Independent Sri Lanka has seen three Constitutions: the Soulbury Constitution (1948–1972), the first Republican Constitution (1972–1978), and the second Republican Constitution (1978 onwards).
Among these, the second Republican Constitution, introduced by the United National Party (UNP) Government led by President J.R. Jayewardene, has been in effect for the longest period (48 years). Before it crosses the half-century mark (within the next two years), will the National People’s Power (NPP) Government be able to bring in a new constitution?
NPP’s ambivalence
Two years ago, during the national elections, the NPP promised the people that it would introduce a new constitution. In his Presidential Election manifesto, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake had announced that they would continue the constitutional drafting process initiated by the 2015–2019 Government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.
However, with under three months remaining until he completes two years in office, there are no signs of the new constitutional drafting process moving forward; this is despite his NPP Government holding a massive majority of over two thirds in Parliament.
The leaders of the NPP Government are well aware that the people, who granted them a resounding parliamentary majority, hold immense expectations. Yet, they are faltering in fulfilling many of the sweeping promises made during the elections.
In the initial stages of coming to power, the Government announced that the new constitutional drafting process would begin after three years. Since it is customary for governments to initiate constitutional reform early in their terms, this announcement naturally raised suspicions.
Among Government leaders, it is primarily Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya who has occasionally expressed views on constitutional matters both inside and outside Parliament. Even last week, in an interview with a Colombo-based media outlet, she admitted that the Government had not prioritised the constitutional drafting process at present, while maintaining that the Government remained committed to bringing in a new constitution.
“We openly admit that priority has not been given to the constitutional drafting process during the current period. Preliminary discussions and foundational steps regarding this matter are being carried out. In the challenging situation the country currently faces, the Government is placing greater emphasis on essential needs such as the economy, infrastructure development, and poverty alleviation,” she stated.
Stating that the remaining three years of the Government’s term would be sufficient to introduce a new constitution, the Prime Minister also expressed confidence that the public would once again grant a strong mandate to the NPP after the current term, owing to its public welfare services. Let us hope they do not end up asking the public for another term in office just to bring in the new constitution.
Based on the view expressed by the Prime Minister in her interview, if the Government is unable to focus on constitutional reform because it is prioritising economic restructuring and poverty alleviation, the question arises as to when a conducive environment will emerge to focus on those processes. After all, complete economic restructuring and poverty alleviation are not activities that can be achieved within a specific timeline.
The delayed PC Elections
In any case, regarding the drafting process of a new constitution, beyond all other matters, the abolition of the executive presidency and a political solution for the national ethnic issue based on an appropriate power-sharing arrangement remain the primary concerns.
Ever since the executive presidential system was introduced, demands for its abolition have been continuous. No president or government that came to power promising the public to abolish it has ever fulfilled that promise. One would not have to wait a long time – just a year or two would be sufficient – to see whether incumbent President Dissanayake will also join the list of presidents who failed to fulfil that promise.
Regarding the devolution of power, the Government’s stance is that the current Provincial Council (PC) system will be maintained until a new constitution is brought in. This position has been frequently and firmly asserted not by President Dissanayake or his ministers, but by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) General Secretary Tilvin Silva, who is considered politically powerful.
If the Provincial Councils are to continue until a new constitution arrives, they have not specified what kind of power-sharing arrangement will be introduced thereafter, or whether at least the powers currently vested in the PCs will be incorporated into the new framework. It is also unknown what the new unit for the devolution of power will be.
It cannot be said that the significant drop in the ruling party’s votes during the 2025 Local Government (LG) Elections is the only reason why the Government is currently using stalling tactics, reluctant to hold the PC Elections. The leaders of the JVP, who have ideologically opposed the devolution of power, might also intend to disrupt the Provincial Councils as much as possible to satisfy Sinhala nationalist political sentiments.
The cost of Tamil factionalism
Therefore, in a context where the future of the Provincial Councils remains in question, the political strategies that the Tamil polity could adopt gain immense significance. Although it has always been the expectation of the Tamil people that Tamil parties should unitedly put forward proposals towards a political solution, unfortunately, it is difficult to maintain faith that such an opportunity will ever arise.
In the northern and eastern Tamil political landscape at present, two separate initiatives are being carried out to draft constitutional proposals aimed at resolving the ethnic problem. One is the effort undertaken since last February by the Tamil Lawyers’ Forum to coordinate all Tamil parties and prepare a draft; the other is the initiative of the Eelam Tamil Constitutional Assembly.
The Tamil Lawyers’ Forum, which has held three meetings with Tamil parties so far, appointed a committee at its final meeting specifically to draft the constitutional proposals. Separately from this, some parties and groups that had signed the joint statement released at the end of the first meeting – which declared that no Tamil party would engage individually or jointly in any other drafting process – have now aligned themselves with the activities of the Eelam Tamil Constitutional Assembly.
The General Council of the Constitutional Assembly, which met two weeks ago in Nallur in Jaffna, appointed a 33-member Steering Committee to prepare the constitutional draft. It was also resolved at the Nallur meeting to write an official letter requesting the Tamil Lawyers’ Forum to also contribute to the activities of the Eelam Tamil Constitutional Assembly.
This prevailing conflict regarding the formulation of constitutional drafts highlights the inability of the Tamil parties to act in unity in a manner that aligns with what contemporary circumstances demand. There is no need to take an X-ray to identify the political forces operating behind this conflict.
The political rivalry between the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK)/Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA) faction on one side and the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF)/Tamil People’s Council (TPC) faction on the other is the driving dynamic behind these two different drafting initiatives. Both of these factions hold the position that a sustainable, final solution to the ethnic problem must be a federal framework with irreversible devolution of power.
However, there is a severe disagreement between the two factions on how to handle the Provincial Council system and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. While one faction emphasises that the PC system should be used as a stepping stone in the journey towards a final solution and that the 13th Amendment must be fully implemented, the other faction maintains the position that the PCs cannot be considered even as a starting point.
While one faction puts forward a framework rooted in the core principles of the Thimpu Declaration – namely nationalism, homeland, and the right to self-determination – the other faction, while theoretically supporting this framework, is keen on a pragmatic approach. It aims to achieve an arrangement with autonomous characteristics by making concessions in terminology, so as not to provoke the fears of the majority community.
Although both factions reject a unitary state, they are also forced to confront the reality that no government in Sri Lanka is going to abolish the unitary structure.
The initiatives pursued by both factions reflect the precarious state of the Tamil polity, which has broken down in the post-war era. While the Tamil polity is busy debating and conflicting internally over the subtle legal distinctions of terms like internal and external self-determination, or unitary and federal systems, the general consensus among the majority community continues to show resistance even to the full implementation of the 13th Amendment.
In the absence of a minimum consensus or coalition between the two Tamil political factions, there is no doubt that the Government will exploit the separate constitutional proposals to create further divisions among the Tamils. This will also lead to portraying the political aspirations of the Tamil people in the international arena as fragmented and impractical demands.
It is still not too late. Both factions can still attempt to prepare a unified draft. Otherwise, they will merely have to prepare separate drafts for their own satisfaction and keep them to themselves.
The Chemmani protests
While human skeletons are being exhumed from mass graves in Chemmani, Jaffna, people are also frequently staging protests in the area.
Recently, when Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara, accompanied by officials from the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), visited the Chemmani mass graves, people staged a demonstration. A recent protest at the site demanded an international investigation into the mass graves.
The intensifying protests in Chemmani and the escalating demands for an international investigation reflect a deep crisis regarding accountability and ensuring justice for the victims.
With over 400 human skeletons discovered so far during the ongoing excavations in Chemmani, this overwhelming evidence of past atrocities has made the slow-moving domestic forensic processes unacceptable to the affected people.
When allegations of mass graves in Chemmani first surfaced in 1998 following confessions from military personnel, the domestic processes that had been initiated quickly ground to a halt. Furthermore, high-ranking individuals were never held accountable.
Families of the forcibly disappeared harbour a deep, and justifiable, fear that trusting State institutions like the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) will only work against their interests. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has already pointed out that there are no proper or standardised operating procedures for investigations into mass graves.
During a recent parliamentary session, Justice Minister Nanayakkara stated that international expertise for DNA analysis would only be sought on a “need-only” basis, subject to court orders. The affected people and the Chemmani protesters view this statement as a clear sign of Government reluctance.
Tamil political entities and human rights organisations argue that international assistance is urgently required right at the excavation stage to prevent crucial evidence from being mishandled or destroyed.
Behind every skeleton, there is a family that has endured decades of imposed silence and the ambiguous grief of not knowing what happened to their loved ones.
Instead of viewing the Chemmani excavation as a routine forensic task, transforming it into a transparent, internationally monitored, and independent investigation is the only way to truly deliver truth and legal accountability. Right now, there is no other process that can win the trust of the victims.
Controversy sparked by NP Governor’s action
The removal of Vavuniya Municipal Council Mayor Sundaralingam Kandipan and Chavakachcheri Urban Council Deputy Chairman Gnanapragasam Kishor from office – disqualified by Northern Province Governor Nagalingam Vethanayahan via a Government gazette issued recently – has triggered political tension.
The Governor’s action and the resulting conflicts must be viewed from two distinct perspectives: administrative accountability on one hand and democratic devolution of power on the other.
From the viewpoint of the Governor’s office and the provincial administration, these removals are seen as a necessary oversight measure to curb administrative irregularities and safeguard public funds.
Following a one-man inquiry by retired District Judge Kandiah Ariyanayagam, the Governor reportedly exercised the special powers vested in him under the Municipal Councils Ordinance and the Urban Councils Ordinance.
Supporters of the Governor’s intervention argue that he acted in the public interest and fulfilled a mandate for clean administration. They contend that regardless of the political fallout, his action ensures that those holding Local Government office adhere to strict legal and ethical standards.
Conversely, the Governor’s move has drawn severe criticism from Tamil political parties, civil service organisations, and legal observers in the north and east. These objections primarily focus on the nature of the authority exercised and the precedent it sets.
The chief criticism highlighted the democratic deficit within the Provincial Council structure. Critics argue that it is blatantly anti-democratic for a Governor appointed by the President to abruptly revoke the democratic mandate of Local Government representatives elected by the people.
Legal experts have pointed out that although the gazette states the removals were executed under the respective LG ordinances, it lacks specific factual data or comprehensive details regarding the charges.
They note that this lack of transparency fuels allegations that the Governor’s action is politically motivated or arbitrary. Consequently, the responsibility lies with the Governor to clarify these details.
At the same time, these removals have once again brought to light the dispute surrounding the extensive Executive powers granted to provincial governors within the debates on the devolution of power under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
The danger facing PCs
Following a significant drop in the NPP vote share during the 2025 LG Elections, southern Opposition parties believe that the Government will suffer a major setback in any future election. It is solely for this reason that they keep challenging the Government to hold the Provincial Council Elections.
These parties have absolutely no concern for the true purpose behind the introduction of the PC system. When they were in power, they focused intensely on stripping away the powers of the Provincial Councils. Their only objective now is to show that the ruling party is losing its public support.
Aside from merely making demands, these parties are not ready to lift a finger or launch a struggle to force the Government to conduct the elections.
Against this backdrop, the remarks made by former Chairman of the Election Commission Mahinda Deshapriya, in an interview with a Colombo-based media outlet a few days ago, warrant serious attention.
“The Opposition parties are calling for Provincial Council Elections simply to demonstrate their political strength. Under the current circumstances, the likelihood of holding PC Elections appears slim. In fact, the 2029 Presidential Election or even a Parliamentary Election might take place before the next Provincial Council Elections are held.
“In reality, the need and demand for devolution of power strictly belong to the political parties of the north and east, as well as the political parties representing estate workers in the hill country. For other mainstream political parties, the PC Elections are just another election.
“Even if Provincial Council Elections were to be held in the current environment, it would not serve the true concept of a Provincial Council or the purpose of devolution.”
There is a grave warning hidden behind Deshapriya’s comments. Beyond the immediate risk of the elections not being held, the very future of the system as a mechanism for devolution is being thrown into question. If such a situation arises, the southern Opposition parties that are currently clamouring for elections will not care in the slightest.
In reality, the severe impact will be felt by the Tamil people who fought for devolution. Even among the Tamil political parties representing these people, a few parties that maintain the stance that there is ‘nothing’ to the Provincial Councils remain completely unconcerned. These parties possess a cynical mindset that would celebrate the demise of the Provincial Councils as if it were a ‘victory’.
As Deshapriya pointed out, the Tamil parties of the north and east, along with the hill-country Tamil parties that truly recognise the necessity of the Provincial Councils, must act. They need to mobilise the public and launch democratic struggles to pressure the Government into holding the elections without further delay, forcing it to abandon its delaying tactics.
Otherwise, there is a looming danger of eventually losing even these Provincial Councils, which currently stand as the only provision for the devolution of power within the Sri Lankan Constitution.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)