The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has raised concerns over the continued extension of Sri Lanka’s State of Emergency, calling on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to refrain from further renewals and urging Parliament to reject any additional extensions.
Issuing a statement, CPA stressed that governance should be grounded in ordinary law to safeguard democratic principles and fundamental rights.
President Dissanayake, by extraordinary gazette 2490/06, extended the emergency for another month from May 28, 2026, a move endorsed by Parliament on June 9. The current declaration under the Public Security Ordinance is set to lapse on June 26. CPA warned that repeated monthly extensions risk undermining civil liberties, concentrating executive power, and eroding public trust.
The organisation recalled its earlier objections in November 2025 when emergency powers were invoked following Cyclone Ditwah, noting that the regulations issued bore little connection to disaster management. CPA subsequently challenged specific regulations in the Supreme Court, prompting amendments. More recently, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya told Parliament the May extension was linked to Middle East conflict impacts on supplies.
CPA argued that emergency powers must remain extraordinary, proportionate, and time‑bound. It emphasised that Sri Lanka already has frameworks such as the Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005, which provides for disaster risk management through the National Council for Disaster Management. Persisting with emergency rule, CPA said, undermines constitutional promises of accountability, transparency, and rebuilding trust in institutions.
The organisation reiterated that restrictions on rights must meet the principles of necessity, legality, and proportionality, and should not extend beyond what is required to address a clearly identified imminent threat.
Full statement:
The Centre for Policy Alternatives is deeply concerned by the continued extension of the State of Emergency in Sri Lanka, and particularly calls upon the President, His Excellency Anura Kumara Dissanayake, to refrain from extending the state of emergency, and Parliament to reject any further extension of the State of Emergency and instead uphold the democratic principles and fundamental rights articulated in the constitution which are essential to society.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake by virtue of extraordinary gazette 2490/06 continued to renew the declaration of a state of emergency for yet another month, with effect from 28 May 2026. This declaration was henceforth endorsed by a parliamentary majority on 09 June 2026. The said State of Emergency declared by the President by virtue of the Public Security Ordinance, is due to lapse on 26 June 2026. The government should ensure that any security and disaster risk management measures are grounded in ordinary law, which will demonstrate the government’s commitment to its constitutional and human rights obligations.
CPA raised serious concerns about the declaration of emergency in November 2025 to deal with the impact of cyclone Ditwah. As we noted in December 2025, the declaration and the specific emergency regulations issued had no connection to the natural disaster. Subsequently, CPA challenged specific emergency regulations in the Supreme Court, after which the government made several amendments to the regulations. CPA takes note that the Prime Minister Hon. Harini Amarasuriya, stated in Parliament that the State of Emergency was being extended in May, due to consideration of the conflict in the Middle East and its impact on supplies. It is unfortunate that successive governments have resorted to the use of emergency power in different contexts on numerous occasions. However, CPA has continuously maintained that emergency powers are extraordinary measures that should be a last resort, declared only when strictly necessary in a manner that is proportionate and for limited time duration.
The current practice of continued monthly extension which has received parliamentary approval, the latest of which was in June 2026, risks undermining democratic governance, rule of law and the fundamental rights of the people, due to the vast and unfettered powers vested in the hands of the Executive, which can even override existing laws. Extending such measures risks undermining civil liberties, weakening public trust, and concentrating power without adequate oversight. More than six months since the initial impact of cyclone Ditwah the government continues to extend the state of emergency without providing any clear and reasonable explanation as to why such extra ordinary measures are needed. Defaulting to emergency rule undermines the legitimacy of government institutions and erodes their capacity to predict and respond to natural disasters in a timely manner, as their role is diminished by emergency measures overriding what they are mandated to deliver.
CPA reiterates its call for the utilisation of existing institutions and laws in the government’s continuing response towards rebuilding post the cyclone and distribution of supplies as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, if needed visit the option of enacting new laws in a transparent and inclusive manner. At present Sri Lanka has in place ordinary laws such as the Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005 which provide for addressing specific needs and humanitarian concerns in times of disaster, including floods, landslides, cyclones and other hazards. It provides for the legal basis for a Disaster Risk Management in the country, through the National Council for Disaster Management, a high-level oversight body, which provides direction to Disaster Risk Management work in the country. CPA notes that this law was enacted post the tsunami of 2004 with the objective of having a law and institution to prepare for natural disasters and it is incumbent for the government to implement and strengthen existing laws and structures than persist with a state of emergency that undermines democratic processes and contradicts many of the promises made in 2024 premised on political accountability, transparency, rebuilding trust in public institutions and a system change.
CPA stresses that restrictions of rights, must meet the principles of necessity, legality and proportionality, and should not extend beyond what is required to address a clearly identified and verified imminent threat, and should be time bound to meet a specific purpose. (Newswire)