Columns

• Govt. offers no challenge to resolution after hotly disputing its questionable contents, includingcalls for sanctions and ICC prosecution
• OHCHR mandate on Sri Lanka probe extended by two years; foreign minister delivered lengthy statement on accountability
• Opposition MP Jayasekera raises issues in Parliament, alleging irregularity in CIABOC chief’s appointment
• Bimal’s loss of port portfolio fuels speculation over his role in release of 300+ containers
• SJB leader Sajith makes major move toward reunion with UNP; key meeting planned in Nugegoda next month   

By our Political Desk

The Government’s austerity measures seem to be extending to the sphere of foreign affairs. Saving millions of rupees was one of the reasons that Minister of Foreign Affairs Vijitha Herath cited for the decision to forgo the opportunity to seek a vote on the resolution to extend the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.

”It is not the policy of our government to engage in futile and false public displays driven by narrow political agendas by wasting public funds and time on a game that is destined for failure,” the minister said in Parliament on Wednesday when he made a lengthy statement on the UNHRC resolution and the Government’s response to it.

The resolution, sponsored by the United Kingdom, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia and co-sponsored by 22 other nations, was adopted without a vote on Monday at the 60th session of the UNHRC. While the resolution was rejected by Sri Lanka, the government did not seek a vote.

The Government’s decision to forgo the vote on the resolution came in for criticism mainly from opposition political parties, which prompted Minister Herath to clarify the Government’s position. Here are highlights from his statement.

File Picture: Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath together with Sri Lanka's UNHRC envoy Himalee Arunatilaka attend the 60th session of the UNHRC last month

• Since 2009, 11 such resolutions have been adopted on Sri Lanka—in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2024 and 2025.  Certain governments have supported and even co-sponsored these resolutions (2015, 2017, and 2019). Certain other governments have called a vote on the resolutions (2012, 2013, 2014, 2021, and 2022). On one occasion, the Government itself had presented a resolution about Sri Lanka at the HRC (2009). Some other governments have opposed specific paragraphs of the resolution without calling for a vote.
• All previous governments have failed to address effectively the national issues that have given rise to the Geneva process. This failure of successive governments is the principal reason why the Human Rights Council has continued to adopt resolutions on Sri Lanka for more than sixteen years.
• The Geneva issue, which could have been resolved through the setting up of a credible national mechanism immediately after the war ended, had instead got internationalised by 2021 due to narrow political objectives and short-sighted leadership.
• Sri Lanka faces challenges in securing a favourable vote within the UNHRC due to its structure, where only 47 can serve as members of the Council at any given time—each for a three-year term. Membership is allocated on a regional basis: Asia-Pacific (13), Africa (13), Latin America and the Caribbean (8), Western Europe (7), and Eastern Europe (6). Since some regional groups—such as Europe—tend to adopt collective positions, it is extremely rare for a resolution presented to the Council to be defeated.
• Only one resolution concerning our country has ever secured a favourable outcome—the resolution introduced by our own government about our own country in 2009. Thereafter, whenever resolutions on Sri Lanka were put to a vote, the Government was defeated. Moreover, the number of votes in support of the Government has steadily declined, while the number of abstentions has increased.
• Despite being well aware of the certainty of defeat, the governments of the time spent millions of rupees in public funds on these campaigns. Members of Parliament, ministers, and officials travelled extensively to lobby member states of the HRC. Various forms of assistance were extended to secure votes. Large delegations of ministers and officials spent days in Switzerland during the Geneva sessions, expending both time and public resources without achieving a meaningful result. They undertook these actions solely for the purpose of misleading the public through media spectacles, fully aware that the election would be lost.
• By adopting a confrontational stance at the HRC through demanding a vote, we are further narrowing the space that may be left to bring this already internationalised process to the domestic realm and solve our issues through domestic mechanisms.
• The resolution adopted on October 6, 2025, contained several positive features compared to previous resolutions. It acknowledged Sri Lanka’s democratic transformation, the measures taken to address the economic crisis, the fight against corruption, the initiatives taken towards protection of human rights, and the national reconciliation programme. It also provided space for Sri Lanka’s domestic institutions to address issues.

While the resolution on Sri Lanka generally puts little pressure on the government, it’s the mandate to continue the work of the OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project (OSLap) for two more years that is problematic.

The project is an evidence-gathering mechanism to develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings, including in Member States with competent jurisdiction.

Sri Lanka’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Himalee Arunatilaka, told the HRC ahead of the adoption of the resolution that, as Sri Lanka had indicated from the beginning to the core group, “our fundamental issue with the text is the reference to resolution 51/1 of 2022 denoting the external evidence gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka within the OHCHR, which, in our view, is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate.”

She said Sri Lanka, as well as many other countries, had repeatedly questioned the credibility and transparency of how this project within the OHCHR was set up, its work and the budget allocated to it.

“After four years of its existence, this Council is yet to see any benefits of this project for the people of Sri Lanka. This is clearly evident from the contents of the High Commissioner’s report as well. The extension of its mandate will only serve the interests of elements with vested interests seeking to create divisions and polarise the communities in Sri Lanka and will be counterproductive to the Government’s efforts on promoting unity, reconciliation and human rights,” Ambassador Arunatilaka said.

Apart from the stated objective of dealing with Sri Lanka’s past human rights baggage through domestic mechanisms instead of through international mechanisms in Geneva, the Government’s approach to the resolution demonstrated a different, somewhat questionable diplomatic strategy.

Since earlier this year, the writing had been on the wall for what eventually transpired at the 60th Session of the Human Rights Council. The Sri Lanka statement at the 59th session of the council announced, “We look forward to receiving the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka.” This week, Minister Herath in Parliament proudly highlighted the visit by invitation of the Government and the open access allowed, including the visit to the Chenmani site, as positive measures. The minister stated that both he and President A.K. Dissanayake had further ‘constructive discussions’ with High Commissioner Volter Turk in New York. Notwithstanding these high-level discussions with HC Turk, in his statement to the Council, the High Commissioner, while commending the new government in Sri Lanka, called on Member States to use the ‘secure repository of over 105,000 items of evidence’ collected under his office by the Sri Lanka Accountability Project to enforce universal jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes in Sri Lanka. The ‘many positive observations’ by the High Commissioner in his Report to the Council (A/HRC/60/21) referred to by Minister Herath and tabled in Parliament include recommendations to UN Member States to cooperate in prosecuting Sri Lankans for international crimes, including under extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction, targeted sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans, and Sri Lanka becoming a party to the ICC.

The Government seemed keen to demonstrate its standing with the international community, in particular with the Western countries, by highlighting their endorsement as well as that of the High Commissioner. It is well known that Western governments with significant Tamil diaspora voting constituencies, including the pro-LTTE, are clearly acting in the latter’s interest. They also include very influential members in their own governments in Canada and the UK.

The Council discussion prior to the adoption of the resolution was, therefore, hardly acrimonious—delegations heaped praise on the new JVP/NPP government for taking the human rights accountability process in a favourable direction (according to their viewpoint), and Sri Lanka’s ambassador warmly thanked “all delegations for their constructive participation on the draft text”, which, bewilderingly, minutes later was rejected by Sri Lanka in the same intervention. The only dissenting voices were those of China, Cuba and Ethiopia—the first two clearly disassociated themselves from the resolution. In Parliament, Minister Herath stated that Sri Lanka did not call for a vote to avoid a ‘confrontational’ stand and because a vote—by some unknown calculation—would have been expensive. There is, of course, no price tag attached to calling for a multilateral vote; lobbying is done through diplomatic channels, and above all, in the interest of the dignity of the country, taking a stand is the ‘done thing’ according to many critics of the government’s position.

The overall balance sheet from the resolution is that by consensus the international community extended the Sri Lanka accountability mechanism, which is collecting evidence of purported war crimes in Sri Lanka; a new narrative is endorsed, including by Sri Lanka, that Sri Lanka’s human rights issues arise from past ethnic conflicts (in the plural) and racist politics, with no reference by Sri Lanka or the sponsors of the resolution to separatist LTTE terrorism. The Government has now made multiple undertakings of domestic measures to be put in place, including action on various undefined categories incorporated in the ‘human rights economy’, and endorsed eyewitness confirmation of mass grave sites in the country. Contrary to the Government’s objective of bringing the Sri Lanka human rights dossier to a domestic framework, it might appear that it has firmly entrenched itself in Geneva for a considerable time, and the pro-LTTE diaspora has made significant strides on this front—and continues to do so.

Questions over how CC chose Bribery Commission DG

Despite the government’s insistence that it has created an environment where independent commissions can truly be ‘independent’ and function without political interference, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) continues to be under a cloud owing to allegations of politicisation. This includes serious allegations surrounding the Commission’s Director General Ranga Dissanayake, a former High Court Judge. One allegation, made during a television talk show by the onetime Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) frontliner and its candidate in the 1999 presidential election, Nandana Gunatilleke, claims that Mr Dissanayake was once a member of the JVP legal committee. Mr Dissanayake has vehemently rejected the allegation and has challenged Mr Gunatilleke to prove his claims. The former JVP stalwart has now appeared to backtrack, saying that he intends to legally challenge the procedure whereby Mr Dissanayake was appointed to the post of CIABOC Director General rather than try to prove his earlier allegation that the DG had once been a member of the JVP’s legal committee.

The process whereby Mr Dissanayake was appointed as Bribery Commission DG by the Constitutional Council (CC) has been challenged from several quarters and was also raised in Parliament this week. Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Dayasiri Jayasekara raised a privilege issue on the matter with Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne on Tuesday. Mr Jayasekara noted that the CC had issued a notice on October 14, 2024, calling for applications to select the Director General of the CIABOC. Subsequently, from the applications received and the marks obtained by the candidates through an evaluation by the members of the Council, the CC had shortlisted Deputy Solicitor General Madhawa Tennakoon, High Court Judge Ranga Dissanayake, and Iresha Subashini Siriwardena for the position.

The CC is chaired by Speaker Wickramaratne, with other members being Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, SJB MP Ajith P. Perera, NPP MP Abubakkar Adambawa, Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchchi MP Sivagnanam Sritharan and the three civil society representatives—Dr Prathap Ramanujan, Dr Dilrukshi Anula Wijesundere and Dr Dinesha Samararatne.

During the CC’s deliberations on the recommendations for the candidates, there was an extensive discussion regarding the recommendation letters given on behalf of Mr Dissanayake by former High Court Judge and Governor of the North Central Province, Wasantha Kumara Wimlasiri Jinadasa, and former High Court Judge and Governor of the Sabaragamuwa Province, Champa Janaki Rajaratne. Considering that the CIABOC is an independent institution and the post of governor is a political appointment, the Council deemed the recommendations by the two governors as a political intervention, said Mr Jayasekara.

The CC had first met to discuss the appointment of the DG of the CIABOC on January 3, 2025, and it had been decided to forward the names of all three shortlisted candidates to President Dissanayake for consideration. When the CC met again on January 7, the Speaker informed the Council that when he had consulted the Attorney General on the matter, he had been informed that a decision on the candidate could be taken by a vote. Whilst the matter was being discussed, House Leader Bimal Rathnayake had conveyed to the CC that at the time the recommendation letters for Mr Dissanayake had been signed by Mr Jinadasa and Ms Rajaratne, they were yet to be appointed as governors. As such, at the time the signatures were placed, they were merely retired judges and not political appointees.

Consequently, the CC had voted, with five members voting for Mr Dissanayake and four for Mr Tennakoon. However, subsequently, it had come to light that the two recommendation letters signed by the retired judges had been, in fact, given after their appointment as provincial governors. This had led to CC member Dinesha Samararatne, who had voted for Mr Dissanayake’s nomination based on Mr Rathnayake’s information, sending a sworn affidavit to the Speaker via email expressing her objection over the situation that prevailed at the time of the vote, said Mr Jayasekara.

“According to Section 4 Subsection (a) of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, submitting false information with the intention to mislead a Parliamentary Committee is a grave offence. This offence has been committed by the Honourable Leader of the House, Bimal Rathnayake. Similarly, the Honourable Speaker has also committed the same offence. As the Head of this august Parliament and the Leader of the House, respectively, both of them have caused immense harm to the honour of this Parliament,” Mr Jayasekera claimed. Since this situation has led to a violation of the privileges of all Members of Parliament, he requested the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. He also requested the Speaker to issue a clarification on the matter.

Speaker’s ruling

On Friday, Speaker Wickramaratne delivered a ruling on the privilege issue raised by Mr Jayasekara. The Speaker stressed that the CC is not a parliamentary committee established under the Standing Orders of Parliament. “The Constitutional Council functions under the Constitution itself and not under the authority of Parliament or its Standing Orders. Therefore, any proceedings or decisions of the Constitutional Council cannot be regarded as proceedings of Parliament or of a Committee of Parliament within the meaning of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act,” he said in his ruling. While Section 4 of Schedule A to the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act does provide for offences in relation to the misleading of Parliament or a Committee of Parliament, since the CC is not a Committee of Parliament, the provision does not apply to the acts or deliberations of the CC, he pointed out. Accordingly, even if it is alleged that a Member of Parliament made an incorrect or misleading statement before the Constitutional Council, such conduct would not fall within the ambit of a breach of parliamentary privilege, he added.

“Furthermore, Article 41J of the Constitution explicitly provides that the decisions of the Constitutional Council are final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal, except by way of an application made to the Supreme Court under Article 126 of the Constitution alleging a violation of fundamental rights,” said the Speaker. He added that he had been informed that in relation to the appointment of the CIABOC DG, three Fundamental Rights applications were indeed filed before the Supreme Court, naming the Members of the Constitutional Council as Respondents. He noted that those applications have subsequently been withdrawn by the petitioners without proceeding further. “This confirms that the proper constitutional mechanism to challenge the decision of the Constitutional Council lies before the Supreme Court, not within the forum of Parliament.”

Given these reasons, the Speaker ruled that no question of privilege arises on the matter, and hence, the issue raised by MP Jayasekara will not be referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges.

While the matter, as far as Parliament is concerned, may have ended there, it is yet to be seen whether the revelations made by Mr Jayasekara may result in further challenges to the CIABOC DG’s appointment. Mr Gunatilleke had claimed he intended to pursue a legal challenge, but only time will tell whether he or anyone else will.

PSC on controversial container release

Meanwhile, the Opposition this week also handed over a resolution to the Speaker requesting the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to investigate the controversial release of more than 300 high-risk ”red’-labelled containers by Customs from the Colombo Port in January this year without subjecting them to a physical inspection. The resolution was approved at Friday’s party leaders’ meeting held in Parliament. It is understood that the government intends to nominate Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara to chair the PSC. Both the government and opposition are expected to submit their nominees to the Committee in the coming days, and the PSC will be established once the resolution calling for it is approved by the House.

As the opposition submitted a resolution to establish a PSC on the release of the containers, the CIABOC, which is conducting its own inquiry into the matter, summoned Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Leader Udaya Gammanpila to record a statement lasting over two hours, following a complaint the PHU had made to the Commission regarding the incident. Mr Gammanpila is one of the most prominent opposition voices that have been speaking out on the controversial release. He has also been a severe critic of Bribery Commission DG Ranga Dissanayake in the media. He told journalists outside the CIABOC office on Thursday that his criticisms of the Bribery Commission are being made with the aim of directing it to the “correct path”. He added that the Commission has officially started its probe by recording a statement from him. “We are thankful that at least now, nine months after the release of the containers, the CIABOC has begun a probe into the matter,” said Mr Gammanpila.

Bimal loses Ports & Civil Aviation in NPP’s first Cabinet reshuffle

It may have been a case of bad timing, but the container issue was also discussed in relation to Friday’s first Cabinet reshuffle of the JVP/NPP government. Three Cabinet and 10 Deputy Ministers were appointed in the reshuffle. The reshuffle saw Minister Bimal Rathnayake taking oaths as the Minister of Transport, Highways & Urban Development, while Anura Karunathilaka was appointed as the Minister of Ports & Civil Aviation. Dr Susil Ranasinghe, meanwhile, was sworn in as the new Minister of Housing, Construction and Water Supply. The Deputy Ministers who were appointed were: Dr. Anil Jayantha Fernando (Finance and Planning), T.B. Sarath (Housing, Construction and Water Supply), M.M. Mohamed Muneer (Religious and Cultural Affairs), Eranga Gunasekara (Urban Development), Dr Muditha Hansaka Wijayamuni (Health), Aravinda Senarath Vitharana (Lands and Irrigation), H.M. Dinidu Saman Kumara (Youth Affairs), U.D. Nishantha Jayaweera (Economic Development), Dr Kaushalya Ariyaratne (Mass Media) and M.I.M. Arkam (Energy).

The reshuffle saw Mr Rathnayake and Mr Karunathilaka exchanging their previously held portfolios of Ports & Civil Aviation and Urban Development. The decision to remove the portfolio of Ports & Civil Aviation from Minister Rathnayake as part of the Cabinet reshuffle raised eyebrows. Some in the opposition speculated that it was a move to take the heat off Mr Rathnayake, as he was the subject minister when the high-risk containers were released from the port. The incident has dogged him for months, with some in the opposition alleging he too was involved in the matter, allegations which Mr. Rathnayake has strenuously denied.

Speaking in Parliament soon after the reshuffle was announced, ITAK MP Shanakiyan Rasamanicam sarcastically said the public would have been reassured that Mr Rathnayake had been removed from the Ports & Civil Aviation portfolio. “I don’t know whether it is over the container issue, but I must thank the Government for restoring the public’s trust by removing someone accused of being connected to the incident,” he said.

The Government, however, was quick to deny any link between the reshuffle and the container issue. Minister Anil Jayantha Fernando told the House that no one had been removed from their portfolios and what had happened was that some portfolios had been amended to make them better suited for the Government to reach its goals. He added that Mr Rathnayake had in fact been given more responsibilities and that details of these responsibilities will be announced soon. Minister Rathnayake himself came before the media to say that as long as he was true to himself and his party and family had faith in him, that was all that mattered.

ITAK pushes for PC polls

Making a statement in Parliament last month, Mr Rasamanickam charged that Minister Bimal Rathnayake was “not very keen” on pursuing the Indian development projects in the North, claiming those projects are not commercially viable and might turn out to be another “white elephant”.

The matter was also raised at the recent Jaffna District Development Meeting co-chaired by Minister Rathnayake. As the Leader of the House, Minister Rathnayake announced that a Ministerial Committee appointed to look into Kankesanthurai (KKS) port development had handed over its report indicating the proposed development project was not commercially viable.

In 2024, the Cabinet approved a proposal to develop the KKS port with an Indian grant of USD 61 million.

On Tuesday, Indian High Commissioner Santhosh Jha met with ITAK General Secretary M.A. Sumanthiran at ‘India House’ in Colombo. The official Twitter handle of the High Commission published a post saying, “High Commissioner @santjha met Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) General Secretary @masumanthiran. Exchanged views on current political developments in Sri Lanka, as well as India-assisted development projects in North & East.”

The Tamil leadership, particularly the ITAK, has been very critical of the lack of interest by the JVP/NPP government when it comes to India-assisted projects in the North.

“We discussed several matters related to political developments and infrastructure projects in the North. First, we thanked India’s stand at UNHRC proceedings when Sri Lanka was being discussed, where it reiterated its stand on the full implementation of the 13th amendment to the country’s constitution and called for early polls. We thanked the continuous support for India on behalf of the Tamil people,” Mr Sumanthiran said.

On the snail-rail speeding development projects in the North, Mr Sumanthiran quoted the India envoy as saying, “India’s assistance as a generous grant still stands.”

“Earlier it was said that those projects are not commercially viable, but it still remains as a grant, not as a loan. On the other hand, these development projects will be a major boost to both the local and national economy and bring more opportunity, tourism and regional development,” Mr Sumanthiran said.

SJB-UNP inching towards unity

Samagi Jana Balawegaya and Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa announced on Friday that the SJB had decided to work jointly with the United National Party (UNP) under a joint political programme based on the leadership and guidance of the SJB.

He stated that a unanimous decision was reached at the Working Committee meeting of the SJB on Thursday and at two Management Committee meetings held prior to it.

In a recorded statement, Mr Premadasa said the two parties would work together on practical and people-centric policies aimed at addressing the challenges and issues faced by the country and its citizens, while maintaining their individual identities. But significantly, one of the remarks he made was that the alliance would be led by the SJB.

The thawing of relations between the two parties began in August following the arrest of former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe when the SJB leader set aside political differences and joined hands to speak out against the arrest. Since then the two sides have held several rounds of talks and expressed interest in putting forward a joint alliance to take on the government.

Mr Premadasa’s announcement on Friday seems to indicate his earlier reluctance to work with the UNP under Mr Wickremesinghe’s leadership has diminished and paved the way for genuine reconciliation between the two sides. There was also pressure from within the party hierarchy pressing Mr Premadasa to enter into a reunification process.

A joint opposition rally has been planned for November 11 in Nugegoda, where leaders of all political parties are expected to gather on one stage to rally people against what they claim is an emerging ‘constitutional dictatorship’.