The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has emphasized that preserving colonial‑era buildings does not amount to celebrating the political order that produced them, but rather acknowledges their role as part of the nation’s cultural inheritance.

In a statement, the CPA noted that official residences, government houses, and country estates linked to public authority should generally be preserved, given their historic and cultural significance. 

The organization stressed that the most important of these structures should remain under state ownership and use, rather than being privatized or converted into commercial ventures.

According to the CPA, the value of such buildings lies not only in their architectural merit but also in their continuing role as symbols of national continuity, public memory, and constitutional identity. 

The group argued that maintaining these sites under public stewardship reinforces their place in the collective heritage of Sri Lankan society.

Full statement;

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) receives with a sense of alarm and distress the Prime Minister’s reported statement to the House that “the Government is moving ahead with plans to repurpose the Presidential House [sic] and former official ministerial bungalows for public and commercial use instead of using them as official residences.”

The preservation of colonial-era buildings is often controversial because they are associated with periods of foreign domination, inequality, and political subjugation. Yet the question of preservation is distinct from the question of historical judgement. To preserve a building is not necessarily to celebrate the political order that produced it. Rather, it is to acknowledge that the physical fabric of history forms part of a society’s cultural inheritance. For this reason, colonial buildings, particularly great buildings of state such as official residences, government houses, and country estates associated with public authority, should generally be preserved. Moreover, the most significant of these buildings should continue to be owned, maintained, and used by the state rather than being privatised and converted into commercial enterprises. Their value lies not merely in their architectural merit but in their continuing role as symbols of national continuity, public memory, and constitutional identity.

First, colonial buildings are often among the most important architectural achievements in a country. They embody craftsmanship, design traditions, engineering techniques, and aesthetic ideals that may be difficult or impossible to reproduce today. Many colonial structures were designed by leading architects of their time and constructed using materials and methods that have become rare. Their significance therefore extends beyond politics. They are cultural artefacts that testify to a particular moment in the development of architecture and urban design. The destruction or neglect of such buildings represents an irreversible loss not only of historical evidence but also of artistic achievement.

Secondly, colonial buildings provide a tangible connection to history. Nations require physical reminders of their past if historical memory is to remain vivid and meaningful. Textbooks and archives are important, but they cannot replace the experience of encountering history in built form. A government house, colonial courthouse, or official residence allows citizens to engage directly with the past. 

Such buildings remind societies not only of the achievements of previous generations but also of their mistakes and injustices. Preserving them therefore encourages a mature engagement with history rather than a selective or sanitised one. Democracies in particular benefit from retaining material evidence of all periods of their history, including those that may be uncomfortable or contested.

The argument for preservation is even stronger in the case of great buildings of state. Throughout history, states have invested particular buildings with constitutional, ceremonial, and symbolic significance. A head of state’s residence is not merely a house; it is an institution. It embodies the authority, continuity, and dignity of the state itself. The value of such buildings therefore lies not only in their physical structure but also in the meanings that have accumulated around them through generations of public use.

Buildings such as presidential residences, governor-general’s houses, royal palaces, and official country retreats serve as visible representations of the state. Citizens recognise them as places where important national decisions are made, where foreign dignitaries are received, and where constitutional ceremonies take place. Their significance derives from repeated use over time. A building becomes nationally important precisely because generations of officeholders have occupied it and generations of citizens have associated it with the life of the nation. If such buildings are privatised, that continuity is broken. A structure that once represented public authority is reduced to a commercial asset, and an important element of national symbolism is lost.

Furthermore, the state has a responsibility to act as the custodian of heritage on behalf of future generations. Public ownership ensures that preservation decisions are guided by cultural, historical, and constitutional considerations rather than solely by financial calculations. A private owner may be tempted to alter a historic building extensively in pursuit of commercial profitability. Hotels, luxury apartments, and event venues often require significant structural modifications that can undermine the authenticity and integrity of heritage sites. 

Even where preservation regulations exist, commercial pressures frequently encourage compromises that diminish historical value. Public ownership provides a stronger guarantee that heritage will be protected for its own sake.

Another important consideration is the symbolic distinction between public and private purposes. Great buildings of state were generally constructed to serve public functions. Their architecture often reflects ideals of authority, representation, and civic dignity. When such buildings become luxury hotels, exclusive resorts, or private residences, they cease to belong symbolically to the nation as a whole. Access becomes dependent on wealth and privilege rather than citizenship. A building that once expressed collective ownership becomes an instrument of private profit. This transformation can weaken public attachment to national institutions and diminish the sense that the state possesses a physical presence within the life of the nation.

Maintaining state ownership also promotes constitutional continuity. States, unlike governments, endure across generations. Official residences and ceremonial buildings provide visible evidence of that continuity. They link present officeholders with their predecessors and create a sense of permanence amid political change. The individual occupant may change, but the institution remains. 

This continuity is especially important in countries with complex historical trajectories, including former colonies. By repurposing colonial government houses for contemporary national use, post-colonial states can symbolically appropriate and transform inherited structures. What was once a symbol of colonial authority becomes a symbol of independent statehood. Retaining such buildings in public use therefore demonstrates confidence and historical maturity rather than dependence on colonial memory.

Economic arguments for privatisation are often overstated. While maintaining large historic buildings can be expensive, the costs should be viewed as investments in national heritage and public culture. States routinely fund museums, libraries, archives, and monuments because they are recognised as public goods. Great buildings of state belong within the same category. Their value cannot be measured solely in commercial terms. They contribute to tourism, education, diplomacy, and national identity in ways that far exceed the revenue that might be generated through private development.

Moreover, public ownership does not preclude public accessibility. Many successful examples around the world combine official state use with public visitation, educational programmes, cultural events, and heritage interpretation. Such arrangements allow citizens to enjoy and understand these sites while preserving their constitutional functions. A building can simultaneously be a working institution and a public heritage asset.

In conclusion, colonial buildings should generally be preserved because they possess architectural, historical, and cultural significance that transcends the political circumstances of their creation. To preserve them is not to celebrate colonialism but to protect an important part of the historical record. The case for preserving great buildings of state is even stronger. These buildings embody national continuity, constitutional authority, and collective memory. They are institutions as much as structures. For that reason, they should remain in public ownership, maintained and used by the state for public purposes rather than privatised and transformed into commercial enterprises. A nation that preserves such buildings affirms that its history, however complex, is a shared inheritance, and that some places are too important to be treated merely as assets in the marketplace. (Newswire)

The post CPA calls for preservation of colonial state buildings appeared first on Newswire.

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)

The post CPA urges end to emergency law extensions, warns of democratic risks appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has voiced deep concern over reports that the NPP Government is considering a constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges, a move that would allow Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena to remain in office for two additional years.

In a statement, CPA said such a measure would undermine judicial independence and constitutional integrity, noting that security of tenure is a cornerstone of impartiality in Sri Lanka’s legal tradition. 

The organisation warned that tailoring constitutional provisions to benefit incumbents risks politicising the judiciary and eroding public confidence.

CPA also criticised the use of executive and parliamentary majority powers to advance narrow objectives, calling it a distortion of amendment procedures and inconsistent with Commonwealth principles on judicial independence.

Highlighting Sri Lanka’s historical reliance on the courts as guardians of the rule of law, CPA urged the government to desist from pursuing the amendment and called on Parliament, the legal community, civil society, and the public to oppose any move that threatens the integrity of the constitutional order.

“The preservation of judicial independence and constitutional government is not a matter of political convenience, but a foundational obligation owed to the people of Sri Lanka and to future generations, and we cannot allow it to be harmed by the ineptitude and ignorance, if not the arrogance and ill will, of those in power,” CPA added. 

Full statement: 

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply concerned by recent reports concerning purported proposals by the NPP Government to amend the Constitution, which raise profound questions about the integrity of Sri Lanka’s constitutional order, including the independence of the judiciary and the proper use of constitutional amendment powers.

In a report by its News Editor (Sinhala version published on 10 June 2026, followed by an English version on 11 June), entitled “The Recurring Drama of Constitutional Amendments for Personal Gain,” the Anidda newspaper states:

“President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government is reportedly planning to introduce a constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges. This amendment is expected to allow the current Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena to remain in office for another two years. If passed, it would become the 22nd Amendment to the 1978 Constitution. The proposal has already drawn strong opposition from lawyers concerned about judicial independence and constitutional traditions.”

CPA notes that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has already rightly decried this move in strong and unambiguous terms. We share and endorse these concerns.

A constitutional amendment that alters a core institutional feature of the judiciary, particularly one designed to affect tenure, is not a neutral or technical adjustment. Security of tenure is a central pillar of judicial independence in our common law tradition, originating in principles established in key cases such as the Case of Prohibitions del Roy (1607), Dr Bonham’s Case (1610), Case of Proclamations (1611), Bushell’s Case (1670), and Entick v Carrington (1765), and subsequently enshrined in statute and constitutional instruments, including in Sri Lanka since the Charter of Justice (1801). In numerous cases, including Attorney General v Silva (1953), Liyanage v The Queen (1967), Joseph Perera v Attorney General (1992), Premachandra v Jayawickrema (1994), Chandrasoma v Senathirajah (1997), and various special determinations on constitutional amendment bills, our courts have consistently reaffirmed the main principle of judicial independence and impartiality, and its several supplementary principles, such as security of tenure.       

These constitutional principles, which work not merely to restrain the dismissal of judges who displease the executive but also to extensions in office of judges who do the bidding of the executive, ensure that judges are insulated from political pressure and can decide cases impartially, without fear of reward or sanction. When the tenure of a sitting Chief Justice is extended through a constitutional amendment tailored to benefit specific individuals in office or their policy for the time being (in this case the incumbent President and Chief Justice), it inevitably gives rise to the perception – and risk – of executive influence over the judiciary. It suggests that continuance in office may depend on political favour rather than constitutional principle, thereby undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality.

Moreover, such an amendment would fundamentally alter the established understanding that constitutional provisions governing judicial tenure are general, prospective, and impersonal. Departing from this norm to enact a measure that benefits an incumbent office-holder transforms a constitutional mechanism into an instrument of personalisation. This damages not only the independence of the individual office but also the integrity of the institution as a whole.

CPA is also deeply concerned by the use of the executive presidency and its parliamentary majority to effect such a change. While the Constitution provides procedures for amendment, these procedures are not intended to be used as tools for advancing narrow or personalised objectives. Constitutional amendment powers are entrusted to the political branches for the purpose of responding to genuine institutional or societal needs, and must be exercised in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of constitutionalism. The use of these powers to secure the extension of tenure of a particular office-holder constitutes an illegitimate use of constitutional authority. It represents a distortion of the amendment process, undermining its normative legitimacy and eroding constitutional culture.

Such a measure would also be wholly inconsistent with Commonwealth principles on judicial independence, to which Sri Lanka, as a founding member of the modern Commonwealth in 1949, has repeatedly committed itself. Foundational Commonwealth instruments – including the Latimer House Principles (2003) – affirm that judicial appointments, tenure, and removal must be governed by transparent, principled processes that safeguard independence and avoid both actual and perceived political interference. The Latimer House Principles emphasise that security of tenure must be preserved and that any changes to judicial conditions of service must not be made in a way that compromises judicial independence or benefits particular individuals. These principles are widely affirmed in case law from across the Commonwealth and across time, including McCawley v The King (1920), Hinds v The Queen (1977), Valente v The Queen (1985), Re The Remuneration of Judges (1997), and Mackin v New Brunswick (2002).

The reported proposal would also damage the institutional fabric of the Supreme Court, the oldest continuously functioning branch of the Sri Lankan state, whose origins date back to the aforementioned Charter of Justice (1801), and continued without interruption in subsequent imperial as well as post-colonial constitutional instruments. Over more than two centuries, as a result, the Sri Lankan people have become accustomed to seeing the courts as their principal institutional guardian of the rule of law and constitutional government. Measures that introduce uncertainty, politicisation, or personalised considerations into the tenure of its leadership risk undermining its authority, legitimacy, and historical continuity.

Both the process and the substance of the reported amendment are deeply violative of the republican values on which the 1978 Constitution is based. The republican principle underpinning our constitutional order requires public power to be exercised in trust for the common good of the people of Sri Lanka, in accordance with law, and without arbitrariness or personalisation. It demands institutional integrity, the separation of powers in terms established by Article 3 and 4, and checks against the concentration or abuse of authority. 

Executive-driven manipulation of constitutional amendment procedures, particularly for the purpose of influencing the tenure of the head of the judiciary, is fundamentally inconsistent with these values. Equally, any interference – direct or indirect – with judicial independence strikes at the heart of the republican ideal of a government of laws, not of persons.

Indeed, the effects of a constitutional amendment in terms currently contemplated could have wider and unintended ramifications beyond the judiciary. In a recent essay for the Jaffna Monitor, Professor G.L. Peiris has argued that the stability and independence of the public service as well as the principle of equality and non-discrimination may be adversely affected by this proposed change.  

It was precisely because Sri Lankans were fed up with the unconstitutional and self-aggrandising behaviour of past Presidents and Governments that Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the NPP were elected to implement the Aragalaya’s call for “system change” and restore good governance in 2024. To witness this Government also – so soon and so effortlessly – going down the path-dependent patterns of previous governments is therefore a particularly appalling example of hypocrisy.

In the light of these extremely serious concerns, CPA calls upon the Government to immediately desist from pursuing any constitutional amendment aimed at extending the term of office of the incumbent Chief Justice. We urge the Government to reaffirm its commitment to judicial independence and impartiality, constitutional propriety, and the rule of law. We also call upon all Members of Parliament, the legal community, civil society, the media, and the public at large to remain vigilant and to oppose any measures that threaten the integrity of Sri Lanka’s constitutional order. The preservation of judicial independence and constitutional government is not a matter of political convenience, but a foundational obligation owed to the people of Sri Lanka and to future generations, and we cannot allow it to be harmed by the ineptitude and ignorance, if not the arrogance and ill will, of those in power. (Newswire)

The post CPA warns against reported move to extend judges’ retirement age appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has expressed concern about Minister of Energy, Kumara Jayakody, continuing to hold a ministerial position, after he has been indicted in the High Court, reportedly on charges relating to corruption / financial misconduct. 

Issuing a statement, CPA said that according to media reports, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) filed these charges, alleging that in 2016, while serving as Manager of the Procurement and Import Division of the Ceylon Fertilizer Company, Jayakody was involved in irregularities relating to procurement. He has since been produced before the Colombo High Court and released on bail pending trial. 

CPA points out that it is incumbent that those holding public office abide by the highest standards of integrity and professionalism that aspire public trust and confidence in government, adding that conduct that falls short of such standards must be dealt with swiftly and decisively. 

The indictment also comes at a time when allegations have surfaced about possible irregularities in the procurement of coal for power generation, a function that falls within the purview of Jayakody’s Ministry. Such conduct amidst an evolving energy crisis raises critical questions of transparency and accountability of public decision-making and the suitability and integrity of those holding public office, it said.

Sri Lanka has witnessed years of mismanagement that resulted in the public demand for greater public accountability in 2022. The National People’s Power (NPP) secured its mandate in 2024 on the promise of a change in the system of governance and to dismantle the culture of corruption and impunity with a commitment towards accountable and transparent governance and government. 

CPA stressed that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the NPP Government must uphold these promises, demonstrating that those who hold public office abide by the principles they espoused in the campaign trail and fundamental to ensuring there is no actual and perceived conflicts of interest. 

In such a context, CPA called on Kumara Jayakody to forthwith resign from his ministerial position, noting that Jayakody’s continued functioning in his ministerial position, undermines the work of the Bribery Commission and the public faith and confidence in the Commission.

Furthermore, CPA urged the government to introduce and fully implement a Ministerial Code of Conduct that sets out standards and processes to facilitate accountable and transparent government and garner public trust in those holding public office. Failure to provide leadership and act decisively in this instance risks signalling to the public that the NPP’s mandate for reform was merely rhetorical, it added. (Newswire)

The post CPA calls for resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has raised concerns about the emerging institutional deadlock between the President and the Constitutional Council in respect of the appointment of the Auditor General. 

Sri Lanka has not had a permanent Auditor General since the retirement of Chulantha Wickramaratne in April 2025. In the period since, according to reports, the President has made four nominations to the post, which have all been rejected by the Constitutional Council.

Issuing a statement, the CPA stressed that the office of Auditor General is pivotal to the institutional framework of public financial integrity established by Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution and the National Audit Act No 19 of 2018 (as amended by National Audit (Amendment) Act No 19 of 2025). 

The absence of a stable office-holder in the post for a period of over nine months causes serious concerns about the functionality of our system of public financial accountability. The absence of an Auditor General not only disrupts the normal processes of the national audit, but it also affects the capacity of Parliament and its committees on public accounts and public enterprises to carry out their constitutionally fundamental scrutiny and accountability functions. This concern is heightened in the context of the need for rigorous supervision of public expenditures, and methods of reception and allocation involved in rebuilding efforts in the wake of Cyclone Ditwah, the organization further said.

According to CPA, the function of the Constitutional Council is to ensure the President’s nominations to the office of Auditor General meet the formal standards of independence, integrity, and professional competence established by the Constitution and the National Audit Act. 

The Constitutional Council is a collegiate body composed of cross-party political representatives and independent civil society representatives appointed, except for the ex officio members, predominantly by consensus. Its composition is designed to protect its decision-making from being hijacked by either the Government or the Opposition for partisan purposes. The expectation of respect for the decisions of the Constitutional Council by the President is not only central to the de-politicisation logic that underpins our ‘fourth branch’ institutions. It is also a rare but significant corrective to the overcentralisation of power and authority in the person and office of the President in our semi-presidential system of government. In view of its consensual and inclusive composition and its decentralised procedures of decision-making, the public can assume with a high degree of confidence that the Constitutional Council’s repeated rejections of the President’s nominations to fill the vacancy in the office of Auditor General were because such nominations did not meet the required constitutional and statutory standards, it said.

The CPA further noted that per the existing system, the constitutional and moral responsibility for ensuring a successful and expeditious appointment, by securing the mandatory approval of the Constitutional Council, to a vacancy in the office of Auditor General lies squarely with the President. 

The organization pointed out that the President’s failure to secure the approval of the Constitutional Council through four unsuccessful nomination attempts over the course of nine months suggests a lack of constitutional competence in the advice he has so far received in the making of such nominations. If deadlock persists, it may even give rise to suspicions of bad faith on the part of the President.

This would be a regrettable outcome, not only for the quality of our public financial governance, but also for the reputation of a President elected on an explicit mandate to implement a ‘system change’ towards greater transparency and accountability in our culture of governance, and whose official biography proudly proclaims that in 2001 he “played a pivotal role in the adoption of the [Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution]” which first established the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions. (Newswire)

The post CPA raises concerns over delay in Auditor General appointment appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has urged urgent reforms for truth, justice, and forensic capacity in Sri Lanka, in light of the discovery of mass graves and past cycles of violence in the country. 

In a letter addressed to Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, the CPA proposes 8 actionable steps, including DNA facilities, victim support, and international collaboration.

Key recommendations include:

1. Strengthen Forensic Expertise: Enhance the forensic investigation capacity of state entities, including Judicial Medical Officers (JMOs).
2. Establish an Independent DNA Facility: Create a dedicated facility to store and process DNA samples, drawing on lessons from sites like the Chemmani Mass Grave.
3. Independent Investigations and Prosecutions: Establish an office to independently probe serious human rights and economic crimes, addressing cases like enforced disappearances.
4. Standardize Excavation Procedures: Implement SOPs for mass grave excavations, exhumations, and investigations.
5. Seek International Assistance: Engage international observers and experts to support complex forensic and investigative work.
6. Provide Psychosocial Support: Expand local capacity to address the psychological trauma of victims and affected communities.
7. Adopt a Victim-Centered Approach: Ensure transparency and regular updates to rebuild trust in domestic initiatives.
8. Allocate Adequate Resources: Prioritize funding for excavations, forensics, and investigations in upcoming budgetary allocations.

The CPA further commended the work of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), but underscores the need to safeguard these entities from political interference and resource constraints.

As such, the CPA has sought dialogue with the Ministry of Justice to implement reforms. (Newswire)

The post Mass grave discoveries in Sri Lanka : CPA urges 8-step Reform Plan appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has issued a set of recommendations ahead of the official visit to Sri Lanka by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, scheduled for June 23–26, 2025. 

This visit is the first visit by a UN Human Rights Chief since the election of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP) government in 2024. 

The CPA calls on the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to address key issues related to accountability, legal reforms, and human rights protections, particularly in the lead-up to the September UN Human Rights Council sessions, where Sri Lanka’s commitments will come under review.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to Sri Lanka: Recommendations and Key Issues for Consideration

June 2025

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights H.E. Volker Turk is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka this month—the first visit by a High Commissioner since the 2024 election of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP) government. 

The visit takes place at a key moment in Sri Lanka with the country grappling with the effects of its ongoing governance and economic crises, cycles of past violence, and the lasting effects of a nearly three-decade conflict. The 2024 change of government promised reform and reignited hope that a new political culture would emerge.

Yet, seven months later, the implementation of confidence-building measures and key governance and legal reforms has been delayed. A significant section of society also faces severe socio-economic challenges. Amidst such a context, human rights abuses persist. The recent use of the Prevention of Terror Act (PTA) has violated the due process of suspects.

Long-standing issues, such as land appropriation, continue to deny communities of their right to access, own and use their lands, freedom of movement, and means of survival. Reports of torture and custodial death have also occurred under the Dissanayake government. These and other issues expose the prevalence of human rights violations that threaten to reinforce historical patterns of violence and trigger future conflict. They are also critical indicators of the need for a prevention agenda and engagement in promoting human rights and strengthening the rule of law in Sri Lanka.

The visit takes place at this critical juncture when the government can be supported in their plans of implementing its own promises. In light of the impending visit, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) urges the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to inform their meetings and messages to the government, state entities, and others with the following recommendations:

1. Have a genuine and open dialogue with victims, survivors, and civil society in Sri Lanka, including visiting the war-affected areas in the North and East.
2. Highlight the need for concrete steps to address accountability in Sri Lanka. This includes the need for tangible and time-bound progress on emblematic cases, legal and structural reforms, including the establishment of the promised Public Prosecutor’s Office, and other necessary reforms to ensure an independent and credible judicial process in Sri Lanka.
3. Emphasize the need for an immediate moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and its immediate repeal. Any future attempts at law reforms must adhere to international standards and be drafted after wide consultations.
4. Highlight the need for other urgent legal reforms, including the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA), reform to the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA), the Vagrancy Ordinance, provisions of the Penal Code, and other measures to ensure equality, non- discrimination, and the dignity of all citizens.
5. Raise concerns about ongoing efforts at land appropriation and occupation that have dispossessed many individuals and communities. Particular attention must be paid to acquisitions in the North and East, a cal for transparent land appropriation reforms that contain due process safeguards and address the grievances of affected communities.
6. Visit sites of mass graves and raise the need for adherence to international standards of exhumation, recording, reporting, and identification.
7. Reaffirm the right to religious worship and religious freedom.
8. Raise the need for independent investigations into custodial torture and encounter kilings, accountability for such violations, and urgent reforms in this regard.
9. Highlight the continued challenges faced in civic spaces, including administrative and security issues that impede the work of human rights defenders, civil society, community groups, media, and others.
10. Urge the Government of Sri Lanka to address persistent socio-economic challenges, including through the introduction of governance reforms that are just, fair, and equitable.
11. Emphasise the importance of undertaking constitutional reforms in a transparent and timely manner that facilitate the abolition of the executive presidency, address a political solution, and bring required checks and balances, among other key reforms. These reforms should include a full implementation of Sri Lanka’s existing constitution, especially concerning the limited devolution of power granted by the 13th amendment, pending constitutional reform.
12. Raise the need for a new Resolution on Sri Lanka with a two-year reporting period, that provides for continued monitoring and support for human rights, accountability, and reconciliation. CPA also recommends the renewal of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP) and its ability to visit Sri Lanka. The human rights, accountability, and reconciliation issues underscored in these recommendations require urgent attention. CPA calls upon the High Commissioner and the OHCHR to use this visit to highlight these concerns and emphasize the need for immediate action, including a time-bound roadmap for implementation of reforms. (Newswire)

The post 12 recommendations from CPA ahead of UN Rights Chief’s visit to Sri Lanka appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has raised concerns about the actions of the President and the Government in response to the Supreme Court’s interim order last week restraining Deshabandu Thennakoon from exercising the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP). 

Issuing a statement, the policy think-tank based in Colombo said this interim order has been met with statements by the Government, including a formal statement in Parliament by the Prime Minister on 27th July explicitly rejecting it, that raises alarm as to whether Sri Lanka is heading towards a constitutional crisis. 

Urging the President to desist from any or all action that raises that prospect, CPA said this is against the backdrop of the Election Commission issuing a gazette setting the date of the Presidential Election to be held on 21st September 2024, and it is incumbent on the Government and all stakeholders to adhere to the Constitution and respect the integrity of the election. 

CPA warned that any attempt to subvert elections and the rule of law will have significant implications on governance and democracy and setback Sri Lanka’s path towards economic recovery and stability. 

According to CPA, the following briefly sets out some of the recent events and their implications. 

• The Supreme Court’s Interim Order on the IGP 

The Supreme Court’s interim order this week was in response to several cases filed challenging the appointment of Thennakoon as IGP. One of the petitions was filed by CPA’s Executive Director. After hearing lengthy submissions, the Court found that the Petitioners’ case could proceed to the next stage and in light of the strong case made out, the Court also granted an interim order. 

CPA welcomes the interim order which upholds the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution. CPA’s position is that, on the documents produced by the Respondents in court, including the minutes of the Constitutional Council meeting, it is clear that the President could not have appointed Thennakoon as IGP on 26th February 2024, as the required support of at least five members of the Constitutional Council was not met. 

CPA notes that the President is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. Nothing in the order would prevent the President from making an acting appointment after following the appropriate procedure set out in the Constitution. If the President does not make an acting appointment, that is a choice he makes and he would be fully responsible for the consequences of that choice. Wilful violation of the Constitution, including by refusing to do what the Constitution requires him to do, is a ground on which a President can be impeached. As seen in several recent cases, a person holding the office of President can also be held liable in his individual capacity even after the conclusion of his term of office for such violations. In such a context, any action to subvert and/or undermine the Constitution by the individual holding the office must be monitored and necessary legal action pursued.  

• Misinformation on the Supreme Court’s Interim Order 

CPA also notes that there has been significant misinformation on the validity and the impact of the Supreme Court’s order, including in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 27th July. The Supreme Court’s interim order was not against Parliament, nor was it against the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council, moreover, is not a committee of Parliament and thus is not protected by the parliamentary privilege of exclusive cognisance. A judicial decision that the President disagrees with is not a sufficient basis to claim a judicial attack on the powers and privileges of Parliament. The order of the Supreme Court restrains Thennakoon personally from functioning in the office of IGP. Any suggestion that the order is an order against the functions of Parliament is without merit and lacks any basis in terms of the Constitution and the law. Having misinformed itself on these matters, the Government has in its irresponsible response to the Supreme Court acted in breach of several constitutional conventions that are central to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary. These include the conventions that the Government: obeys the orders of a court even and especially when it does not agree with the reasoning of a judicial pronouncement; does not attack the judiciary in Parliament or elsewhere; and observes the sub judice principle. 

CPA also notes the misinformation campaign to indicate that the President cannot make an acting appointment to cover the functions of the office of IGP. This claim is patently false. The Constitution makes specific provisions for acting appointments (Article 41C(2)). The only requirement is that when such an appointment is for a period of more than two weeks, the President needs to get the approval of the Constitutional Council. Furthermore, recent examples dispel these false claims. Firstly, in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the then President appointed Mr. C.D. Wickramarathne as acting IGP whilst Mr. Pujith Jayasundara (who was the IGP) was suspended pending investigations into his conduct. More recently, an acting appointment to the office of IGP was made when Mr Thennakoon was first appointed as acting IGP in November 2023. 

As such, there is no impediment for the President to make an acting appointment to the office of IGP. In fact, the Constitution requires the President to respect the order of the Court and his own responsibilities in terms of the Constitution to make a suitable acting appointment. It is unfortunate that the President seems to be acting in a manner intended to frustrate the order of the Court and subvert the Constitution. 

• The Supreme Court’s Interim Order and the Presidential Election 

CPA notes the attempts to imply that the interim order may have a bearing on the holding of the presidential election. The interim order has no impact on the conduct of elections. The order leaves it open to the President to make a suitable acting appointment in terms of the Constitution. Even if the President does not make such an appointment, the Election Commission has a provision in the Constitution to give necessary orders to the hierarchy of the Sri Lanka Police to perform functions relating to the election (Article 104G and 104GG). (Newswire)

The post IGP crisis : CPA warns President on disregarding Constitution appeared first on Newswire.