• No timeline for abolishing EP, Justice Minister admits
• No specific committees appointed 
• Civil society attempts to bridge growing reform vacuum 

As Sri Lanka marked another Independence Day recently, the National People’s Power (NPP) administration is facing mounting questions regarding the progress of its flagship political promise to abolish the Executive Presidency (EP).

Despite the administration currently navigating its second year in office, the Government has confirmed that there is no established timeline for the drafting of a new constitution.

Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara told The Sunday Morning that the matter had not yet been discussed by the Cabinet of Ministers, signalling a potential delay in the ‘system change’ that defined the President’s electoral platform.

Manifesto pledges

In the run-up to the Presidential Election held in September 2024, the NPP released its manifesto titled ‘A Thriving Nation – A Beautiful Life’ in August 2024. This policy document was unambiguous in its commitment to constitutional reform. It explicitly promised to abolish the EP and appoint a president, without Executive powers, by Parliament.

Furthermore, the manifesto pledged to introduce a new constitution that would strengthen democracy, ensure equality for all citizens, and recognise social, economic, and cultural rights such as the right to health as judicially enforceable fundamental rights. 

The manifesto also outlined a commitment to “maximum devolution” based on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, a significant pivot from the party’s historical scepticism regarding provincial councils.

Procedural delays

However, nearly 18 months into the administration’s tenure, the procedural machinery required to translate these manifesto promises into legal reality appears to be dormant. Minister Nanayakkara clarified the current position regarding the status of these reforms.

“The policy and intention to abolish the EP remain steadfast within the Government’s agenda. However, I must clarify that the Cabinet of Ministers has not yet stipulated a definitive timeline for those procedural changes to take effect,” he said.

The process of drafting a new constitution is legally and politically complex, typically requiring the appointment of a constitutional assembly or a dedicated expert committee. When asked if such a committee had been appointed, the Minister confirmed the absence of any such mechanism.

“No, a specific drafting committee has not been appointed for this purpose, nor has the matter been formally discussed within the Cabinet at this stage,” Nanayakkara said.

This admission is particularly striking given the five-year mandate of the President. Constitutional experts have long argued that major reforms are best attempted in the early years of a presidency when political capital is at its peak.

When questioned if there were any plans to complete this process before the end of the current tenure, Nanayakkara adhered strictly to the current limits of Executive discussion.

“I can only speak to what is currently being discussed within the Cabinet, and I must inform you that nothing of this nature has been taken up for discussion there as of yet,” he noted.

Consensus building

In the absence of a Government-led roadmap, civil society organisations have mobilised to fill the vacuum. The One-Text Initiative (OTI) has launched a Track 1.5 diplomacy process to build a single negotiating text or a consensus-based document that reflects the views of all major political parties before the official Government process begins.

OTI Chairman and Election Commission member Ameer Faaiz explained that their objective was to prevent the polarisation that had derailed previous constitutional attempts.

“The primary objective is to launch a comprehensive platform where everyone is able to engage constructively. The idea is not to provide a ‘model constitution’ or to present a predetermined model for adoption. Rather, it is to accept and acknowledge different kinds of opinions and aspirations and to work towards something that can be acceptable to all communities and all political aspirations,” Faaiz explained.

The OTI process has involved breaking down the constitution into thematic clusters such as the nature of the State, fundamental rights, and power sharing. Faaiz claimed that this was a political exercise designed to navigate the ‘red lines’ of various ethnic and political groups.

“We have published documents on areas where consensus was reached a long time ago, although I am unable to disclose the specifics at this moment. What we facilitated was a multi-stakeholder dialogue process where almost all the political parties with parliamentary representation were invited, and they participated in these discussions,” he said.

According to Faaiz, the initiative operates under the principle that Sri Lanka lacks political consensus rather than technical knowledge. By utilising the Chatham House Rule, he said that the OTI allowed politicians to make compromises they might be unable to make in public. He indicated that they aimed to have a consensus document ready by the end of 2027.

“It is fundamentally a question of people engaging with the material, pulling out different options, and then trying to bring about a consensus on the most viable path forward. That is precisely what we would try to facilitate through this mechanism,” Faaiz said.

When asked if the Government would be receptive to a draft constitution developed by a non-governmental entity, Minister Nanayakkara adopted a cautiously optimistic stance.

“Let them proceed with that initiative. It is always from the people that we derive our ideas, so I believe it is a positive move. Once they complete their work, we can review the document and determine what actions can be taken based on their recommendations,” Nanayakkara said.

Grassroots governance

While the OTI focuses on high-level political consensus, other civil society leaders are calling for a deepening of democracy. 

Sarvodaya Institute of Higher Learning Director General Dr. Vinya Ariyaratne warned that a constitution drafted solely by legal elites was destined to fail, drawing parallels to the 2015 Constitutional Assembly process.

“It has to be an inclusive process where the citizens of this country also have a distinct voice and a say in the outcome. Furthermore, the process itself should serve to educate the people on what a constitution actually is. I say this because our literacy level regarding the constitution is very low, and that is one significant reason why we continue to face these persistent problems in governance,” Dr. Ariyaratne argued.

He recommended a participatory drafting process similar to the one employed in post-apartheid South Africa. Sarvodaya is advocating for the constitutional recognition of a ‘fourth tier’ of government to address everyday governance needs.

“We would like the power to go down to the grassroots, similar to what Sarvodaya has been advocating for years. We need to have a fourth tier of governance, which we can call ‘Gramraj’ or ‘Gram Swaraj,’ representing the concept of village self-government. That is a requirement because even if you have the provincial council system, the debate regarding its efficacy will continue,” Dr. Ariyaratne said.

This proposed Gramraj system would sit below the existing local authorities and would be designed to be free of party politics. Dr. Ariyaratne believes this could be the key to solving the deadlock over devolution.

“If the numerical minority communities accept this proposal, I think that it is still a workable solution because the infrastructure is already developed. If that can be achieved, I think most of the grievances can be addressed. But to really have participatory democracy, we need to have this layer of governance situated below the Local Government level,” he explained.

The devolution question

A major point of uncertainty in the current constitutional discourse is the fate of the 13th Amendment and the provincial council system. The NPP manifesto promised ‘maximum devolution,’ yet Provincial Council Elections have been stalled since 2017. When asked specifically about the Government’s stance on the 13th Amendment, Minister Nanayakkara refused to be drawn into speculation.

“I can only discuss what has been formally taken up in the Cabinet. The questions you are asking regarding the 13th Amendment have not been discussed so far. Therefore, I am unable to make any comments on that matter,” he said.

Dr. Ariyaratne also highlighted the urgency of the situation, warning that without a firm commitment from the administration to endorse a participatory process, civil society efforts may have a limited impact.

“We need to get a firm assurance from the Government that it will give the necessary political leadership to this initiative. They must endorse such a participatory process. I think without that high-level commitment, it will finally not achieve much substance,” Dr. Ariyaratne cautioned.

He further noted that the new constitution must evolve to include modern rights standards such as social, economic, and cultural rights. 

“It has to be an inclusive participatory process and not one driven by just professionals and lawyers, because that is what happened in the past. In South Africa, they even consulted children. They went to schools and spoke about what a constitution was and what the rule of law entailed. I think it is the appropriate time for us to adopt such an approach,” he added.

A visible contrast 

The contrast between the Government’s manifesto promises and its current inertia is becoming increasingly visible. In August 2024, the NPP offered a bold vision of a new republic free from the executive presidency. On the day President Anura Kumara Dissanayake was sworn in, Minister Sunil Handunnetti told the media that Dissanayake would be the country’s last executive president.

However, 18 months later, in February this year, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the Cabinet had yet to even discuss a timeline for this transformation. As civil society organisations press ahead with their own preparations, the burden shifts back to the Government to begin the complex work of drafting the supreme law of the land.