The political mood around President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) Government appears to be changing, with public approval falling and confidence in the economy taking an even sharper hit.

The latest Verité Research ‘Mood of the Nation’ poll puts Government approval at 49.83%, down from 65% in February. While almost half of the public continues to approve of the Government’s performance, the decline is difficult to dismiss.

The bigger political warning, however, comes from the economy.

Only 41.63% of respondents believe the economy is improving, compared with 64% in February. At the same time, those who believe the economy is getting worse have risen to 40.29%, from around 15%. More than half, 55.59%, now describe the current state of the economy as poor.

The result is a dramatic turnaround in Verité Research’s Economic Confidence Index, which has fallen from +36 in February to -8 in July.

For AKD and the JVP/NPP, this is the kind of number that warrants political attention. The Government came to power promising a decisive break from the old political establishment and a new economic direction, but economic recovery on paper does not necessarily translate into confidence at household level with a sharp increase in the ‘real’ cost of living.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s (CBSL) latest forecast of 4–5% economic growth in 2026 gives the Government some breathing space. Yet it also comes with warnings over geopolitical tensions, energy prices, weaker external demand, tourism risks, and recurring weather-related shocks.

More importantly, the return of the current account to deficit after three years of surpluses could test the Government’s ability to manage rising imports without reopening the external vulnerabilities that contributed to the 2022 crisis.

The political challenge for AKD is therefore becoming clearer. It is no longer enough to say that the economy is recovering. The Government must convince people that the recovery is reaching them. If economic growth fails to translate into improved living standards, jobs, incomes, and greater confidence, the decline reflected in the latest poll could become more than a temporary mood.

For the JVP/NPP Government, the next phase will be less about promising change and more about delivering results that voters can actually feel.

The ‘third war’ after 2028

Meanwhile, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has opened a new political and economic debate by warning that Sri Lanka could face another serious economic crisis after 2028 unless it builds its foreign exchange reserves to around $ 15 billion.

Speaking at the launch of former Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya’s book, Wickremesinghe questioned how Sri Lanka would raise the additional $ 7 billion needed to lift reserves from the CBSL’s projected $ 8 billion at the end of 2026 to the $ 15 billion he believes will be necessary by 2028.

He also questioned what would happen after the current International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme ends in March 2027, arguing that debt restructuring had only provided Sri Lanka with breathing space rather than permanently solving its economic problems.

Wickremesinghe dubbed the post-2028 challenge as Sri Lanka’s “third war,” warning that failure to win it could once again put the country in serious trouble.

The Government, however, is not accepting the warning, with Deputy Minister Chathuranga Abeysinghe hitting back, arguing that there is no basis for claiming Sri Lanka is heading towards another bankruptcy. He has pointed out that the country managed to service around $ 3.9 billion in debt obligations in 2025 and is expected to pay about $ 3.7 billion in 2026, while reserves continue to rise.

The Government is banking on stronger remittances, exports, tourism, and investment to generate the foreign exchange needed to meet future obligations.

Beneath the political exchange, however, lies a serious question that neither side can avoid, which is whether Sri Lanka will generate enough dollars before the post-2028 debt burden begins to bite.

The answer could determine whether the country’s current recovery becomes a lasting turnaround, or merely a pause between two economic crises.

22A triggers political clash

While the political debate continues on the country’s economic recovery, the Government’s move to extend the retirement age of judges has triggered another sharp political confrontation in Parliament, with Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) protesting the tabling of the 22nd Amendment (22A) to the Constitution and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill.

Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara tabled both bills on Tuesday (18), with the constitutional amendment proposing to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. The Judicature (Amendment) Bill seeks corresponding changes for judges in the lower courts.

The Government says the reforms are needed to address shortages of judicial officers and strengthen the justice system. But the Opposition, led by Sajith Premadasa, staged a protest in Parliament as the Government tabled the proposed constitutional amendments, describing the proposed changes as the “death of democracy”.

The tabling itself descended into a heated exchange, with Opposition MPs raising several points of order.

The bills are now open to be challenged before the Supreme Court within 14 days of being presented to Parliament, setting the stage for a potentially significant constitutional and political battle over judicial independence, appointments, and the future structure of Sri Lanka’s Judiciary.

Facing Supreme Court challenge

The Government’s controversial 22nd Amendment Bill landed before the Supreme Court within hours of being tabled in Parliament, with multiple petitions challenging its constitutionality.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Sarvajana Balaya, Free Lawyers organisation, and former Professor of Law G.L. Peiris separately moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that the proposed extension of judges’ retirement ages raised serious questions over judicial independence and the separation of powers.

The petitioners are seeking determinations that the amendment requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as approval at a national referendum.

Peiris has specifically challenged the provision affecting incumbent judges and has asked that the case be heard by a full bench of the Supreme Court, given what he describes as its exceptional constitutional importance.

More petitions were filed by members of civil society and organisations after Tuesday.

The Government may have tabled the bill in Parliament, but the first constitutional battle over it has already moved to the courts. The coming weeks could therefore prove decisive, not only for the retirement age proposal, but also for the wider question of judicial independence and constitutional limits on Parliament.

Row over BASL briefing

The political tussle over the proposed 22nd Amendment took another turn in Parliament this past week, with a disagreement emerging over a planned briefing by the BASL for MPs on the proposed constitutional changes and vacancies in the superior courts.

Opposition Leader Premadasa said that BASL representatives were expected to brief parliamentarians on Thursday (20) on the proposed amendment and concerns relating to vacancies in the superior courts.

Premadasa said that he had initially requested a briefing for Opposition MPs in June before subsequently asking that the discussion be opened to all MPs. He said the Speaker had been informed of the request and that the BASL had subsequently confirmed its availability to conduct the briefing.

However, Leader of the House, Minister Bimal Rathnayake objected to the arrangement, arguing that the Opposition Leader did not have the authority to organise a meeting involving all 225 MPs. 

“There is a procedural error,” Rathnayake said, questioning how details of the proposed meeting had also reached the media. He maintained that arrangements involving all parliamentarians should follow established parliamentary procedures and involve the party leaders.

Premadasa, however, maintained that he had acted only as a facilitator and had informed Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne of the request for a briefing. He said he had requested that arrangements be made to allow all MPs to participate, rather than personally convening Parliament or its members.

The disagreement subsequently extended into a broader exchange over the nature of the Government’s response to the BASL.

Chief Government Whip, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa questioned the BASL’s description of statements made by Government MPs during Wednesday’s (19) proceedings as “threatening”.

Jayatissa said that the Government had no objection to Premadasa meeting BASL representatives, whether at the Opposition Leader’s Office or elsewhere. However, he stated that the issue raised by the Government concerned parliamentary procedure and whether the Opposition Leader could convene all 225 MPs for a meeting.

According to Jayatissa, the Leader of the House had merely explained parliamentary procedure and traditions and had not issued any threat. “MPs can express different views. There was no threat of any kind. What we explained was the procedure,” he said.

Jayatissa questioned whether it was appropriate for the BASL to characterise the Government’s position in Parliament as threatening simply because Government MPs had expressed views differing from those of the association.

Premadasa rejected the suggestion that he had attempted to summon all 225 MPs and reiterated that he had requested the Speaker to facilitate a briefing for parliamentarians. He said correspondence relating to the proposed meeting had been tabled in Parliament and that both the Speaker and Leader of the House had been informed.

The Opposition Leader also defended the BASL President’s right to describe statements made in Parliament according to how the association perceived them. He said some Government MPs had spoken in a “threatening” manner during the previous day’s proceedings and argued that the BASL President was entitled to express his view on the matter.

Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera also defended the BASL, stating that the association was an independent institution and had the right to express its position. He argued that if BASL representatives considered statements made in Parliament to be “threatening,” they were entitled to say so.

BASL seeks postponement

The controversy took another turn when the BASL formally requested that the briefing be postponed.

In a letter dated 19 August addressed to Premadasa, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya had said the association had hoped the briefing would have bipartisan participation, allowing MPs from both sides of the House to better understand its concerns over the proposed constitutional amendment.

However, the BASL had stated that following parliamentary proceedings on 18 August (Tuesday) and the position expressed by the Government, “there appears to be no consensus” on the matter.

The association had also said that there appeared to be no present interest from the Government in providing its MPs with an opportunity to attend the briefing. It had therefore requested that the meeting be postponed until bipartisan participation could be assured.

The BASL had stressed that although Opposition MPs had already expressed strong objections to the proposed amendment, the briefing would have been particularly useful for Government MPs to objectively consider the association’s concerns.

Premadasa subsequently said that the BASL had not rejected the proposed engagement but had sought another date because of the circumstances surrounding the planned meeting.

A letter, a ‘threat’ and credibility

However, a curious question has now emerged over the preparation and communication of an official letter issued by the BASL, following a series of contradictory explanations over one of the document’s most contentious references.

The controversy centres on a letter sent by BASL President Amarasuriya to Opposition Leader Premadasa in the aftermath of the parliamentary debate over a proposed briefing for MPs. The letter had contained wording that was widely understood to suggest that the Government had adopted a threatening position.

What followed, however, was a sequence of explanations that appeared to change by the hour.

A private electronic media outlet had reported that it had contacted Amarasuriya at 1.10 p.m. on Thursday (20) for clarification, and that his response was reportedly, “Take the contents of the letter. Call later for further details.”

At 2.06 p.m., BASL Secretary Nalin De Silva had been contacted by the same media outlet and his response was reportedly, “The letter does not refer to any threatening statement made by the Government.” Then, at 3.33 p.m., a State-owned newspaper had reported that Amarasuriya had indicated that the disputed wording may have been “there at” rather than “threat”.

That, however, was not the end of the matter. When the above-mentioned private media outlet had contacted De Silva again at 4.09 p.m., the explanation had changed once more. “‘Threat’ is the correct word. Rajeev told (the State media outlet) to correct it,” he had reportedly said.

Shortly afterwards, at 4.33 p.m., the State-owned newspaper had reported that Amarasuriya had reportedly telephoned the newspaper again and clarified that the word was not “there at” but “threat”.

This extraordinary sequence has raised a question that goes beyond one disputed word.

The document at the centre of the controversy was not a casual email, an internal note, or a draft circulated for discussion. It was an official letter issued under the signature of the President of one of Sri Lanka’s most prominent professional bodies and addressed to the Leader of the Opposition on an issue involving a proposed constitutional amendment. In such circumstances, clarity is not a luxury as it is essential.

Clergy disappointed

Meanwhile, the JVP/NPP’s handling of the proposed 22nd Amendment is beginning to attract scrutiny beyond Parliament, with Ven. Dr. Bellanwila Dhammaratana Thera calling for a referendum to be held on the controversial constitutional changes.

The Thera has said that a referendum would help the Government build public confidence while also reassuring the Judiciary that the amendment had secured a clear mandate from the people. His remarks came after civil society representatives had briefed him on the proposed amendment at the Bellanwila Rajamaha Viharaya on Wednesday (19).

More significantly, however, the Thera has expressed strong disappointment over the Government’s response to a letter submitted by the Mahanayaka Theras on the matter.

The comments add another layer to an increasingly sensitive debate over 22nd Amendment, with questions now being raised not only about the constitutionality of the proposed changes but also about whether the Government should seek direct public approval.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Sri Lanka (CBCSL) has also stressed that adequate public and stakeholder consultation should be conducted before making any constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of judges.

In a statement, the CBCSL has reportedly noted that the Government had decided to increase the retirement age on the grounds that doing so would enable the country to continue benefiting from the services of experienced and knowledgeable judges.

The CBCSL has also expressed concern over the decision taken by the Cabinet to increase the existing statutory retirement age of judges, while emphasising the need to safeguard judicial independence and the separation of powers.

‘Rajapaksa cases’ argument falls?

Meanwhile, the Government’s justification for extending the retirement age of judges, which is that it is necessary to ensure justice is delivered in major corruption cases, appears to be losing its political force.

Pubudu Jayagoda from the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has pointed out a key contradiction. He has noted that there is not a single case against the Rajapaksas currently before the Supreme Court.

This raises an uncomfortable question for the Government. If extending judges’ retirement age is being presented as essential to bringing the Rajapaksas and other alleged wrongdoers to justice, which cases exactly require the extension?

The Government may argue that the broader judicial system needs continuity and experienced judges, but using the politically potent promise of “catching thieves” to justify a constitutional change is a different matter.

Govt. to replace PTA

The JVP/NPP Government, meanwhile, seems to be on quite a roll regarding introducing legislation, with the latest move being to replace the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) with the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), with Cabinet approving its publication in the gazette and subsequent presentation to Parliament.

The proposed law follows a preliminary draft prepared by a Technical Expert Committee and in-principle Cabinet approval granted on 10 August. The bill, prepared by the Legal Draftsman, has also received the Attorney General’s clearance.

The move could reopen one of Sri Lanka’s most politically sensitive legal debates. The PTA, introduced in 1979 as temporary legislation, has long faced criticism over its broad powers of arrest and detention and concerns over safeguards for fundamental rights.

While the Government says a new framework is needed to address shortcomings in the existing law and strengthen national security, the real political test will be whether the proposed legislation provides stronger safeguards and judicial oversight.

According to Minister Jayatissa, the proposed new legislation addresses concerns raised regarding the PTA.

Nevertheless, once gazetted, the bill is expected to face close scrutiny in Parliament, with its provisions likely to determine whether the Government is genuinely replacing the PTA or simply giving an old framework a new name.

Lalkantha signals exit

Meanwhile, senior JVPer, Agriculture Minister K.D. Lalkatha has indicated that he does not intend to contest the next Parliamentary Election from Kandy but insists that his decision should not be interpreted as a sign of political retreat, either for himself or the JVP/NPP Government.

His remarks came after President AKD stated recently that he had not entered office with the intention of remaining in power indefinitely and was prepared to take political risks, even at the cost of his position.

Lalkantha saw no contradiction between the President’s position and his own confidence that the JVP/NPP would remain in power. An individual stepping aside, he argued, was very different from a political movement losing power.

The Minister even suggested that the President himself might decide not to contest the next election, but, he stressed, that would not leave the JVP/NPP without candidates.

Interestingly, Lalkantha revealed that he too had not planned to contest the last Parliamentary Election and had done so only after a request from President AKD. He now appears ready to return to a role outside Parliament while remaining active in politics.

For Lalkantha, political life does not begin and end with a parliamentary seat. He pointed to JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva as an example of someone who has remained politically influential without holding ministerial or parliamentary office.

His wider argument was more political. Lalkantha believes the JVP/NPP’s rise was not simply another change of government, but the outcome of a major political upheaval that fundamentally weakened the old political order.

He also questioned whether the Opposition currently had a figure capable of becoming a rallying point for voters seeking an alternative to the NPP, despite Premadasa formally occupying the post of Opposition Leader.

Seeking justice for ’88–’89 victims

Meanwhile, Uvindu Wijeweera, the son of slain JVP Founding Leader Rohana Wijeweera, has taken his demand for justice to the President’s Office, submitting a letter seeking accountability for his father and all those killed during the 1988–’89 period of political violence.

The appeal is significant given the JVP/NPP Government’s own political history. Wijeweera’s death remains one of the most contentious episodes of that era, while thousands of others from different political camps also disappeared or were killed.

Uvindu’s call therefore places a broader question before the Government: whether justice for the victims of the 1988–’89 violence can be pursued without political selectivity, regardless of which side they belonged to.

Sajith meets minority parties

Opposition Leader Premadasa, meanwhile, met with Tamil and Muslim MPs representing the Opposition at the Opposition Leader’s Office in Parliament on Wednesday (19). Representatives of these parties also met with President AKD recently.

During the meeting, extensive attention was paid to the issues faced by people in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The MPs had briefed the Opposition Leader on the social, economic, and development-related issues affecting the daily lives of the people in these provinces, as well as other regional concerns.

Special attention was also given to the need to raise the issues faced by the people of the Northern and Eastern Provinces more extensively in Parliament and to take the necessary interventions to address them.

The meeting was attended by M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, M.S.A. Waseeth, M.A.M. Thahir, Thurairasa Ravikaran, Imran Maharoof, M.S. Uthumalebbe, Rauff Hakeem, Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna, Nizam Kariapper, Kader Masthan, A. Adaikalanathan, Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, Mano Ganesan, and several others.

Dilith turns to the youth

Meanwhile, Sarvajana Balaya Leader, MP Dilith Jayaweera has stressed that his political movement has a stable programme aimed at ensuring that Sri Lankan youth will have no reason to regret their choices and that their aspirations for the future can be turned into reality.

He made these remarks while addressing the ‘Sarvajana Youth Vibe ’26’ youth conference held at the Amphitheatre premises of the Kurunegala Municipal Council Grounds recently. The event, held under the theme ‘Let’s Change for a Change,’ was attended by a large number of young people representing different parts of the country.

Pointing out that the main objective of the conference was to move beyond the framework of traditional political rallies and identify the genuine problems and aspirations of the younger generation, Jayaweera stressed the need to pay genuine attention to young people who had been disappointed after being misled by political promises in the past.

“Today, we are addressing you not at another political rally. We are speaking as a group that firmly believes that if any injustice has been done to the youth of this country at any point in history, it must be corrected. Nothing will ever be done through our movement that would cause the youth of this country to feel distressed or regretful,” he said.

Pointing out that young voters would have a significant influence, both numerically and qualitatively, in the upcoming electoral process, the MP said that more than 150,000 new young voters expected to be added from the Kurunegala District alone at a future election would be a powerful factor in determining the country’s future direction.

He said the movement’s primary objective was to create a “happy nation” by economically empowering the younger generation, enabling them to own their own homes and vehicles, and creating stable sources of income.

Jayaweera further stated that the concept of an “entrepreneurial state” should be practically implemented to integrate Gen Z and Gen Alpha into the economic process as active participants while keeping pace with modern global trends.

“Our youth possess the strength, knowledge, and confidence to compete with any country in the world if they move away from negative attitudes. Everyone must come together to build the innovative Sri Lanka we aspire to by rising through positive thinking instead of retreating,” he added.

FNA culture under fire

On the issue of multiple ongoing probes related to emblematic incidents of the past, especially the Easter Sunday attacks probe, the familiar bureaucratic practice of simply forwarding sensitive communications marked ‘FNA’ – For Necessary Action – has come under scrutiny, with Additional Solicitor General, President’s Counsel Dileepa Peiris arguing that it is time to end the culture.

Referring to intelligence received ahead of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, Peiris has pointed out that a 9 April 2019 warning from the then Chief of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) was forwarded by then Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundara to four divisions, including VIP security, with the notation ‘FNA’.

His point was that when intelligence concerns a serious security threat, forwarding a document cannot be treated as action.

The issue is particularly significant given that the Attorney General’s Department had later filed 855 charges against former Secretary of Defence Hemasiri Fernando and Jayasundara over their alleged failure to act adequately on prior warnings.

Peiris’s remarks raise a wider question for the public administration on who is ultimately responsible when critical information is passed from one desk to another but no one takes ownership of the required action.

The Easter Sunday attacks experience suggests that ‘FNA’ cannot become a bureaucratic shield against accountability.

Minister’s ‘prediction’ questioned

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser, MP Namal Rajapaksa has questioned how a Government minister could predict that he would be sent to prison before a court has delivered its verdict, turning a pending case into a fresh political flashpoint.

Namal has said that he had confidence in the Judiciary and would respect whatever decision the court reached after considering the evidence. But he has questioned the basis for a minister publicly forecasting the outcome of an ongoing case.

“This is not only about me. It is about the independence of our Judiciary,” Namal has said, arguing that political leaders should allow courts to reach their own decisions without pressure or interference.

His sharpest question was how the minister could know that he would be imprisoned “in a few days” when the court had not yet delivered its verdict. If the minister already knew the outcome, Namal has said, the public had a right to ask how such information had been obtained.

For the Opposition, the episode provides another opportunity to question the Government’s commitment to judicial independence. However, for the Government, the comments will likely be viewed against the broader political and legal battles surrounding high-profile cases involving former and current political figures.

Focus back on RW’s case

Amidst the focus on many high-profile cases being heard at present, the latest twist in the case involving former President Wickremesinghe’s controversial 2023 visit to the United Kingdom has added another layer to an already politically sensitive affair. However, it is interesting that renewed attention is being placed on Wickremesinghe’s case following his warning this past week that the country is yet to face the “third war” on the economic front, come 2028.

Many pro-Government media, including social media outlets as well as social media users, have once again started to discuss Wickremesinghe’s case and the so-called evidence that has been gathered by investigators to prove the charges against the former President.

At the heart of the case against Wickemesinghe is the politically loaded question of whether it was an official presidential visit or a private trip paid for by the public. The answer, however, could have considerable political consequences.

Wickremesinghe travelled to the UK on 22 and 23 September 2023, while serving as President. Investigations have alleged that the trip cost the public purse approximately Rs. 16.6 million and was a private visit. The former President and his then Secretary Saman Ekanayake are currently out on bail in connection with the case.

Wickremesinghe’s side, however, has sought to maintain that the visit was official rather than private. That argument has now come under renewed scrutiny following information submitted to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) by a social and political activist.

According to information relating to official visits published by the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, there is reportedly no record indicating that Wickremesinghe had visited Britain during that period as part of an official State visit or on the basis of a diplomatic or governmental invitation.

The case moves forward

The case had reached a significant stage and when it was taken up before the Fort Magistrate’s Court on 29 April, the Magistrate had reportedly observed that sufficient evidence was available and stressed that delaying criminal investigations could diminish their value. The court had consequently directed that indictments be filed expeditiously.

Then, on 8 July, the CID had informed court that its investigations had been completed, and the relevant extracts had been forwarded to the Attorney General.

Senior State Counsel Samadari Piyasena had subsequently requested a date to communicate the Attorney General’s position.

The next date has been fixed for 30 September, when the Attorney General’s position is expected to be presented to court.

Presidential office carries considerable privileges, but it also carries an even greater responsibility to distinguish between official duties and personal activities. When the distinction becomes blurred, and the taxpayer is left footing the bill, the matter inevitably becomes one of public interest.

For the authorities, the challenge is equally clear; it is that the investigation and any subsequent prosecution must be conducted strictly according to the law, without political interference.

Basil’s bail under scrutiny

Meanwhile, former Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s latest court appearance, or rather, his continued absence, has added another legal complication to the former ruling family’s political story.

The Matara Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday (18) had ordered the forfeiture of the bail money deposited for Basil after he had repeatedly failed to appear before court in a case involving the alleged purchase of a 1.5-acre property in Matara using illicitly obtained funds.

The case, filed by the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), relates to a property at Brown’s Hill, Eliyakanda Road, Matara and Basil is the third accused.

The court was informed that Basil had continued to remain absent without producing a medical report acceptable to the court. The Magistrate had also imposed fines on the three individuals who had stood as his bail sureties, with imprisonment to follow if the fines are not paid.

The arrest warrant issued against the former Minister has meanwhile been extended until 27 October 2026.

The development is politically significant at a time when the Rajapaksa camp is already facing renewed scrutiny over past allegations of financial misconduct.

While the case itself will ultimately be decided by the courts, the latest order sends a clear message: political status will not provide immunity from judicial proceedings.

Fresh case against Yoshitha

Another Rajapaksa, meanwhile, is facing a fresh corruption case. This case was moved against former Commander of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda and Yoshitha Rajapaksa, son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR), before the Colombo High Court on Thursday (20), with both accused being formally served indictments.

The indictments were filed by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), bringing the two high-profile figures back into the spotlight over allegations of corruption.

Following the filing of the indictments, the Colombo High Court had ordered that Karannagoda and Yoshitha be released on bail.

The case adds another politically sensitive legal development involving individuals linked to the former Rajapaksa administration, at a time when the Government continues to emphasise its anti-corruption drive and its pledge to pursue accountability over alleged abuses and irregularities under previous administrations.

Scenes behind bars

It is interesting to note that these days, various forms of political unity, alliances, and the formation of groups can be seen in different parts of the political arena and the latest such ‘coming together’ can be seen at the Welikada Prison. This is because, at present, not only several MPs who remain active in politics, but also many former ministers, MPs, and public officials can be seen occupying the same prison wards.

The Welikada Prison consists of two sections – one houses remand suspects and the other houses convicted prisoners. The group of politicians and officials currently together in the convicted prisoners’ section consists of Chaminda Wijesiri, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Nalin Fernando, Sarana Gunawardena, Pujith Jayasundara, and Hemasiri Fernando.

Accordingly, when several political associates from the United National Party (UNP) and SJB had visited Wijesiri recently, they had the opportunity to speak with all of them at the same time. During the meeting, many of them were seen exchanging views on the current political situation as well.

However, Aluthgamage had mostly spoken with the visitors about the mistakes he had made during his political career and had frequently remarked that those mistakes must be corrected at some point.

Jayasundara and Fernando, meanwhile, had spoken emotionally about their children. 

Wijesiri’s biggest concern is also his three daughters. He had said that when he was at home, he would feed his children almost every day.

Meanwhile, Wijesiri and Gunawardena, who had been political rivals, have now developed a close friendship. In fact, Gunawardena is said to have arranged the basic facilities Wijesiri had needed to sleep when he had first arrived at the prison.

Many of those who had visited Wijesiri had subsequently gone to check on the wellbeing of Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, who was in the remand prison at the time.

During his time in prison, Kariyawasam’s wife, brother-in-law, and many relatives have reportedly visited him almost every day. During the first few days, he is said to have been particularly distressed because his daughter was sitting for this year’s Grade 5 Scholarship Examination and Kariyawasam himself had been helping his daughter with her studies every day.

Like Wijesiri, Kariyawasam had also had a former political associate from Parliament helping him while in remand custody. That person had been Chandana Kathriarachchi.

Spotlight on former ministers

Meanwhile, a string of corruption cases involving former ministers and senior officials has put the country’s anti-corruption drive back under the political spotlight, with several high-profile suspects appearing before the Colombo Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday (18).

Former Minister Kariyawasam and an employee of his fuel station were released on bail after being remanded over corruption allegations. Each was ordered to provide two sureties of Rs. 500,000, while the court also imposed travel bans.

Former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella was likewise granted bail in relation to one complaint filed by the CIABOC, with submissions continuing on another case against him.

Meanwhile, former Chairman of the Ceylon Fisheries Corporation Mahil Senaratne, brother of former Minister Rajitha Senaratne, was also granted bail after being arrested over alleged procurement irregularities during his tenure from 2010 to 2012.

Senaratne is accused of awarding construction and renovation work at fish outlets directly to two companies without following prescribed procurement procedures and allegedly pressuring officials to facilitate payments.