts could not have been challenged until the Nineteenth Amendment allowed fundamental rights applications to be filed.

The prohibition on post-enactment review means that if citizens have not been vigilant in challenging a Bill containing an unconstitutional provision, such a provision cannot be contested once the Bill becomes law. In a developing country like ours, it is irrational to expect citizens to be watchful and scrutinise all Bills published in the Gazette for potential unconstitutional provisions. Many unconstitutional provisions have escaped the attention of even the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the effects of a law are best observed once it is in operation; not all possible effects can be anticipated at the Bill stage. Additionally, citizens would benefit from the evolution of the law if post-enactment review is permitted.

Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act

The 1978 Constitution does not contain a provision similar to section 39 of the 1972 Constitution, stipulating that proceedings of Parliament are immune from judicial review. However, like the 1972 Constitution, Article 67 provides that until Parliament determines its privileges, immunities, and powers by law, the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, 1953, shall apply. Section 3 of the Act states: “There shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceeding in Parliament and such freedom of speech, debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.” Several Speakers of Parliament have interpreted Section 3 to assert complete autonomy for parliamentary decisions and unfettered control over proceedings.

For example, Speakers Anura Bandaranaike and Chamal Rajapaksa took up the position that the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into allegations against a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal was immune from judicial review. Speaker Bandaranaike quoted Erskine May, an acknowledged authority on parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom: The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin from one maxim, ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere.’

However, in Chandraguptha Thenuwara v. Chamal Rajapaksa, a five-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that such an appointment did not fall within the legislative powers of Parliament. Instead, it amounted to executive or administrative action, challengeable under the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Yet, the issue of the justiciability of other actions of the Speaker and Parliament remains. One must remember that Erskine May was discussing practices in Britain, where the concept of parliamentary sovereignty reigns. Additionally, in the absence of a specific constitutional provision permitting the judiciary to review the constitutionality of actions by the Speaker and Parliament, judicial decisions would be disregarded, as Speakers Bandaranaike and Rajapakse did.

Globally, there have been instances where Members of Parliament have infringed upon the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens under the pretence of exercising their freedom of speech and debate. Citizens have no recourse against such actions. Such instances are significantly fewer in countries with strong political traditions. While effective internal procedures are the best means to ensure that the rights of others are not violated, it is timely to consider alternative procedures and remedies in countries like ours where such violations continue unabated.

Comparative provisions and judgments

It would be useful to examine constitutional provisions and landmark judgments of developing countries where the supremacy of the Constitution is recognised. I chose India, South Africa, Papua New Guinea and Malawi, all members of the Commonwealth.

Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly declare so, its supremacy is evident throughout. Numerous decisions of the Indian Supreme Court support this position. Legislation is subject to post-enactment judicial review, and acts of the Executive can also be reviewed. Articles 122 and 212 provide that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament and a State legislature, respectively, shall not be called in question “on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.” In and Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the immunity granted is limited to ‘irregularity of procedure’ and does not extend to substantive illegality or unconstitutionality.

The Forty-second Amendment, passed during Indira Gandhi’s notorious emergency rule, stipulated that no amendment to the Constitution could be challenged in any court on any grounds. This provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, stating that “Parliament cannot, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features.”

Section 2 of the South African Constitution reads: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”

Economic Freedom Fighters v. Speaker of the National Assembly

concerned a report by the Public Protector regarding allegations of improper conduct or irregular expenditure related to security upgrades at the private residence of President Jacob Zuma. She concluded that the President derived undue benefits and directed him to pay a portion that was reasonably proportionate to the undue benefit. However, based on a report by the Minister of Police, the National Assembly passed a resolution absolving the President of liability. An eleven-member Bench of the Constitutional Court unanimously held that the National Assembly resolution was inconsistent with the Constitution.

In Papua New Guinea, section 11 of the Constitution declares that the Constitution and the Organic Laws are the Supreme Law of Papua New Guinea, and all acts (whether legislative, executive, or judicial) that are inconsistent with them are, to the extent of the inconsistency, invalid and ineffective.

Under section 18, the Supreme Court has an original and exclusive jurisdiction as to any question relating to the interpretation or application of any provision of the Constitution or an Organic Law.

Application by the Honourable James Nomane MP

related to a decision made by the Private Business Committee of Parliament to disallow a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister on the ground that it was brought within twelve months after a similar motion was defeated. Standing Order 165 permitted the Speaker to disallow any motion that is the same in substance as one brought within the previous twelve months. The constitutionality of the decision, as well as of Standing Order 165, was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court was satisfied that Standing Order 165, which constrains the exercise of the right of a member of Parliament to bring a motion of no confidence, was not reasonably justifiable and therefore unconstitutional. The decision of the Private Business Committee was consequently unconstitutional.

The Speaker was directed to recall Parliament on a date appointed by the Court.

In Reference by Morobe Provincial Executive re Re-election of the Governor-General, the Supreme Court declared that the re-election of a Governor-General by Parliament was unconstitutional and ordered that Parliament be recalled as soon as practicable to remedy deficiencies in the nomination and election of the Governor-General.

Thus, acting under section 18 of the Constitution, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court has declared a Standing Order unconstitutional, reviewed and struck down decisions of parliamentary committees, declared decisions of Parliament unconstitutional and directed the Speaker to convene Parliament. Parliament obeyed the rulings without demur.

Section 5 (Supremacy of this Constitution) of the Constitution of Malawi states: Any act of Government or any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be invalid. Section 108(2) states: “The High Court shall have original jurisdiction to review any law, and any action or decision of the Government, for conformity with this Constitution, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution and shall have such other jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred on it by this Constitution or any other law”.

In Tembo v. Attorney-General, the Malawi High Court held that it had no difficulty in concluding that ‘government’ as used in section 108 includes the three organs of government. When the Speaker or the National Assembly makes a decision within the House that involves interpreting the Constitution or a law, such a decision is subject to review by the judiciary to ensure it complies with the law and the Constitution. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court held similarly in Nseula v. Attorney-General, where a decision of the Speaker that the petitioner’s seat in Parliament had fallen vacant as he had allegedly crossed the floor was challenged.

Establishing constitutional supremacy

Sri Lankans are weary of both persons in authority and institutions running roughshod over the law. The Aragalaya’s demand for “system change” exemplified the popular sentiment, which was followed by an electoral mandate for a radical transformation. The promised Constitution must therefore be a transformative constitution that reflects the people’s wishes. Regarding actions of the legislature, this would mean a constitution under which all actions of Parliament, whether legislative or otherwise, are subject to review by the judiciary for constitutionality.

BY (Dr) Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel ✍️

Features

A legendary military leader of our time

Published

14 hours ago

2025/06/20

Thilina Walpola

General Hamilton Wanasinghe’s beloved son Major Geneneral Sanjaya Wanasinghe (retired) accepting Special Orders Part one from Army Commander Lieutenant General Lasantha Rodrigo

General Hamilton Wanasinghe (Retd) VSV, USP, ndc:

The military funeral of General Hamilton Wanasinghe was held at Borella last Saturday.

A legendary military leader of our time, he served Sri Lanka for more than 41 years (1954-1995) in various capacities such as the Commander of the Army, Commander Joint Operations Command (presently known as Chief of Defence Staff) and Secretary of Defence.

More than 1,700 troops lined up at Bauddhaloka Mawatha by 1630 hrs, representing the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, followed by the members of The Ex-Servicemen’s Association, where General Wanasinghe was President for a number of years. His contribution towards having a pension scheme introduced for Volunteer Units of Military is always remembered with gratitude.

The casket carrying remains of the General was placed on the Gun Carriage with six pallbearers on either side of it led by General’s own son, Major General Sanjaya Wanasinghe (retired), who rose to position of Chief of Staff of Army, following the footsteps of his illustrious father. General Srilal Weerasooriya (retired) – an Artillery Crops officer like General Wanasinghe, former Army Commanders General Daya Rathnayake, General Mahesh Senananayake, General Chrishantha de Silva, General Shavindra Silva were present.

Guns of the General’s own unit, 4th Battalion of Artillery Regiment, boomed against overcast skies. “Minute guns” (one gun shot in every passing minute) indicated that the funeral procession was progressing towards the crematorium.

Opening of General Hamilton Wanasinghe Mawatha

Army units at the funeral were led by the Artillery Regiment, followed by other regiments, including two units raised by General Wanasinghe himself as the Army Commander – Corps of Military Intelligence, which was placed under the late General Lionel Ballagalle, another Anandian, Artillery officer who was a Colonel at the time and the Special Forces, with Major General Gamini Hettiarachchi as its head in 1988. General Wanasinghe’s visionary thinking was aptly demonstrated during the fight against the LTTE when these two units worked in unison to bring LTTE to their knees by targeting their military leadership in greatly successful “behind-the-enemy-lines” operations.

Once the Casket was removed from the Gun Carriage podium by six regimental Sergeants Major of the Artillery Corps, of same height, smartly dressed in ceremonial uniform, the Commander of the Army’s Special Part 1 orders were read by Major General KVNP Premaratne, RSP, USP, nps the Adjutant General of the Sri Lanka Army.

With the drill “Parade Presenting Arms” the artillery guns from General’s own unit fired 17 gun-salutes with exactly five-second intervals. Witnessing this respectful and solemn funeral parade were senior politicians, Karu Jayasuriya and Nimal Siripala de Silva. Major General Aruna Jayasekara (retired) Deputy Defence Minister, Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe Jr, retired Secretaries of Defence, Chiefs of Defence Staff, Service Commanders like General Gerry Silva, General Shantha Kottegoda, General Jagath Jayasooriya, Admiral Daya Sadagiri, General Kamal Gunaratne, Admiral Priyantha Perera and Air Chief Marshal Udeni Rajapaksa.

General Wanasinghe lost three of his close relatives- two nephews (Major Panduka Wanasinghe and Captain Nalin Jayathilake) and his son-in-law, Brigadier Bathiya Jayathilake, during the country’s 30-year-long conflict. I always remember that when I talked to him about Bathiya, who was his aide when he was Commander and Secretary Defence, he used to say, “I lost my right hand.” He never prevented them from going to the battlefield simply because he was the Commander. What a great man!

General Wanasinghe was extremely fortunate to commission and present the commissioning sword to his own son Sanjaya. It was the first time in Sri Lanka’s military history an Army Commander commissioned his own son into the Army.

I can vividly remember that General Wanasinghe and his wife were extremely happy and proud on that day. Mrs Ira Wanasinghe ( née Jayathilake) married young Army officer Hamilton in 1960. They had five children (three daughters and two sons). Sadly, she passed away a few years ago.

Another close relative of General Wanasinghe had a narrow escape on the battlefield; he was critically injured. He was Major Atula Jayawardena from the Artillery Battalion. The incident occurred in 1985 on the Mannar – Medawachchiya Road due to multiple land mines blasts. Athula and his driver were extremely lucky, surviving with injuries, where five others in his vehicle died. I was in a vehicle behind him and it fell into the crater created by the blast. Those were the dangerous days on Mannar- Medawachchiya road! Athula rose to the rank of Major General before retiring.

When I was a school cadet at Royal College in 1978, I visited the Army Hospital with Bathiya and another friend, our Cadet Sergeant Naeem Mahamoor, to see then Colonel Hamilton Wanasinghe, who was injured due to an accident at the firing range. It was the first time I met him. He was extremely happy to see us youngsters and narrated stories of his school time as a Cadet and happy days at the Diyatalawa School Cadet camps. He was a Sergeant Major in 3rd Battalion of the Ceylon Cadet Corps in the early 1950s at Ananda College, Colombo and was an excellent marksman who represented Ceylon in Inter- Dominion Small Bore Rifle Shooting Competitions. He joined the Ceylon Army in 1954 as an Officer Cadet and was sent to the Royal Military Academy (RMA), Sandhurst in the UK for training. After successfully completing the training programme, he joined the Ceylon Army Artillery Corps.

General Wanasinghe’s love for firearms and knowledge of them encouraged him to introduce Sniper firing training to the Army and established a Sniper firing training school at Diyatalawa when he was the Commander of the Army. Later, his son Sanjaya became the Commandant of Marksmanship and Sniper Training School (MSTS).

Some of the best snipers of the Sri Lanka Navy, especially of the Special Boats Squadron were trained by Sanjaya. Thanks Sanjaya for your great work. Your beloved father was extremely proud of you.

General Wanasinghe, on his retirement, moved to his village, Malwana. While I was the Navy Commander, he used to call me whenever the Kelani river overflowed, causing floods. He always talked on behalf of the villagers who were affected and marooned by floods. He was very concerned about their welfare. One of his happiest moments was when the main road between Dompe and Malwana was named after him on 24 August 2019.

I met General Wanasinghe as the founding Commanding Officer of Special Boats Squadron ( SBS) – the Naval Commando Unit in December 1993, when he was the Secretary Defence. It was after the Pooneryn amphibious landing by SBS assist the besieged Army camp there.

I met him with a request letter from the then Commander of the Navy (Admiral DSMR Samarasekara) requesting for approval for paying “Commando Allowance ” to SBS personnel also. He listened to me and said: “Ravi, we require such a unit to fight the LTTE Sea Tigers. Develop it into a formidable unit. My blessings are with you.” He approved the request.

Thanks to his vision, the SBS played a pivotal role in sea battles with the enemy in lagoons and in littoral seas to free the country from the clutches of terrorism.

May he attain the supreme bliss of Nirvana!

(Admiral Wijegunaratne WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)

is former Navy Commander and former Chief of Defence Staff, former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd, former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and former Lankan High Commissioner to Pakistan)

Features

Celebration; spots of light in the world’s gloom and doom

Published

14 hours ago

2025/06/20

Thilina Walpola

Newly elected Colombo Mayor Balthazaar

Vraie Cally Balthazaar is the newly elected Mayor of Colombo. On June 16, almost a fortnight after MC elections were held, she was voted in by secret ballot as Mayor, winning 61 votes against the main opposition candidate Riza Zarook from the coalition of a mixed bag of Parties, who got 54 votes. Cass would add to the epithet ‘mixed’ – unholy and most unlikely of parties including the SJB, UNP and even the SLPP, banding themselves together to defeat the NPP. And once they were defeated, bringing in all sorts of allegations, against of all things – the secret ballot method of voting decided on. Sajith Premadasa who voiced the combined opposition’s protest is fast losing his clout and the little popularity he has, even in his party, as voiced by others.

Cassandra has seen her in many photographs and video clips and found her to be charming, lovely, and beneath those good looks, solid and committed. She emerged as a people’s champion and leader, hence Cass’ total approval of her. Cass is certain she will be a good Mayor concerned about the people of Colombo.

Born in 1985, educated at Methodist College, Colombo, and holding a degree in fashion design and postgraduate diploma in Gender and Women’s Studies, Vraie is higher educated, and promises to be totally competent to be Mayor of the Colombo Municipal Council. She has experience in media and was an activist for the good of the country and people’s rights. She was a TV presenter and active in civil society and research; also worked with NGOs on women’s and children’s issues.

Most significantly, a write-up about her states that she researched urban development and city planning with special relevance to low income communities in Colombo. “Her activism extended to gender equality and labour rights, aligning with her academic focus combined with media presence and grassroots work, helped shape her public identity as a feminist and community advocate.”

Invariably mentioned in present bios is the fact she is the second woman to serve as Mayor of Colombo. Less said and better thrust to the back is the first woman mayor of Colombo. Cass’ tongue is reluctant to name the name of that first mayor and her wrist reluctant to write it. What is she associated with that makes her repugnant, that ex-Mrs World of great beauty and charm?

Her self-serving nature, her alleged misdemeanors while mayor, refurbishing lavishly the mayoral residence and the inevitable association of her name with grandiose toilets! Out from being mayor, she got another plum sinecure: one of the very many advisors to Prez Ranil Wickremasinghe who took no advice, with the bequethment by pranksters of SL with a baila ditty: Rosyge veyo kaapu Porsche eka.

So, let’s not bracket Ms Balthazaar with Rosy Senanayake.

Gloom and doom

Is the world enshrouded in a gloom atmosphere forecasting trouble? Two parts of it are: not only in gloom but smoke, destruction and death. The situation in the Israel dominating mid-East and eastern Europe of Ukraine are worsening as of today – Wednesday 18 June. The Great Man of the World, as he believes he is, is not helping at all. He is aligned with Israel and considers Putin a friend. Three bloodthirsty dictators are keeping the world on edge: Netanyahu, Putin and Trump the accessory.

What about Sri Lanka? Thankfully peaceful with people being considered important and corruption detected, exposed and hopefully eradicated, or at least reduced. President Dissanayake’s talk to Sri Lankans living over there during his official visit to Germany was an eye opener. He spoke very strong about racism being encouraged by certain persons and parties to destabilize the government and the country. Was it a cry of wolf? Certainly not since the President is not given to unjustified fears and claims. Cunning foxes’ barks and howls emanate from the political periphery. For the first time in our history votes were cast by Tamils for Sinhalese NPP election candidates. There is considerable unity among the races. One example: Kandy Muslim religious heads opened their mosques for overflowing crowds who gathered in Kandy to venerate the Sacred Relic.

As Cassandra’s title indicated, there are bright spots in the gloom. One such she wishes to highlight, a YouTube video of which she watched recently, with mounting appreciation and hope for mankind and thus the world.

Great sportsman Nadal felicitated

At the very start of the French Open tennis tournament, also named Roland-Garros, Rafael Nadal was honoured with a felicitation ceremony at Court Philippe-Chatrier, on May 25. He had won 14 French titles, hence the honour.

A visibly moved Nadal who actually shed tears was conducted to the court by the two top officials of the tennis association, then his relatives were invited to line up opposite him, court persons from ball picker to umpires. He was presented with a plaque. The highlight of the ceremony, at least to Cass, was him being joined by the three greats he competed with and beat or lost to: Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. Later the earth was swept away on the side of the court beside the net revelaing a footprint of Nadal’s. “It will be here forever,” announced the commentator.

Rafael Nadal Parera, born June 3, 1986, was from a well-to-do family. He holds many sports records but one to be mentioned is that he was ranked as World No 1 in men’s singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals for 209 weeks and holds 22 major titles as well as Masters titles and an Olympic gold medal. His 81 consecutive wins on clay constitute the longest single-surface win streak in the Open Era.

What’s more interesting to Cass is that he married a childhood friend from Mallorca, the largest island in Spain’s Balearic Islands, which was home to both. After 14 years of dating he married Mery ‘Xisxa’ Perello in October 2019. In 2022 they had their first child, a son, and they are expecting a second soon. They avoid publicity and photographers. “I’m already exposed enough in my professional life. My loved ones and I like to live with a low profile.” But at the felicitation, he carried his son around for a little. He retired from professional tennis after playing for Spain in the Davis cup, 2024.

Watching from the stands at the felicitation, dressed in the maroon T-Shirt that most wore with Nadal’s name on it, was Carlos Alcaraz, co-Spaniard and this year’s French Open winner, second year running.

Why did Cass consider this felicitation a bright spot in the gloom of the world? It showed there was much more in our world than wars, greed, enmity, commercialism. Here was a manifestation of gratitude to a great sportsman. Here were tennis and sports celebrated; skills and endeavour high-lighted; a sincere display of camaraderie and sportsmanship and healthy competition plus friendship.