Nearly two years into office, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government are confronting what could become the defining constitutional battle of their administration. 

What began as a judicial reform initiative intended to strengthen the independence of the Judiciary and tackle a backlog of more than one million pending court cases has instead evolved into a fierce debate over constitutional propriety, judicial independence, and political intent.

Far from remaining a technical legal issue, the proposed 22nd Amendment has become a political lightning rod. The Government’s plan to extend the retirement age of superior court judges has united an unusually broad coalition of critics, ranging from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), former judges, and Opposition parties to international judicial organisations and, more recently, the country’s most senior Buddhist clergy. 

The administration, however, has remained steadfast, arguing that the reforms are essential to modernise the justice system and insisting that the amendments are institutional in nature rather than tailored to benefit individual judges.

The stakes are therefore much higher than a dispute over retirement ages. The issue is whether the JVP/NPP Government can convince the public that it is delivering genuine structural reform while remaining faithful to the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance on which it sought its mandate. 

As the legislation heads towards Parliament and almost certain scrutiny before the Supreme Court, the outcome may shape not only the future of Sri Lanka’s Judiciary but also the political credibility of the AKD administration.

Judicial reform showdown

The Government’s judicial reform agenda entered a decisive phase this past week after the Cabinet approved the publication of the draft 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill in the Government Gazette.

Although ministers describe the package as a comprehensive effort to strengthen judicial independence and improve court efficiency, public attention has focused almost exclusively on one provision, which is the proposal to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.

The Attorney General’s clearance has removed one procedural hurdle, but it has done little to calm the growing controversy. The BASL, former judges, and several legal organisations continue to question both the substance of the proposal and the way it has been introduced.

The Government’s principal argument is straightforward. With more than one million cases pending before courts, it believes retaining experienced judges will help ease the backlog. Critics, however, argue that extending the tenure of a limited number of judges is no substitute for long-overdue reforms in case management, digitalisation, judicial administration, and court procedures.

With the bills now heading to Parliament, the real contest is expected to begin in the Supreme Court, where the constitutionality of the proposed amendments is almost certain to be challenged before legislators even begin debating them.

Referendum hurdle?

The legal uncertainty surrounding the amendment deepened further when Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa argued that Parliament alone may not be able to enact the proposal.

Citing a 2022 Supreme Court determination, Premadasa maintained that any constitutional amendment affecting the retirement age of sitting Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges would undermine judicial independence protected under Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore require approval by the people at a referendum.

He also challenged the Government’s priorities, asking why it had chosen to pursue a retirement age amendment instead of implementing the broader judicial reforms already identified in a 2023 Ministry of Justice report prepared with Asian Development Bank assistance.

His intervention has shifted the debate beyond politics to constitutional law, raising the possibility that the Government’s reform agenda could encounter significant legal obstacles before it reaches the statute book.

Global spotlight

The controversy has also moved beyond the country’s borders with the International Association of Judges (IAJ), the world’s largest body representing judges’ associations, urging the Government to reconsider its approach. Notably, the IAJ did not object to the retirement age itself but questioned the process by which the amendment had been formulated.

The association has stressed that constitutional reforms affecting the Judiciary should be undertaken through a transparent, consultative, and principled process, not through ad hoc amendments that create the perception of benefiting particular judges.

Its intervention places Sri Lanka under increasing international scrutiny and adds to criticism already expressed by the BASL, the Judicial Service Association, and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, making it more difficult for the Government to dismiss concerns as purely domestic political opposition.

A new front opens

Meanwhile, the political landscape shifted again on the issue when the BASL disclosed that the Chief Prelates of the four Buddhist chapters had reportedly conveyed their opposition to the amendment to President AKD.

According to BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya, the Malwathu Mahanayake Thera had informed the association that the country’s senior Buddhist clergy considered the proposal inappropriate.

Whether or not the contents of the reported communication eventually become public, the issue has acquired an entirely new dimension.

Govt. on the offensive

Recognising the growing resistance, the Government has also moved swiftly to defend its position.

Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa rejected reports that the Mahanayakes had opposed the proposal, saying he was unaware of any such letter and insisting that discussions with the Chief Prelates of the Malwathu, Asgiri, and Ramanna Chapters had revealed no opposition to the reforms.

According to Jayatissa, the Government made it clear that the amendment is intended to reduce chronic delays in the justice system rather than benefit any individual judge. He even cited remarks attributed to the Malwathu Mahanayake acknowledging that cases taking between 12 and 20 years to conclude demonstrated the urgent need for judicial reform.

The Government’s consultations with the Buddhist clergy and its planned meeting with the Amarapura Chapter reflect a broader political strategy. 

Senior Government ministers also met with Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith this past week to explain the judicial reforms process.

Having lost control of the legal narrative, the administration now appears determined to broaden the debate beyond the courtroom and build wider public legitimacy for its reforms.

Changing the conversation

Meanwhile, the Opposition is attempting to reframe the debate altogether. Rather than focusing solely on judges’ retirement ages, Premadasa has proposed appointing a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to examine the wider problems confronting the country’s justice system.

The proposal has sought to redirect attention to the underlying causes of the judicial backlog and argues that meaningful reform should encompass court administration, case management, technology, and access to justice, not merely constitutional amendments affecting judicial tenure.

Whether the Government embraces that broader conversation or presses ahead with its current proposal may ultimately determine whether its reforms are remembered as a genuine attempt to modernise the Judiciary or simply as a contentious amendment centred on the retirement age of judges.

Meeting with diplomats

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Premadasa on Thursday (6) hosted a discussion with Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), heads of mission, representatives of international organisations, members of the diplomatic community, and other distinguished guests to exchange views on recent developments relating to democratic governance, constitutional governance, and the integrity and independence of the country’s State institutions.

Particular attention was given to the Government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of superior court judges, the broader implications of ad hoc constitutional amendments, the principle of the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the importance of preserving public confidence in democratic institutions. 

Opposition MPs had shared their views on these developments and underscored the need for any constitutional amendments to be undertaken through a transparent, consultative, and principled process that strengthened, rather than weakened, the country’s democratic framework.

Addressing the gathering, Premadasa had reaffirmed the Opposition’s commitment to safeguarding the Constitution, protecting the independence of State institutions, and ensuring that matters of significant constitutional importance were subjected to proper scrutiny and informed public debate. He had also emphasised the importance of maintaining continued engagement and dialogue with Sri Lanka’s international partners on issues relating to democratic governance, institutional integrity, and the rule of law.

Focusing on IMF reforms

The United National Party (UNP), meanwhile, has entered the increasingly contentious debate over judicial reforms with a message that goes beyond opposing the Government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of superior court judges. Instead, it is attempting to shift the focus to what it says is the real issue, which is the country’s crippling judicial backlog.

Citing the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Governance Diagnostic Assessment commissioned during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency, the party argues that while the report identified delays in the court system as a major obstacle to governance and investment, it never recommended extending judges’ tenures. Instead, it called for structural reforms, including a special court to clear pending cases, stronger judicial administration, expanded Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, and better staffing.

The UNP’s intervention adds another dimension to the growing resistance already voiced by the BASL, legal professionals, and the Opposition. By invoking an IMF-backed governance assessment, the party is seeking to challenge the Government’s central justification for the proposed constitutional amendment while presenting itself as advocating evidence-based reform rather than outright obstruction.

Abolishing executive presidency

President AKD, meanwhile, has used his meeting with the alliance of six Tamil and Muslim political parties to reiterate two long-standing reform pledges of the JVP/NPP Government – the abolition of the executive presidency and the revival of the Provincial Council (PC) system.

Responding to concerns over the long-delayed Provincial Council Elections, the President said that a PSC had been appointed to examine issues relating to the electoral system and delimitation before polls were held. The assurance signals that the Government intends to address the legal and political obstacles that have kept PCs without elected representatives for years.

On constitutional reform, President AKD reaffirmed that abolishing the executive presidency remained Government policy. However, he maintained that the priority was not to rush through amendments, but to build a broad national consensus that could underpin a new constitution.

That approach found common ground with Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) General Secretary M.A. Sumanthiran, who argued that Sri Lanka should avoid repeating the mistakes of previous constitutions enacted through one-sided political processes. Instead, he called for an inclusive national dialogue capable of securing support across communities.

For the Government, the two issues are closely intertwined. Resolving the future of Provincial Councils, including delimitation and the electoral system, will inevitably feed into the broader constitutional debate. While the discussion demonstrated a willingness to engage minority parties on both fronts, the real challenge will be translating dialogue into concrete reforms after years of political deadlock over devolution and Executive power.

A prison system under strain

Meanwhile, the JVP/NPP Government is continuing to face the challenge of a prison system that has reached boiling point due to long-standing issues that are yet to be resolved. 

The deadly clashes at the Negombo Prison, which left more than 30 persons including inmates and prison officers dead and hundreds injured, should have been the moment the country paused to confront the deep-rooted problems within its prison system. Instead, the country has witnessed a troubling succession of disturbances that suggest the crisis is far from over.

Barely weeks after the violence in Negombo, unrest broke out at the Mahara Prison last weekend, claiming the life of another inmate and injuring several others. Unlike previous prison disturbances, however, the Government has argued that the Mahara incident was more than a riot.

Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara told Parliament that there were clear signs of an organised attempt to sabotage the prison administration, pointing to the deliberate burning of key facilities, including the kitchen, infirmary, and the main jailor’s office. The Minister also questioned how nearly 1,000 inmates had mobilised within minutes and hinted at possible external involvement, promising action if a conspiracy was uncovered.

Whether investigators can substantiate these claims remains to be seen. 

However, before the country could fully digest the developments in Mahara, fresh unrest erupted at the Magazine Prison in Borella. A group of around 40 inmates in Ward E reportedly forced their way out on Thursday (6) night and became disorderly, allegedly following a dispute linked to narcotics. Prison officials had eventually restored order with the assistance of the Police, Riot Control Unit, and Special Task Force (STF), but not before 11 inmates were injured and at least one was killed.

Within hours, another disturbance was reported at the Kuruwita Prison. Although prison authorities had initially managed to contain the situation overnight, violence resumed on Friday (7) morning when another group of inmates became unruly and reportedly damaged the prison hospital, resulting in the use of tear gas. Four inmates were admitted to hospital, while two inmates were reported dead.

Minister Nanayakkara has said that the tense situation at the Kuruwita Prison was brought under control after opening fire with minimal force. Soon after Nanayakkara’s statement on Kuruwita, a tense situation was reported from the Pallansena Prison.

The successive incidents at the Magazine, Kuruwita, and Pallansena Prisons suggest that the challenge extends beyond any single alleged conspiracy. While each disturbance may have had its own immediate trigger, from suspected narcotics disputes to other unresolved tensions, the frequency of the outbreaks points to deeper structural weaknesses within the country’s prison system.

Viewed together, Negombo, Mahara, Magazine, Kuruwita, and Pallansena paint a troubling picture. The country’s prisons have long struggled with chronic overcrowding, ageing infrastructure, staff shortages, the influence of organised criminal networks, and the continued circulation of narcotics behind bars. These are long-standing issues that successive governments have acknowledged but failed to comprehensively address.

The rapid succession of prison disturbances also raises difficult questions about intelligence-gathering within prisons, the effectiveness of prison management, and whether authorities are identifying and addressing warning signs before violence erupts. The repeated deployment of the Police and the STF to restore order suggests that prison disturbances are increasingly becoming law-and-order emergencies rather than matters of routine prison administration.

Each incident should, of course, be investigated on its own merits. If evidence emerges that Mahara was indeed the result of organised sabotage, those responsible must be held accountable. But even that would not explain why prison unrest continues to erupt across multiple institutions within such a short period.

The deaths at Negombo, Mahara, and Kuruwita are a stark reminder that prison sentences should not become death sentences. Unless the systemic issues are resolved, every new disturbance risks being viewed not as an isolated act of sabotage, but as another symptom of a prison system under mounting strain.

Negombo report submitted

The Government, meanwhile, has informed Parliament that the committee appointed to investigate the deadly July clashes at the Negombo Prison has submitted its report to President AKD.

Justice Minister Nanayakkara also announced that a separate committee had been appointed to recommend additional compensation and welfare measures for the families of the 10 prison officers who were killed, as well as support for injured officers, including those left with permanent disabilities.

While the welfare measures are a necessary step, the focus will inevitably shift to the findings of the investigation itself.

Revised, not resolved

Meanwhile, few issues command as much public support as the fight against corruption. Any government that promises to strengthen accountability is likely to find broad approval. But the debate surrounding the proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act has shown that public confidence depends not only on the objective of the law but also on how it is drafted.

The bill initially drew criticism from two very different quarters. Transparency International Sri Lanka warned that provisions relating to asset and liability declarations could weaken public access to information that is essential for holding public officials accountable. At the same time, the Joint Opposition questioned proposed restrictions on bail, arguing that they could worsen overcrowding in the country’s already strained prison system.

The Government found itself under pressure from both civil society and the political Opposition. In response, President AKD has decided to amend the draft legislation. Under the revised position, once the asset and liability declarations of public representatives are made public, the public’s right to access and act upon that information will remain unchanged. It is a significant concession that removes one of the bill’s most controversial provisions and demonstrates a willingness to listen to criticism.

Yet one major issue remains unresolved. The proposed tightening of bail provisions continues to raise concerns. While corruption is undoubtedly a serious offence that demands stronger enforcement, expanding the list of non-bailable offences without addressing lengthy judicial delays risks increasing the number of remand prisoners in a prison system that is already operating well beyond capacity.

The politics surrounding the amendments are equally revealing. The Opposition cannot afford to appear soft on corruption, so it has instead focused on civil liberties and the rule of law. For the Government, the challenge is to prove that strengthening anti-corruption laws does not come at the expense of transparency or individual rights.

The President’s decision to retain public access to asset declarations is a welcome correction. But Parliament’s task is not over. The final legislation must ensure that the fight against corruption is both effective and consistent with democratic safeguards.

A sobering reminder

Amidst the developments in the judicial and anti-corruption sectors, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s (CBSL) latest Market Operations Report offers a sobering reminder that Sri Lanka’s economic recovery remains far more fragile than the Government’s optimistic rhetoric suggests.

The rupee lost nearly 8% of its value against the US Dollar in just six months, falling from Rs. 309.99 to Rs. 336.66. For ordinary Sri Lankans, that is not merely an exchange rate movement on paper. It means higher import costs, greater pressure on food and fuel prices, and an erosion of purchasing power at a time when households are already struggling with the rising cost of living.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the report is that the CBSL was forced to change course. After purchasing a net $ 710 million in the first quarter to rebuild reserves, it became a net seller in the second quarter, selling more dollars than it had bought to contain pressure on the currency. That is hardly the picture of a foreign exchange market comfortably standing on its own feet.

Foreign reserves also add to this story. Having climbed to $ 7.3 billion in February, they slipped back to $ 6.5 billion by the end of June. The decline underscores how quickly external buffers can shrink when market conditions deteriorate.

The CBSL also had little choice but to tighten monetary policy, raising the Overnight Policy Rate by 100 basis points in May. Higher interest rates may help defend the currency and curb inflation, but they also increase borrowing costs for businesses and households, slowing investment and economic activity.

Taken together, these developments expose the difficult balancing act confronting policymakers. The Government continues to project confidence about the economy’s trajectory, but the CBSL’s own data points to persistent vulnerabilities. A weakening currency, declining reserves, tighter monetary policy, and continued intervention in the foreign exchange market are all signs that Sri Lanka remains highly exposed to global shocks and dependent on careful economic management.

The lesson is that declarations of economic stability must be matched by sustained structural reforms and stronger export performance. Until Sri Lanka earns more foreign exchange than it spends and reduces its dependence on external financing, every bout of global uncertainty will continue to test the resilience of the rupee.

Austerity message under pressure

It is against such a backdrop that independent MP Ramanathan Archchuna has handed the Opposition an unexpected talking point after releasing what he claims are his parliamentary salary slips showing his monthly fuel allowance increased from Rs. 179,707 in June to Rs. 244,300 in July – an increase of nearly Rs. 65,000.

Whether the increase was an automatic adjustment or an approved entitlement is almost beside the point politically. The disclosure comes as the JVP/NPP Government continues to champion fiscal discipline and clean governance while urging the public to bear the burden of economic reforms.

Without a clear explanation from Parliament or the Government, the issue risks reinforcing a perception that the administration has worked hard to dispel, which is that politicians continue to enjoy rising privileges while ordinary citizens are expected to tighten their belts.

For a Government that built its electoral appeal on transparency and accountability, even a routine allowance revision can quickly become a test of credibility if it is not explained promptly. Sometimes, it is not the size of the allowance that matters most in politics, but the optics.

Govt. begins campaign

Be that as it may, the JVP/NPP Government’s decision to launch a major nationwide campaign covering the entire country beginning next month is expected to include a series of district-level public meetings attended by the President, alongside an extensive door-to-door outreach programme conducted at village level.

While the news of this islandwide campaign was first viewed as preparation for the holding of the long-delayed PC Elections, it is learnt that the ruling party is also planning on re-energising its key political campaigns – the anti-corruption battle as well as battle against drugs and organised crime – both of which the JVP/NPP claim received political patronage during previous governments. This line of campaigning is expected to also draw a clear distinction between the ‘rogues’ in the Opposition and the Government’s ongoing work to ‘rebuild’ broken systems.

However, according to information now emerging from within the Government, the large-scale rallies planned jointly by the JVP and NPP for September are primarily intended to build public awareness and generate favourable public opinion on a key issue – the JVP/NPP’s proposed judicial reforms that include the proposed 22nd Amendment.

It is therefore evident that the ruling party is making the necessary preparations to build the political ground should the Government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of judges of superior courts ultimately be subjected to a national referendum. By launching its campaign early, the Government hopes to secure a head start over the Opposition in persuading voters to support the proposal.

However, some ruling party sources noted that the likelihood of the Government’s proposal on judges being referred to a referendum remained very low. According to senior Government figures, the Constitution clearly sets out the limited circumstances under which a referendum is required, and they believe this particular constitutional amendment does not meet that threshold.

Nevertheless, the Government is also preparing for the possibility that the BASL could successfully challenge the proposal. If, as a result of the BASL’s legal arguments, the Supreme Court were to rule that the amendment must be approved by the people through a referendum, the nationwide campaign would already be in place to mobilise public support.

It seems this contingency planning is one of the key reasons behind the decision to roll out an islandwide political campaign well in advance.

A bigger political game unfolding

However, amidst the many political developments in recent weeks, mostly dominated by Opposition parties, a much larger political operation appears to have been quietly unfolding behind the scenes.

One of the main factors driving this shift was the political crisis recently faced by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Government due to a nationwide protest movement, led by the newly emerged youth-driven Cockroach Janta Party, managing to force India’s Education Minister to resign over a major examination controversy. The protests demonstrated that even Modi’s politically formidable administration could be shaken by a well-organised youth movement.

Sri Lanka has witnessed a youth uprising in recent years during the Aragalaya protest movement, but it lacked a clear political leadership. In contrast, the protests in India were led by the leader of the Cockroach Janta Party, giving the movement both direction and momentum.

Against this backdrop, it is learnt that the JVP/NPP Government has been paying close attention to a key question: if another youth uprising or mass protest were to emerge in Sri Lanka over any issue, which political force would be capable of providing leadership? More specifically, which organisation could mobilise trade unions, civil society groups, and university students against the Government?

It is also learnt that the ruling party’s assessment has been that the only opposition force with the organisational capacity and ideological commitment to lead such a movement would be the JVP splinter group, the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), led by Kumar Gunaratnam, Pubudu Jayagoda, Duminda Nagamuwa, and several other former hardcore JVP members.

Old rival with shared roots

The FSP emerged from a split within the JVP and for years, relations between the two organisations were openly hostile. Even after the JVP-led NPP came to power, there appeared to be little public engagement between the two parties.

However, over the past two years, although the FSP has frequently criticised the Government on various issues, it has notably stopped short of fully aligning itself with the broader Opposition. Its leaders have consistently maintained that the Government should not be overthrown at this stage. While critical of Government policies, the FSP has avoided strengthening the parliamentary Opposition or joining anti-Government campaigns in a decisive manner.

This has led many political observers to believe that, despite their public disagreements, some form of informal political understanding or quiet accommodation exists between the JVP and the FSP.

Two veterans in action?

It is learnt that the previously discreet relationship is now surfacing to some extent due to recent developments with the FSP. While opposing the Government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, it has deliberately avoided joining hands with the other Opposition parties or participating in a united anti-Government campaign.

At the same time, it appears that the JVP/NPP Government has also come to recognise the strategic importance of maintaining a working relationship with the FSP.

Against this backdrop, a behind-the-scenes effort, it is learnt, has been launched to rebuild ties between the two organisations.

The initiative is reportedly spearheaded by two former senior figures from the early history of the JVP. One is reportedly Lionel Bopage, who had served as the JVP’s General Secretary until 1983 before leaving the party and later migrating to Australia, and the other is said to be Dr. Athula Sumathipala, a close associate and personal physician of JVP Founder Rohana Wijeweera, who also left the movement many years ago.

According to sources, the two veterans have taken the lead in facilitating a dialogue between the JVP and the FSP in light of the changing political landscape.

‘Vimukthi Gee’ as the meeting point

To bring the two camps together publicly, these two former JVPers had played a role in a seminar centred on ‘Vimukthi Gee’ (Songs of Liberation), a collection of songs that became closely associated with the JVP during the 1988–’89 insurrection and enjoyed considerable popularity at the time.

The event was held at the New Town Hall, and invitations had been extended to both former and present JVP activists and members of the FSP.

Among those invited were JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva, NPP General Secretary Nihal Abeysinghe, and FSP Leader Gunaratnam.

Tilvin and Kumar on stage

Perhaps the most striking development was that Silva and Gunaratnam, leaders who had long been regarded as bitter political rivals, both attended the seminar and delivered speeches.

Although, it is learnt, there had been attempts by some participants to steer the discussion against the FSP, Silva had reportedly intervened to discourage any confrontation, urging those present to avoid unnecessary conflict.

For many observers, it was the first time in years that senior figures from both camps had appeared together in such a cordial atmosphere.

Former members and supporters of both organisations had reportedly left the event encouraged, viewing it as a significant step towards rebuilding ties between the two factions.

Preparing for future political battles

The efforts of the two former senior JVPers to bring the two sides together appear to have achieved considerable success.

Political observers now believe that this rapprochement is not merely symbolic and that it may represent the first stage of a broader political strategy aimed at strengthening the Government’s support base in anticipation of a more united and coordinated challenge from the Opposition.

If that assessment proves correct, the recent meeting may mark the opening move in the formation of a broader Left-wing political alignment designed to counter future Opposition campaigns.

Internal disagreements in SJB

While the ruling JVP/NPP has started its political game behind the scenes, the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) is once again faced with the usual internal disagreements. This time around, these disagreements among some senior SJBers are over the recent move by Opposition and SJB Leader Premadasa to convene a meeting of Opposition political parties at the Opposition Leader’s Office in Colombo 7.

The meeting was convened to discuss the Government’s move to arbitrarily increase the age of judges of higher courts and the actions a united Opposition could take against it. The meeting saw the attendance of UNP seniors including Party Leader, former President Wickremesinghe and leaders of other Opposition parties including the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and several nationalist political parties.

However, this meeting has resulted in several senior SJBers complaining that the SJB had made great efforts to distance the party from Opposition politicians accused of corruption and other wrongdoings in the past and had even openly criticised them. “The SJB cannot now be seen sitting together and working with them,” a senior SJBer noted.

Tamil political parties representing the north and east were also notable absentees at the meeting. They later said that they could not attend a meeting that was also attended by extremist elements.

It is in such a backdrop that ruling party MPs have made comments in the House calling the Opposition Leader to first get his party on track. “Only 37 of the SJB’s 44 MPs have signed the No-Confidence Motion against the Justice Minister,” JVP/NPP MP Asitha Niroshana said in Parliament, adding that the Opposition Leader should first unite his party.

Accusing RW’s SJBers

However, SJBers loyal to Premadasa have responded to these SJBers saying that although they (the disgruntled members) had entered Parliament under the SJB, there were still five or six SJB MPs who continue to maintain close ties with Wickremesinghe and remain politically aligned with him. “While they officially sit with the SJB, they are widely seen as advancing Ranil’s political interests,” a senior SJBer loyal to Premadasa said.

Accordingly, these MPs had pressured Opposition Leader Premadasa to support the series of meetings of a group of Opposition parties and to have the SJB participate on the same platform.

However, this plan had backfired after some SJB MPs had informed senior party member, MP Sujeewa Senasinghe about what was taking place. They had chosen to alert Senasinghe because he had played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the recent effort to bring all Opposition parties together under the Opposition Leader’s Office.

SLPP turns on RW

Meanwhile, SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam has accused former President Wickremesinghe and President AKD of being responsible for the country’s political instability.

Addressing the media, Kariyawasam said that Wickremesinghe and AKD were responsible for paving the way for the election of Maithripala Sirisena, whom he described as a weak leader.

“They must take responsibility for bringing Maithripala Sirisena to power, which ultimately pushed the country into chaos,” Kariyawasam said.

Assassination claims and probe

However, Kariyawasam is also in the news as the country’s political scene has once again found itself revolving around an alleged assassination plot, this time involving the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

The Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court has authorised further investigations after the Colombo Central Crime Investigation Bureau had reported a statement made by SLPP General Secretary Kariyawasam regarding an alleged plan to assassinate the IGP. While the court has made no determination on the truth of the claim, the decision ensures the matter will now be examined through a criminal investigation rather than political debate alone.

Claims of assassination plots have long been a feature of local politics, often surfacing during periods of heightened political tension. Some have proven credible, while others have disappeared without evidence.

Contempt charges

Meanwhile, the Fort Magistrate’s Court decision to refer several prominent political figures to the Court of Appeal for possible contempt proceedings has injected a new legal dimension into the already charged debate surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks investigations.

The order targets Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila, Dilith Jayaweera, Asanka Navarathne, Sugeeshwara Bandara, and Senior Lecturer Mahinda Pathirana over public statements allegedly made during a satyagraha protesting the arrest of former Director of the State Intelligence Service Suresh Sallay. According to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the statements may have amounted to criticism of matters that were actively before the courts.

While the Court of Appeal will ultimately decide whether contempt proceedings should proceed, the Magistrate’s referral sends a broader message about the limits of political commentary when judicial proceedings are underway.

The development also places Opposition politicians in a delicate position. Public protests and criticism of Government actions remain fundamental democratic rights. However, the Judiciary has consistently maintained that attempts to influence, intimidate, or undermine ongoing court proceedings cross a line that cannot be ignored.

Given the political sensitivity of the Easter Sunday attacks investigations, the case is likely to fuel further debate over the balance between freedom of expression and respect for the administration of justice.

GR’s petition

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has reserved for 22 September its decision on whether to entertain former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s (GR) bid to block his arrest over the ongoing Easter Sunday attacks investigations.

The petition, heard before a bench headed by Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya, seeks a writ preventing law enforcement authorities from arresting Rajapaksa while investigations continue. With oral submissions now concluded, the court will decide whether the application merits a full hearing or should be dismissed at the threshold.

The move comes at a politically sensitive time, following the recent trial-at-bar convictions of former Secretary of Defence Hemasiri Fernando and former IGP Pujith Jayasundara over the Easter Sunday attacks. If the court declines to intervene, investigators would have a clearer path to pursue the former President, potentially opening another consequential chapter in the long-running quest for accountability over the 2019 bombings.

GR has named IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya, CID Director Shani Abeysekara, the Officer-in-Charge of the CID’s Special Investigations Unit, and the Attorney General as respondents.