WHY HAS SRI LANKA’S TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE PROCESS FAILED TO DELIVER?

Photo: An aerial shot of Colombo, Sri Lanka | Credit: Flickr, Creative Commons .

07/02/2019

After persistent allegations of mass atrocities committed during the long running civil war, a new Sri Lankan Government in 2015 pledged to the international community that it would establish an ambitious reform and transitional justice programme. Four years later, many victims in the country have lost hope. South African transitional justice expert Yasmin Sooka and former BBC Correspondent Frances Harrison of the International Truth and Justice Project explore what went wrong:

Piecemeal Implementation

On paper the vision was grand but fleeting. The promise to set up a hybrid court was quickly abandoned and the victims’ consultation report disowned by the government. A disappearance commission was established but without the necessary legal power and authority to hold anyone accountable – amazing in a country with the world’s second largest disappearance caseload. (Some of the politicians put in charge of the cabinet committee for implementation themselves had denied that disappearances took place). There is still no Truth Commission or reparations body, and crucially no credible witness protection for those who might testify against the security forces.  The emblematic cases taken up by the Attorney General mainly focus on Sinhalese victims and ignore the cases of Tamil combatants detained and disappeared after surrender.  As such, former US War Crimes Ambassador, Stephen Rapp, recently questioned whether many of the emblematic cases were really “conflict related” cases at all.

Peace versus Justice

In 2015 a pro-West government came to power in Sri Lanka, replacing the decade-long rule of the Rajapaksa family. The coalition was new but the politicians were not. They promised the Sri Lankan people “good governance” and told the international community and Tamils that they would deal with the massive number of grave violations arising out of the civil war that ended in 2009.  It wasn’t long before experts argued it would be easier to negotiate a political deal on devolution to Tamils first and postpone criminal accountability. This deferred justice for hundreds of thousands of victims of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Political stability was prioritised over justice, with disastrous consequences for the countless victims and the country.

No Political Will to Tackle System Crimes

A change of politicians at the helm of a country does not automatically herald structural reforms, especially when the violations, and associated financial corruption, have been entrenched for decades.  Many in the West saw Sri Lanka’s problems as primarily associated with the Rajapaksa family – without them they hoped for improvement. Previously they had assumed getting rid of the armed group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE, would also resolve Sri Lanka’s problems. Removing one player from the field doesn’t fix a rotten system. Tackling what the UN called “systems crimes” in a country like Sri Lanka takes political will and leadership, courage and national ownership. The international community has failed to hold the political leadership in Sri Lanka accountable for the commitments made in Geneva in 2015.

A Failed State

The roots of Sri Lanka’s culture of violence and impunity lie in military offensives against youth from the majority Sinhala community in the 1970s and late 80s.  The “JVP (People’s Liberation Front) uprising” was a conflict in which 60,000 Sinhala youth are reported to have been killed and the JVP assassinated at least 30 MPs. State-sponsored death squads operated in the south of the island with impunity, many of them with ties to politicians who are still in power, in both main political parties. The Sri Lankan security forces committed atrocities against the majority Sinhala population during this period and then again in the ethnic conflict against Tamils. Many of the older generation police officers involved in brutal torture today against Tamils learned their tactics in the JVP time. Likewise, key military commanders from the Gajaba Regiment who allegedly violated international law in their conduct of the 2009 war, were also allegedly involved in the violations in the south in the late eighties. The failure to hold them accountable then and rewarding them, enabled more bloodshed. The failure to hold them accountable the second time and once again rewarding them, could yet have terrible consequences in the future.

Impunity Under the Current Government

That the current government has been unable to tackle impunity is evidenced by a litany of failures. In 2016 Sri Lanka sent a policeman who had run the most notorious torture site in Colombo as part of their delegation to the Convention Against Torture in Geneva. Despite uproar in the international media, the issue barely registered in Colombo and the policeman just had his contract renewed when he went home. When the all-important witness protection authority was established and contained alleged perpetrators, including one named in a UN report on torture, there was silence. To obtain preferential trading tariffs for the garment sector from the EU, the Government promised to reform its counter terrorism legislation; that hasn’t happened yet.

An alleged war criminal, Jagath Jayasuriya, was one of many rewarded with diplomatic posts abroad. Nobody protested and when the ITJP filed a universal jurisdiction case against him in 2017, he fled. Another alleged war criminal, Jagath Dias, was promoted to Chief of Army Staff in 2015 and there was little outrage. Likewise, when alleged war criminal, Shavendra Silva, was promoted to Adjutant General in 2017, ironically putting him in charge of the human rights division of the Army or when he received international sponsorship. Only when he was brazenly promoted to Chief of Army Staff, was there muted objection but nobody took to the streets of the capital to protest this affront to democracy.

Except for one murder trial underway, the LTTE commanders have also not been held accountable for their actions during the conflict. Most top leaders perished during the war but those who switched sides and became government paramilitaries, were funded and protected by the state. These are individuals alleged to have committed grave violations against all ethnic groups in Sri Lanka over decades but they have been given political posts in the name of “reconciliation”.

Security sector reform was interpreted to mean “right sizing” the army, not weeding out and prosecuting alleged torturers, rapists and war criminals.

A UN investigation highlighted the systematic sexual violence by the security forces against Tamil detainees. To address the issue the Sri Lankan President issued an extraordinarily ineffective edict to the Army telling soldiers not to commit offences but not actually mentioning sexual violence. This was classic box ticking but cited by many as compliance. It wasn’t long before Sri Lanka, of all countries, was honoured by the United Nations as a world leader in the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse. This despite its failure to hold its UN peacekeepers in Haiti criminally responsible for systematic child sexual abuse over three years.

The Deep State Never Went Away

Not surprisingly, the abductions, torture and sexual violence by the army and police have continued in much the same way as before but not so visibly.  The International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) documented 76 cases of illegal detention and torture from 2015-2017. These are credible cases supported by independent medical reports. Sixty percent of victims have already been accepted as refugees abroad despite the hostile environment.

Nevertheless, the denial is striking. Such abductions caused alarm under the Rajapaksa government; now they are assumed to be the work of organised crime not the State. Criminals don’t usually fingerprint (having access to and using biometric machines) or have access to previous “confessions” made in State detention. The violations, once called systematic and widespread on less evidence, were now viewed as the acts of a few rotten apples, and junior soldiers. Notwithstanding that senior officers were walking into purpose-built torture chambers and the network of actors (often in military uniform) remained extensive. The horrific sexual violence against men was questioned even though inside Sri Lanka these accounts are rarely documented for a number of reasons including stigma and the criminalisation of homosexuality.  Nobody cared that violations had been reported in the Tamil media and even to the police in some instances.

Empty Promises regarding Transitional Justice

The denial was and is political and a tragic mistake. Instead of denying the existence of the violations there should have been an awareness that this is what happens if impunity is allowed to flourish. The evidence could have been studied in the context of the last decade of similar violations in the country and concerted efforts made to dismantle the machinery responsible. Instead, Sri Lankan ministers went on a charm offensive abroad, convincing the international community that they were so committed to transitional justice and human rights that they could never tolerate such terrible crimes. The last few months have shown how hollow their commitment was; the champions of the transitional justice process have reversed course very fast as they eye forthcoming elections.

Human Rights

The signs were there all along but ignored. Human rights simply weren’t prioritised sufficiently by donors and diplomats. When the President violated the Constitution in October last year by trying to sack the Prime Minister there was international outrage at the notion that democratic institutions could be challenged. Parliament and the Judiciary moved swiftly to act. Where is that outrage over the failure to hold anyone accountable for the mass atrocities of the war and can the same institutions rise to addressing with the militarisation and securitisation of the state in which an entrenched impunity which will continue to flourish if unchallenged.

This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the South Asia @ LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.

Frances Harrison set up and runs the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) based out of London. For two decades she was a BBC Foreign Correspondent based in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Iran. She is the author of Still Counting the Dead, a book of survivors’ stories from the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka

Yasmin Sooka is the Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa. She is regarded as a leading human rights lawyer, activist and an international expert in the field of Transitional Justice, gender and international war crimes, following her work on investigating war crimes in Sri Lanka and her report on post-conflict sexual violence in Sri Lanka as the Executive Director of the ITJP.

Parliament: to allow or disallow dissolution?

By C.A.Chandraprema-February 7, 2019, 9:32 pm 

Prior to the promulgation of the 19th Amendment, the President’s power to dissolve Parliament had been stated in Article 70(1) of the Constitution. Under this provision, the President had the power to dissolve Parliament in the following circumstances.

(a) If a General Election has been held consequent to a dissolution of Parliament by the President, the President shall not thereafter dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of one year from the date of that General Election.

(b) Parliament may at any time by resolution – passed by a simple majority - request the President to dissolve Parliament.

(c) The president could not dissolve Parliament on the rejection of the Statement of Government Policy at the commencement of the very first session of Parliament after a General Election (but there was no restriction on dissolving Parliament if the Statement of Government Policy was rejected yet again.)

(d) If the President has not dissolved Parliament consequent to the rejection of the Appropriation Bill (budget), the President shall dissolve Parliament if Parliament rejects the next Appropriation Bill.

(e) Parliament cannot be dissolved by the President if the Speaker has entertained an impeachment motion against the President.

The provisions in the old Article 70(1) were what one could expect in democracy with a Parliamentary form of government. They were all in keeping with the parliamentary system which has gradually evolved over the centuries. The power of dissolution is an important tool to ensure that Parliament always represents the will of the people. It is also a tool that ensures loyalty to policies and political parties among elected MPs. If differences emerge within a ruling party or coalition, the only way in which stability can be restored is to go for a general election. The possibility of a dissolution is what keeps MPs, especially those in the government, from taking personality clashes and unimportant policy differences beyond a certain point. Splits take place only on important issues where reconciliation is virtually impossible.

Hence the power of dissolution is something that has gone hand in hand with the Parliamentary system. When the 19th Amendment was promulgated, Article 70(1) was amended to read as follows: "The President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament: Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour." It was very clear that the intention of the 19th Amendment was to make it impossible to dissolve Parliament whatever the circumstances. The change made to Article 70(1) was buttressed by Article 48(2) which was also introduced to the Constitution by the 19th Amendment. What article 48(2) stated was that if Parliament rejected the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passed a vote of no-confidence against the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers (but not Parliament) shall stand dissolved, and the President shall, unless he has dissolved Parliament in terms of Article 70, appoint a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet.

A Parliament that cannot be dissolved

So it was very clear that in terms of both Articles 70(1) and 48(2) as introduced by the 19th Amendment, Parliament cannot be dissolved even if the budget was defeated; government policy is defeated and the government is defeated in a vote on a no confidence motion not just once but even a hundred times. Under the 19th Amendment, Parliament can be dissolved before its term is up only if Parliament resolves by a two-thirds majority to recommend to the President to dissolve it. For a while there was some confusion due to the fact that the 19th Amendment had also introduced Article 33(2)(c) to the Constitution which read as follows: "In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament."

The term ‘in addition’ to the powers conferred on the President by the Constitution or any other written law was taken to mean that the power conferred by Article 33(2)(c) was in addition to the provisions of Article 70(1) and that therefore under Article 33(2)(c) the President had unfettered power to dissolve Parliament despite anything stated in Article 70(1). However what the Supreme Court decided in the FR application filed by R. Sampanthan et al against the dissolution of Parliament and the summoning of a general election was as follows:

"… although Article 33(2)(c) states that the President has the power to summon, dissolve and prorogue Parliament, Article 33 (2) (c) does not state how that power is to be exercised or state the manner in which the President is entitled to exercise that power. In the absence of any words in Article 33 (2) (c) which describe the manner in which the President is entitled to exercise the power of summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament, the Court must look at the other provisions of the Constitution for guidance to ascertain how the power referred to in Article 33 (2) (c) may be lawfully exercised by the President …When that is done, it is seen that the only provision in the Constitution which sets out the manner in which Parliament may be summoned, prorogued or dissolved by the President is Article 70 …"

When the original 19th Amendment Bill was scrutinised by the Supreme Court in 2015, it struck down all provisions that sought to restrict the powers of the President on the grounds that such a change would require approval at a referendum. So, the President after the 19th Amendment is very much the same as the presidential powers that existed before it. The only reduction in power that passed the SC was this change made to article 70(1). Legal experts are of the opinion that the only reason why the change made to Article 70(1) got past the SC was because of the insertion of new Article 33(2)(c) through the 19th Amendment which seemed to restore to the President the power that he was losing through the change made to Article 70(1). Many lawyers are completely convinced that the only purpose of Article 33(2)(c) was to mislead the judiciary.

There are other instances where this kind of shuffling around of powers has taken place through the 19th Amendment. For example, the new Article 43(2), introduced to the Constitution through the 19th Amendment, sought to make it mandatory for the President to consult the Prime Minister when appointing MPs as Ministers. If this had been a standalone provision that would have resulted in an actual reduction of the President’s powers. But the Supreme Court allowed this to pass without requiring a referendum because the very next provision in the Constitution Article 43(3) restores to the President the power that was taken away by Article 43(2) by stating that "the President may at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers." It is no surprise, therefore, that so many people including apparently the Supreme Court (back in 2015) thought that Article 33(2)(c) was meant to restore to the President the power that had been taken away by the change made to Article 70(1). However, it later turned out that Article 33(2)(c) was just the ‘driving licence’ and that the ‘road rules’ were contained in Article 70(1).

Doing and undoing in rapid succession

Be that as it may, the 19th Amendment was ‘signed into law in April 2015. One would think that when an amendment is made to a constitution, it has been well thought out and meant to last decades of not centuries. Thus, the change made to Article 70(1) by the 19th Amendment should have been meant to last. However, the proposed draft constitution which was tabled in the Constitutional Assembly last month has the following provision.

"106. (1) The President may by Proclamation, summon Parliament: (2) The President may dissolve Parliament if Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour. (3) In the first two years of the Parliament, in the event that the government is unable to secure the passage of an annual Appropriation Bill after three attempts, the President shall dissolve Parliament. (4) After the first two years of the Parliament, in the event that the government is unable to secure the passage of an annual Appropriation Bill after two attempts, the President shall dissolve Parliament."

Even though dissolution of Parliament has been completely banned by the 19th Amendment even if he budget is defeated not once but even a hundred times, we see from Clause 106 of the draft constitution that the President’s power to dissolve Parliament in the event of a defeat of a vote on the budget has been reintroduced. The provisions in the pre-19th Amendment Constitution, which allowed for dissolution in the event of a defeat of the government at a vote of no confidence or a vote on the statement of government policy, has been dropped, but dissolution upon the rejection of the budget has been reintroduced. Those who drafted the 19th Amendment are the same people who drafted the proposed draft constitution as well. Then why this important difference? What were they thinking when they drafted the 19th Amendment?

There cannot be any such thing as a Parliament that cannot be dissolved under any circumstances – but that is what we have today. Of all the countries that have Parliaments in the world only Norway has a Parliament that cannot be dissolved for any reason until its five-year term is up but in that country, the government always continues in power until the King gives them permission to leave and Parliament never defeats the budget as a matter of custom. With such practices in place Norway can afford to have a Parliament that cannot be dissolved because there is no need to actually dissolve that Parliament, and there is no need in that country even to have a clear majority in Parliament to form and carry on a government. No ordinary nation can afford to have a Parliament that cannot be dissolved but that is what the 19th Amendment saddled us with.

The drafters of the 19th Amendment seem to have belatedly realized the mistake they made by making it impossible to dissolve Parliament even in the event of the defeat of the budget and that is why they have sought to reintroduce in the proposed draft constitution provision for dissolving Parliament if the budget is rejected two or three times. Even though the proposed draft constitution has provisions to correct the mistake made in the 19th Amendment, it has not been passed and the mistake is still law with no possibility of the draft constitution ever being passed into law. Thus we are sitting on a constitutional time bomb.

In order to picture what can go wrong, we have to go back to the year 2001 when President Chandrika Kumaratunga suddenly lost her Parliamentary majority due to defections from her party. At the time, she had more than four full years remaining from her term. The Parliament which had been elected in the year 2000 had more than five years of its term remaining. With the breakaway, the President was staring at the certainty of defeat at the budget vote which was due in a few months in 2001. So, she dissolved Parliament and held a general election in December 2001 and the UNP came into power. That is what corrected the disequilibrium that had taken place in the political system. If the 19th Amendment had been operational at that time, CBK would not have been able to dissolve Parliament and she would have had to sit helplessly while her minority government presented the budget and got defeated.

When defections from the governing party to the opposition takes place as happened in 2001, that is due to the collapse of public confidence in the government. In such circumstances, if the budget is defeated, the only rational course of action will be to call fresh elections. But what will happen under the 19th Amendment is that if the vote on the budget is defeated, since Parliament cannot be dissolved, the President will be compelled to form a new government. But with whom can he or she form a government? In 2001, government MPs were running away from Chandrika. They were fleeing because they did not want to be associated with her as that would have compromised their own political futures. In such circumstances, what is the possibility that a sitting President will be able to find enough MPs to form a government?

Will 19A change political dynamics?

Some may think that because Parliament cannot be dissolved under the 19th Amendment, the political dynamics may change and that there may be MPs who will be willing to form governments even with unpopular Presidents. That possibility does exist because in every political party there are MPs who fail to become ministers and if the position offered is right and there is enough time to enjoy the position say a year or two at least, there may be takers for ministerial positions offered even by the most unpopular President. MPs who accept office in such circumstances will do so with a view to enjoying the perks of office for a limited period and then fading away. That, however, is not how the vast majority of politicians think. After getting elected to Parliament every politician wants to continue there as long as possible and for the most part, he or she will think of the long term rather than the short term. That is the reason why so many UPFA politicians opted to remain with Mahinda Rajapaksa in the opposition and even face unprecedented persecution instead of accepting ministerial positions in the so called national government that was formed in 2015. Subsequent events have shown that the MPs who stood by Mahinda were right to do so because they have a future whereas the others who thought of the short term are now in dire straits.

After seeing the fate of the UPFA politicians who joined the yahapalana government in 2015, will any politician in a future government have the appetite to accept office for an year or two or even three or four years in an unpopular government? Furthermore, after a sitting President’s party has lost its majority in Parliament, and been defeated at a vote on the budget and probably even at a vote on a no confidence motion, how many MPs will want to join such a President to form a government for the remaining period of that Parliament? This is why there are no Parliaments that cannot be dissolved. In that respect, the proposed draft constitution has done the right thing by making provision to restore the President’s ability to dissolve parliament at least when it becomes clear that the incumbent government cannot get a budget passed no matter how hard they try. The usual parliamentary tradition is to allow for dissolution if a budget is defeated, the statement of government policy is defeated or if the government loses a vote of no confidence.

The latter two instances were also provided for in our Constitution as it stood before the 19th Amendment, but they are missing from the proposed draft constitution. While the rejection of a statement of government policy or defeat at a vote of no confidence is a clear indication that the government does not command a majority in Parliament, the real crunch with a stoppage of government functions comes if the government cannot get a budget passed. So, allowing for dissolution at least at this stage is vitally important. But at this moment, what we have is a Constitution, under which Parliament cannot be dissolved under any circumstances not even if the budget is rejected a hundred times. What were the drafters of the 19th Amendment sitting on when they introduced such a provision into the Constitution?

President strident and adamant

President Maithripala Sirisena has been talking quite extensively about reintroducing capital punishment, upon arriving after an official visit from the Philippines, which has adopted drastic measures to combat the menace. There appears to be some kind of a public outcry in predominantly-Buddhist Sri Lanka to the idea of lifting the 43-year-old moratorium on capital punishment – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

 Saturday, 9 February 2019


President Maithripala Sirisena sounds adamant and seems to have taken a couple of strides towards making capital punishment law in the country. He has been talking quite extensively about reintroducing capital punishment. Is this the right way forward? At least is it the correct way of arriving at critical and important decisions? In spasms?

Upon arriving after an official visit from another country which has adopted drastic measures to combat the menace, the President is on high octane, an ardent adherent now of the splashy Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the man who led thousands of extrajudicial killings in that country. There appears to be some kind of a public outcry in the predominantly Buddhist country to the idea of lifting the 43-year-old moratorium on capital punishment. In the same breath it must be stated drug related crime is also on the rise.

Shootings, blood meandering over macadamised asphalts, dead bodies lying still are no longer scenes exclusive to South America. It’s becoming very common in Sri Lanka as well. Funerals of youth, extremely sad events. Both victims of abuse and victims of gang violence. Sights of bereaved inconsolably sobbing, quite unbearable. Families often unaware of victims’ involvement in the nefarious activity until the dreaded knock on the door or phone call.

The idea of capital punishment had come up for national discourse many times before but there was no political will to go through with it. Are we getting ready for another stint of pure, unalloyed drama in technologically-loaded, ambience-laden, colourfully-lit theatres to appease constituencies in an election year or is it genuine, sincere outpouring against the devastation drugs have caused in contemporary Sri Lanka? An action is certainly decided by its intention.

At present lack of clarity looms and ambiguity rules. It’s just the emperor strutting and fretting like an uncertain protagonist, justifiably consumed. Sputtering incoherently as if in a quandary-laden soliloquy usually captured in medieval thespian art.

Sarcophagus politics, such a potent weapon for Sri Lankan politics and politicians. They use it quite regularly and to good effect too with meticulous usage of calculus. Their wizardry and mastery second to none. Would exhume a body or preserve a fugitive languishing within or peregrinating the world indefinitely until dominion and some semblance of immunity is achieved. This is the newly-visible classic of Sri Lankan politics, quite antithetical to all norms of decency and democracy.

Public cynicism on the issue contagious. It was Martin Luther King who famously said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” If by way of reintroducing capital punishment some political mileage or any other political benefit is sought, let’s put a stop right away. On the contrary if it’s genuine, let’s do it with courage and conviction. What’s at stake are human lives.

Sri Lanka last executed a prisoner in 1976. At the time, prisoners were hanged. The media speculates if Presidential decree is granted, Sri Lanka will start executing prisoners with drug trafficking convictions who are on death row. Local media estimates there are just under 1,500 people in prison facing face death sentences and 48 of them have been convicted of drug offences. Only 18 of those convicted of death penalty eligible drug offences are on death row because the remaining 30 have appealed their sentences.

A March 2018 report by Harm Reduction International says: «There are at least 33 countries and territories that prescribe the death penalty for drug offences in law.  Capital punishment is the practice of executing individuals as punishment for a specific crime after a proper legal trial. The key is to have a free and fair trial. China executes the most people per year overall, with an estimated figure of 1,718 in 2008. Amnesty International also states that in 2008 Iran executed at least 346 people, the USA 111, Saudi Arabia 102 and Pakistan 36.

Sale of drugs in Saudi Arabia, a predominantly Muslim country, almost always results in the death penalty. The judicial system is not inclined to make exceptions. Alcohol use too is illegal there. Possession or use of alcohol can be punished by public flogging, fines, and lengthy imprisonment.  In Vietnam and Thailand where there is a strong Buddhist tradition, drug crimes are taken very seriously. If you are arrested with more than 1.3 pounds of heroin in Vietnam, you will automatically be executed. In Thailand, those trafficking narcotics may be put to death and drug users are frequently sentenced to mandatory rehab. The Philippines, a Christian country all over the news at present, has initiated a rather strong response with graphic consequences.

Donald Trump too has been upping the rhetoric. “We’re wasting our time if we don’t get tough with drug dealers, and that toughness includes the death penalty,” said Trump in typically combative style. He also added: “The ultimate penalty has to be the death penalty. Maybe our country is not ready for that, it’s possible, it’s possible.” Trump said “personally I can’t understand that” about those opposed to such drastic measures.

The time is most opportune to take the right decision. A bipartisan approach is the best. It’s precious human lives we are talking about.

Parliament

‘Suspended duty free permits scheme will continue’

Camelia Nathaniel and Disna Mudalige-Saturday, February 9, 2019

Duty free permits of state sector employees has not been abolished, but temporarily suspended, Finance State Minister Eran Wickramaratne said

He said the issue would be resolved within three months. He was responding to a question raised by JVP MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake on January 25 regarding the plight of state officers who were issued duty free permits but were unable to utilise this facility as it was suspended abruptly. “Some officers had even opened Letters of Credit and were halfway through the process, while some had sold their previous vehicles and are now in a dilemma, without a vehicle.Hence, has the issue of such duty free permits been stopped or is there any measure the government intends to take regarding the plight of these state officers?” Dissanayake said.

Minister Wickramaratne said it was a practical measure that was taken to preserve foreign reserves during that period. “We have to pay back a huge amount in loans during the first quarter of this year and this measure was taken for us to better manage these commitments. However, we intend to grant permission to those who have already opened letters of credit to import these vehicles very soon. I must reaffirm that these permits have not been stopped, but only temporarily suspended.

We will allow everyone with duty free permits to import vehicles, including those who already have permits, those who have opened LCs and those scheduled to receive permits in the future. Some who had opened LCs and paid the money were perhaps unaware that the vehicle importing companies generally collect all the LCs and open one LC. Hence, I too feel that it would have been better if we could have resolved this issue differently. However, this had to be done for the sake of the country.”
Wickramaratne assured that within the next three months this issue would be resolved and everyone who has been issued a duty free permit would be able to import their vehicles.

---

No diplomatic passport holder among Dubai arrests - Minister

Media reports that a Sri Lankan diplomatic passport holder was arrested in Dubai along with underworld drug kingpin Makandure Madush were not true, Internal and Home Affairs and Provincial Councils and Local Government State Minister J.C Alwathuwala said.

Alawathuwala responding to a question by UPFA MP Udaya Gammanpila said such reports most probably could be a part of a mud-slinging campaign.

Gammanpila referring to a news report published in the Dubai based ‘Khaleej Times’ requested the Government to reveal the identity of the alleged Sri Lankan diplomatic passport holder.

Leader of the House, Minister Lakshman Kiriella said investigations were still being carried out regarding the incident. “How can I say anything without confirmation? We have yet to confirm the fact that you mentioned,” he replied.

At this point State Minister Alawathuwala said that the reports were not true. “There is nothing like that.The Immigration and Emigration Department comes under our Ministry.

I asked the Controller General of the Department about this and he informed me that they have not received information about a diplomatic passport holder involved in the said incident.

This can be a mudslinging campaign. We do not have any information to confirm such reports so far,” he added.

Diplomatic passports are issued to VVIPs, MPs and Persons posted to prescribed positions at Sri Lankan Missions.

---

‘Media can be allowed to report COPE sittings’

If the media is allowed to observe the COPE committee sittings when they summon various department officials for investigation, then the public will know what is happening and even those who attend and do not attend these meetings would be revealed, JVP MP Sunil Handunnetti said in Parliament yesterday.

 

In response, Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella said there is provision to admit outsiders with the Speaker’s approval. “The Speaker can invite the media to these committee sittings.I inquired about this from several former General Secretaries and it was confirmed that these committees can invite outsiders to its sittings with the approval of the Speaker.”

MP Handunnetti said it was good if measures could be taken to invite the media to these meetings from next week if possible.“If we expect to have state institutions function without corruption and fraud, that endeavour would be 80% complete if we allow the media to observe these sittings and report on it.

Therefore I make an earnest request to the Leader of the House to look into it.” Handunetti said.

---

‘No harm to Sinharaja in path renovation’

The road work leading to the Sinharaja forest will be carried out as scheduled, and there is no harm caused to the forest, Mahaweli Development and Environment State Minister Ajith Mannapperuma said.

Responding to JVP MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake, he said the road leading to the Sinharaja forest from the Ratnapura, Kudawa, Doranegala entry is being repaired due to it being in a terrible state, but it is only for those entering the forest by foot and not for vehicular traffic. “There are two entrances to the Sinharaja forest, one from Ratnapura, Kudawa, Doranegala and the other from Matara, Pitadeniya. For those entering from the Ratnapura, Kudawa, Doranegala entrance, they should use a 1600 meter path to enter the forest.The issue raised is this 1600 meter path. This path was used by timber thieves to transport tree trunks and is located outside the forest. In 2004, this path of around four feet width was renovated constructing bridges and culverts and in difficult spots, concrete stones were laid and constructed. From then to date, this road had been dilapidated due to the heavy rains in the area and was in an unusable state. Many locals and tourists including schoolchildren use this path when they visit the Sinharaja forest. In fact, there have been instances where tourists have broken their limbs by falling into deep ruts on the road. Therefore, action was taken to renovate this road, but it would not be widened as alleged. The road is being renovated by adding concrete in areas that are most vulnerable to erosion and stone barriers are being constructed to prevent the road from getting washed away.”

He explained that these stone barriers were not constructed using cement, but these were barriers made with stones compressed into metal cages.The minister noted that this ten foot wide road was not expanded, but it was only repaired using the minimum amount of machinery and trees were not cut at any point during this repair. He denied allegations that new constructions were being done within the forest on the Kudawa path.

He also noted that as alleged, no new constructions were carried out on this road but there was no legal restriction according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance or the National Environment Act that bans any construction of this road.

“Moreover, no section of this forest has been declared a highly protected area.The Wildlife Protection Authority has not stated that by the construction of this road that it would cause any harm to the people of the area or schoolchildren. They have only stated that this road is not a public road and it would be a great convenience to the locals and foreigners visiting the Sinharaja forest.There is nothing illegal being done by the renovation of this road way. No vehicular traffic is allowed on this road and is used exclusively for those visiting the Sinharaja forest. Hence, media reports claiming that this road way damages the forest is baseless and untrue.”

Minister Mannaperuma noted that so far 1,200 hectares in the vicinity of the Sinharaja forest has been acquired in accordance with Cabinet paper PS/CP/26/2004.

He said the cabinet paper had specified 2,488 hectares to be acquired but when it was surveyed the amount was determined to be 5,383 hectares. Currently while 1,200 hectares have been acquired, they hope to acquire at least 80% of the remaining land extent within the next six months with the mediation of the President as the Environment Minister and the committee appointed by him.

He said the cost of construction of the road is Rs. 45.8 million and as it is not within the demarcations of the world heritage area declared by UNESCO, there is no need to obtain approval for the renovation of the road. “They need to be notified only if a construction is carried out within the world heritage area which is 1.5 km inside the main gate. However, we do have plans to construct a library and observation centre under World Bank funding.

This too is not within the forest, but at the entrance to the forest near the ticket counter.”
He was responding to a question posed by JVP MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake under Standing Order 27/2 in parliament yesterday.

Dissanayake said while many other countries are preserving their forests with the aim of controlling global warming, Sri Lanka is trying to destroy the forests it already has.

He noted that during the Rajapaksa regime they had made plans in 2013 to construct a road through the Sinharaja forest from Kalawana, Kudawa entrance to the Deniyaya, Pitadeniya entrance, alleging that this was the first step in that direction.

Signs of Resistance

Sagi_Thilipkumar_Resistance_2.JPG

“When memory dies a people die. But what if we make up false memories? That’s worse, that’s murder.”


– Ambalavaner Sivanandan, in When Memory Dies.

by Sagi Thilipkumar

08 February 2019

The history of the Tamil people in the island of Sri Lanka after Western colonisation is a history of oppression by the chauvinist Sinhala-Buddhist state. Because of strength and resilience, the Tamil people acted against this oppression with resistance. This goes from peaceful protest for equal rights to a militant fight for a separate state. Tens of thousands of Tamil civilians and combatants lost their lives throughout the armed conflict.

Even remembering turns into a form of resistance

“For the survivors of human rights violations, mass atrocities and political violence the past is always present.”

But for the Tamil people in the North-East of Sri Lanka, even remembrance became a form of resistance.


Even small efforts of commemorating the past are suppressed and restricted by the Sinhala state and security forces.


This project “Signs of Resistance” wants to show the strength and resilience of the Tamil people, who continue to resist the oppressive Sinhala-Buddhist state by remembering their loved ones, by rebuilding destroyed memorials, by remembering the Tamil liberation movement and the armed struggle - even if discussing or remembering the LTTE in a positive way is strictly prohibited in Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan state and army built huge victory monuments in many parts of the Tamil homeland. For many victims in the Tamil community, these monuments remind them of their trauma and continuing subjugation. The heroisation of an army, that deliberately killed more than 70.000 Tamil civilians in the last few months of the armed conflict (as many as 145.000 are still unaccounted for) and is notoriously known for its horrendous use of systematic sexual abuse and violence against Tamil civilians and captives, is just another disgusting form of reminding the Tamil people of their defeat.

From the North to the East

The first 7 photographs in the series were captured at the rebuilt Maaveerar Thuyilum Illams (Cemetery for fallen LTTE cadres) in Kanagapuram, Kilinochchi and Vakarai, between Trincomalee and Batticaloa. They were destroyed during and shortly after the armed conflict. At the recent Maaveerar Naal (annual Remembrance Day for the fallen cadres) tens of thousands attended the commemoration event despite intimidation and restriction by the Sri Lankan security forces - a clear sign that the Sri Lankan state can’t oppress the need of the Tamil people to remember and commemorate their people and their fighters.

The next 3 photographs were taken at Theeruvil in the very North of Jaffna. This is only one example of a former Tamil memorial statue that was destroyed by the Sri Lankan state.


The last photographs were taken at the University of Jaffna. The Tamil students are often a symbol of resistance, and a lot of the struggle had its roots in these universities across Tamil Eelam, where young Tamil minds wanted to change the status quo.

The Tamil resistance goes on.

A photoessay by Sagi Thilipkumar. See more here.

Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission responds to President's allegations

Fri, Feb 8, 2019, 08:31 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Feb 08, Colombo: The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) responding to the statement made by President Maithripala Sirisena in parliament on Wednesday (06) said the Commission is disheartened and discouraged by the unjust criticism of the commission's work by the President.

In a letter to the President, the Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission expressing deep concern over the President's remarks said the Commission appreciates any just critique for the betterment of the country.

"Not only are we disheartened by the unjust criticism but are also discouraged. We appreciate any just critique and consider it to be a step to further growth and betterment, which we believe will serve the country better," the letter said.

The President told parliament that the HRCSL was delaying issuing the mandatory clearance certificates to Sri Lankan soldiers chosen to participate in United Nations Peace Keeping missions and the deaths of two Sri Lankan UN peacekeepers in Mali could have been avoided if the HRCSL had expedited reinforcements to Mali for the Sri Lanka army to carry out a turnaround of troops.

Clarifying the President's allegation, HRCSL said it is absolutely incorrect to state that bringing back the Sri Lankan troops from Mali was delayed because of delays on the part of the Human Rights Commissions and holding the HRCSL responsible for the loss of the lives of those officers caused grave dismay.

Following is the full text of the letter to the President:
His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena
President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Residence
Paget Road Colombo 07
Your Excellency,

Re: His Excellency the President�s Statement in the Parliament about the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

We have been made aware of Your Excellency's statement in the parliament on 06 February 2019, through media reports and relevant video recordings. We observed that You Excellency mentioned the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka among others. The Commission expresses its deep concern about the said statement and wishes to present to you the correct facts regarding the matter.

1. Regarding the deployment of the Special Task Force to Angunakolapelessa Prison

One of the main functions of the Commission is to monitor the welfare of detainees and protect their rights according to the recognized laws. As per Article 28 (2) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996, the Commission has been granted the power to enter and monitor any place of detention, police station or prison. Inquiring into the safety of detainees, their basic needs, sanitary facilities, rehabilitation process is included in monitoring places of detention. Guidelines recognized by national and international laws are used for such monitoring of places of detention.

While carrying out this mandate, the Commission must properly inquire into and investigate the complaints of detainees. Detainees and their family members have lodged complaints to the Commission regarding the recent deployment of the Special Task Force and various other issues stemming from the deployment, it is the duty of the Commission to clarify matters related to such issues. Therefore, the Commission's Inquiries and Investigations Division sent a letter to the Commanding Officer of the Special Task Force requesting information regarding the matter. The Commanding Officer has given an explanation as a reply to that letter. We must remind ourselves of the fact that many detainees have a reasonable fear of the deployment of external armed officers due to the violent series of events that took place in 2012 resulting in the murder of 27 detainees.

Therefore, we would like to point out that in this instance, the Commission has undertaken its lawful mandate in a fair manner.

It is well recognized that it is essential that an independent commission protects the rights of all groups of citizens in the country. This includes even groups of people who have been marginalized and rejected from society, since the fundamental mark of a democratic civilized society is guaranteeing humanity. Thus, it is a misconception to interpret the Commission presenting facts regarding the rights of prisoners and the types of punishments, in accordance with human rights law, as an attempt by the Commission to protect criminals. Considering the principle "Prisoners are Human Beings" as well as laws protecting the rights of prisoners, we hope Your Excellency too agrees that such misconceptions are unfair.

2. The Human Rights Commission and the vetting process

We emphasize that it is due to the independence of the Commission and the trust placed in the Commission, in 2016 the United Nations designated the Human Rights Commission to vet our military and police officers for deployment to UN Peacekeeping Missions. We consider the fact that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is the only national institution selected to undertake the vetting process, amongst all countries that supply troops for peacekeeping missions, as a triumph for Sri Lanka. Therefore, we strongly consider that it is our duty to undertake the vetting process with integrity and professionalism.

We inform Your Excellency with great respect that it is absolutely incorrect to state that bringing back the Sri Lankan troops from Mali was delayed because of delays on the part of the Human Rights Commissions. The vetting process was suspended until a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was drafted, which was a unanimous decision made by all stakeholders (the military, the police, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the United Nations). This decision was taken at a roundtable discussion held in June 2018 between the above mentioned parties in Colombo to solve a multitude of issues during the initial stages of the vetting process, After the said SOP was agreed upon by all the parties, United Nations Department of Peace Operations informed that the vetting process can be resumed from 20 December 2018. Accordingly, the Commission began the vetting process from that day. Therefore, we strongly disagree that the vetting process suffered setbacks due to any delays or carelessness on the part of the Commission.

We strongly condemn the attack and violence targeted at Peacekeeping troops who undertake a great service in guaranteeing the peace of a country. We consider that to be a crime against humanity. We expressed our condolences to the Commander of the Army regarding the loss of two members of our Peacekeeping mission. Responsibility for these murders clearly are borne by the armed group [that carried out the attack]. We state with regret that holding the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka responsible for the loss of the lives of those officers caused grave dismay.

In the past three years, we have worked tirelessly to build respect for and trust in the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. As a result of that the Human Rights Commission was awarded international recognition in 2018 by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). We know that it is the understanding of all reasonable people that this was an esteemed honor not only for the Commission but also for our country. We are also aware that it is a reason for elevating the recognition Sri Lanka gains from international organizations.

Not only are we disheartened by the unjust criticism but are also discouraged. We appreciate any just critique and consider it to be a step to further growth and betterment, which we believe will serve the country better. We greatly appreciate Your Excellency's future cooperation. Chairperson Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.

We greatly appreciate Your Excellency�s future cooperation.
Chairperson

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

10 women including President’s PC Member arrested from gambling den

February 8, 2019 by

Dammika Priyadarshanie, a Pradeshiya Sabha Member of the UPFA lead by Mr Maithripala Sirisena has been arrested at Beruwala for maintaining a gambling den in her residence. Nine other women too have been arrested with her. There had been three men among the group that has been arrested.

They were arrested by Beruwala Police yesterday (7th) night, taken before Kalutara Magistrates Court and were released on bail.

The gambling den had been maintained in the house for a considerable period and the public is aware of it say residence.

Giving nomination to the woman whose anti-social activities is known to be elected as a Member of the UPFA lead by President Maithripala Sirisena is a question about his virtuousness he talks about so often.

House erupts over Speaker’s criticism of President

* Karu reiterates his right to defend CC

By Saman Indrajith-February 7, 2019, 10:49 pm 

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya and the UPFA clashed, in parliament, yesterday, over the former’s criticism of President Maithripala Sirisena’s statement in the House, the previous day.

President Sirisena lambasted the Constitutional Council headed by Speaker Jayasuriya as well as the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka over handling of judges appointment and STF deployment at Angunakolapalessa state-of-the prison as well as inordinate delay in clearing of peacekeepers bound for overseas UN missions.

Parliament sittings were suspended for about 35 minutes, yesterday, morning following protests by UPFA MPs against the Speaker for finding fault with President Sirisena. Trouble erupted when the Speaker responded to the President’s allegations.

Condemning the Speaker’s statement, UPFA MPs demanded a debate on the activities of the Constitutional Council.

The Speaker ruled out an immediate debate, prompting some opposition MPs to shout at him. They called his impartiality into question.

Leader of the House, Public Enterprise, Kandyan Heritage and Kandy Development Minister Lakshman Kiriella said that though their demand for a debate on Thursday couldn’t be granted, it could take place later.

Chief Opposition Whip Mahinda Amaraweera said that the Opposition would not accept the Speaker’s statement on the President. There were serious issues as regards the Constitutional Council’s role in appointing judges to the courts, the MP said.

Speaker Jayasuriya: We cannot allow a debate on this matter, today. The President made a statement and as the Chairman of the Constitutional Council, I, too, have to make a clarification. That is my right. I exercised my right. Now, you cannot debate it. The Leader of the House agreed to give a date for the debate.

Chief Opposition Whip Mahinda Amaraweera: I am not making allegations against courts. You mentioned that appointments could not be made only on the basis of seniority. If there are other criteria they must be named. There is shortage of judges. If the Constitutional Council keeps rejecting nominations, then the problem will aggravate.

In the same way. we cannot agree with the conduct of the Human Rights Commission. Give us an opportunity to express our views."

Leader of the House Minister Kiriella: We cannot give a debate on the Constitutional Council, today. We are ready to give a date in the next sitting week. We said so at the party leaders’ meeting. If the Opposition acts in this manner we will never give them a debate.

Speaker Jayasuriya: We cannot debate it, today.

MP Dinesh Gunawardena: You criticised the President and that cannot be permitted.

Speaker Jayasuriya: I made my statement in the capacity of Chairman of the Constitutional Council. I can do that.

MP Bandula Gunawardena: You misled the courts, claiming that you had a majority in Parliament but where is it?

MP Chandima Weerakkody: The Speaker acts like a dictator.

Leader of the House: They, too, voted for the appointment of Constitutional Council.

MP Dinesh Gunawardena: The government, yesterday, said at the party leaders’ meeting that it would suspend the Standing Orders and take up the motion of forming national government. Now you say you are not doing it.

Minister Kiriella: I presented my opinions to the Prime Minister and informed him of the matters taken up at the party leaders’ meeting. The Prime Minister then told me that there was no need for suspending Standing Orders to debate it and we could postpone the matter till the next sitting week.

MP Bandula Gunawardena: You made a statement on the President of this country. We too need to speak.

Following uproar of MPs the Speaker suspended the sittings and called a party leaders’ meeting.

Ridiculous National Government

Since the TNA is not a part of the Government, the Government might collapse anytime

2019-02-08

Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella was frank when he said on Wednesday that they were going to form a National Government under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in order to increase the number of Ministers of the Cabinet from 30 to 48.
In a way, he had been compelled to tell the truth finally to the country after attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the people with regard to the purpose of the National Government, which the Government was attempting to form.

Earlier leaders of the Government were claiming that the Government wanted to form a National Government with Parliament members of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) with a view to having a stable Government. It was not clear whether there were SLFP members of Parliament who at the time were willing to join the Government.
However, the whole country knew that the move to form a National Government was a ploy to increase the number of Ministers and the interesting part of the scenario was that the Government members also knew that everybody knew what their intention was.
Yet, they continued to pretend that they were unaware that people were aware of their intention and kept on talking about stabilizing of the Government. 

Attempting to do what people do not like, while pretending not to know that others know your intention is the best kind of shamelessness. Nevertheless, the best way to do what others do not like is also pretending not to know that others know 
your intention.
However, the Government later realized that their pretention is of no use and thus Minister Kiriella shifted his tone and admitted that they were to form a National Government in order to puff up the size of the Cabinet.
Kiriella handed over a motion to the Secretary-General of Parliament last Friday to form a National Government with 48 Cabinet Ministers. 

The motion was required under the 19th Amendment an Article of which says that Parliament will decide the number of Ministers under a National Government.  Later, the leaders of the Government argued that they had formed a National Government with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), which has only one member in Parliament and a motion was  presented in the House to increase the number of Ministers to 48.
It is a well-known fact that the Government is not as stable as it was before October 26 last year as the members of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) withdrew from the United National Front (UNF) led National Government on that day. 
After the Constitutional coup launched by President Maithripala Sirisena was defeated, the UNF-led Government was reinstituted on December 16, but as a minority Government with the outside support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA).
Since the TNA is not a part of the Government, the Government might collapse anytime. 
Therefore, attempts by the leaders of the UNF to form a coalition Government with the help of members of other parties are logical. Yet, here what the Government was attempting to do was just to declare a National Government formed in association with a single member of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), who is already in the Government.

That coalition does not provide any strength or stability to the Government afresh, but only clears the way for the Government to increase the number of Ministers.
It is not clear whether forming a National Government by the UNF with Batticaloa District MP Seyed Ali Zahir Moulana, the only SLMC MP is legally valid.
There are another six SLMC members including the party leader Rauff Hakeem, who had been returned to Parliament as members of the UNP/UNF and not considered in the House as those of the SLMC.
However, Mr Hakeem can decide the fate of the Parliament membership of Moulana any time. Then, can Moulana be considered as a member of a separate party?
There is another issue in term of ethics as well. The Government plans to form the National Government coalescing with a single member party with the intention of increasing the number of Ministers by 18. (from 30 to 48). Isn’t it outrageous?
Limiting the number of Cabinet Ministers to 30 was a major promise by the UNF during the last Presidential and Parliament Elections. 
Nevertheless, the UNF Government instituted by President Sirisena upon his assumption of office in January 2015 hoodwinked the country in this regard by intruding a concept of National Government to the Constitution.

An Article had been introduced to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted in April 2015 providing for a 30 Member Cabinet. But another Article that made provision for a National Government with any number of Ministers, as approved by Parliament, followed it. 
The National Government has been defined by the 19th Amendment as a Government formed by the political party that has obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament with other parties.
It is an obvious fact that one or the other party would obtain the highest number of seats in Parliament after any General Election.
And that means any party can get the support of smaller parties to form the so-called National Government and increase the number of Ministers. This negates the very purpose of the previous Article of the Constitution.
And it is also an obvious fact that any future Government would be a National Government which would have more than 30 Ministers. 
There might be rare cases where the National Government thus formed would not be able to pass a resolution in Parliament to inflate the Cabinet beyond the 30 member limit due to lack of an absolute majority in Parliament.

The current goverment is also in such a predicament
There must be a nationally important reason for the political parties to form a National Government.
If in fact there is such a reason the parties joining the main party to form a National Government should not expect portfolios.
If the main party is so magnanimous, it can share the 30 portfolios with other parties that come forward to form the Coalition Government.
If a smaller party would not join the main party without portfolios in return, that is nothing but a bribe at the expense of the taxpayers. 
Here the very Constitution, presuming (In fact knowing well) that no party would join another party to form a Government without such a bribe, has legitimized that bribe.

"Kiriella handed over a motion to the Secretary-General of Parliament last Friday to form a National Government with 48 Cabinet Ministers"

An ironic situation has now arisen in the country with respect to the appointing of a large number of Ministers.  On the one hand, the UNF led Government without having the moral right to increase the number of ministers in the light of its promise to the people in 2015 is trying to do so.
On the other, the two factions of the UPFA led by President Sirisena and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa do not have the moral right to criticize the Government now for puffing up Ministerial Portfolios after having a jumbo Cabinet, with more than 60 Ministers during their Government, before 2015.
Everyone must be reminded that some of those now with the former President had crossed over to the UNP protesting against the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government’s move to limit the Cabinet to 20, under the Parivasa Aandu agreement with the JVP, in 2001.
Yet, it is also ironic that the unethical move by the current Government could be stopped only with that immoral opposition by the UPFA.
The whole world knows that there is no need for a large Cabinet and the Government is hell-bent in increasing the portfolios just to satisfy its MPs by providing them with an opportunity to plunder the public coffers by way of perks and privileges.

There had been Cabinets in the past with less than 20 Ministers. According to a story published on August 20, 1961, in the now-defunct Rividina, a Sinhala weekly which had a high circulation then, the Cabinet consisted of only 12 Ministers.  
Some might argue that the population has increased several fold since 1961 justifying the larger Cabinets of Ministers since 
the eighties. 
But the population has nothing to do with the number of Ministers. It is the subjects that have to be handled that matter, when it comes to the size of the Cabinet.