• Speaker’s no-confidence motion stalls in a committee he chairs
• Accept the new bills or live with PTA, Govt. tells critics
• Homagama and Kobeigane deaths test Police custody safeguards
• Sabry’s Prabhakaran comparison turns Namal’s bail plea into a storm
• From Viharamahadevi to Anuradhapura, protest finds a fresh cause

For a Government that rode to power on the promise of a different political culture, the past week offered an uncomfortable lesson. It is one thing to set the standard from the Opposition benches and quite another to live by it from the Treasury benches. 

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s administration spent much of the last seven days defending its own conduct on the very questions it once pressed on others, namely fairness in Parliament, the reach of security laws, the conduct of the Police, and the transparency of large public projects.

None of this means the Government has abandoned its reform agenda. To be fair, some of the week’s controversies were inherited, and others were stirred by an Opposition eager for any stick with which to beat the ruling party. Even so, the test of a government that promised to be different is not how loudly it denounces its predecessors but how willingly it submits to the yardstick it once held up to them. Judged by that measure, the week produced a decidedly mixed scorecard.

The Speaker and the stalled motion

Nowhere was that test sharper than in the House itself. The No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne, handed over on 9 October with the signatures of 44 MPs and a charge sheet of 50 allegations, has turned into a contest over who decides whether it is debated at all.

When the motion was first announced, Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake told Parliament that the Government was ready to take it up without delay. That readiness has since given way to reluctance. At the party leaders’ meeting on 23 October, chaired, as it happened, by the Speaker himself, the Government and the Speaker took the position that there was no need to seek the Attorney General’s opinion after all, and that the Opposition should amend and resubmit the allegations before anything further could be done.

The Opposition’s response last week was blunt. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and its allies declared that they would neither amend nor withdraw a single charge, and called on the Speaker to resign. They argued that an accused Speaker presiding over the very committee that decided the fate of a motion against him dealt a serious blow to the rights of the Opposition. They also claimed the motion had never been referred to the Attorney General despite an earlier understanding, and that legal experts had found no basis for the Government’s argument that matters in it were sub judice.

Meanwhile, Parliament has listed a debate on a ‘revised’ motion for 3 November. The difficulty is obvious, since the Opposition says there will be no revised motion. Consequently, the House may find itself scheduled to debate a document that does not exist, while the original sits in the Order Book, unattended.

The allegations themselves, ranging from the use of an additional official residence to the running of a media unit without Cabinet approval and the handling of Opposition motions, remain just that: allegations. The Speaker is entitled to answer them and the Government is entitled to argue that some are flawed. However, the proper place to do so is on the floor of the House, in open debate, and not in a committee room chaired by the person accused.

There is an irony here that the National People’s Power (NPP) should not miss. In December 2024, its first Speaker Asoka Ranwala stepped down within weeks of taking office amid questions over his academic credentials. That episode cost the Government a Speaker but spared it a long quarrel. This time, by tying the motion in procedural knots, it risks a more damaging impression: that a party which once championed the rights of a tiny Opposition now finds those rights inconvenient. If the Speaker is confident of his case, the simplest course is to let the House hear it.

This bill, or the PTA

If the Speaker’s motion tested the Government’s commitment to parliamentary fair play, the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA) and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Act are testing its commitment to civil liberties.

The criticism has come from every direction. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has called for the proposed PSTA to be withdrawn in its present form, pointing out that the gazetted version departs significantly from the draft approved by the committee that reviewed it, and has asked for the Organised Crimes Bill to be withdrawn altogether. The Human Rights Commission has described the latter as incompatible with the Fundamental Rights chapter. The BASL’s illustration has done the rounds: on a literal reading, five amateur musicians performing popular songs in a restaurant without permission could qualify as an organised criminal group.

Last week, the Government answered. Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa insisted that the two bills were designed to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) while upholding human rights, and dismissed fears that they would cost Sri Lanka the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) concession, noting that even the harsher PTA had not done so. He then added a warning: if the new framework is rejected, the Government may have no alternative but to fall back on the PTA.

That argument deserves careful scrutiny. The choice before the country is not between these bills as drafted and the PTA. The PTA was meant to go, and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), whose members were among its victims in the 1980s, has long called for its repeal. Presenting critics with an ultimatum – accept this or keep the old law – is precisely the kind of argument the NPP would have rejected in opposition.

Moreover, the Opposition has seized the ground. Speaking from former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s office on Flower Road, Prof. G.L. Peiris warned that the PSTA would hand police powers to the armed forces without a state of emergency and allow the secretary of defence to issue detention orders. That a Rajapaksa-era Foreign Minister should make this case has not been lost on anyone. Even so, the point stands on its own merits and the venue itself hinted at the slow regrouping of an Opposition that has struggled to find common cause. The Joint Apparel Association Forum, hardly a political actor, has also urged swift amendments for fear of the trade consequences.

A smaller episode illustrated the same concern in miniature. On Monday (26 October), the Cinnamon Gardens Police told the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court that it had begun investigating statements made by Ven. Balangoda Kassapa Thera during the protest at the Viharamahadevi Park, following a complaint by Jagath Basnayake, an organiser attached to the NPP Headquarters. The Government is entitled to seek an investigation. Nevertheless, when a ruling party official initiates a complaint and the Police moves to obtain unedited footage from media institutions, the public is entitled to ask whether law enforcement is acting independently. It is the very question the PSTA raises on a far larger scale.

The Supreme Court is expected to communicate its determination on the proposed PSTA to the Speaker in the coming weeks. Whatever it decides, the Government would do well to treat the objections not as obstruction but as advice.

Deaths behind station walls

The Government’s case for wider powers of arrest and detention was not helped by events at two Police stations last week.

On Sunday (25 October), Ishara Harshakumara, a 29-year-old father of two from Kiriwaththuduwa, died after being taken from the Homagama Police Station to the Homagama Base Hospital. He had been arrested in the early hours over a drug-related allegation. His family alleged that he had been assaulted at the station, claiming they saw officers carry him back to the cell and that he was taken to hospital only after they had insisted. The initial Police account was that the suspect had suddenly fallen ill.

Within four days, that account had changed. On Thursday (29 October), Western Province Senior Deputy Inspector General (SDIG) Sajeewa Medawatte said that the death was believed to have been caused by an assault, that the medical report recorded three broken ribs and bleeding in the brain, and that information suggested the suspect had been assaulted while held at the station’s Crimes Division. He also conceded that officers had failed to follow proper procedures. However, he added a complication: the man had also been assaulted during a dispute between two groups on 24 October, before his arrest, and both incidents are now under investigation.

To its credit, the Government has not looked away. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala ordered the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to conduct an urgent and independent investigation, three officers were suspended, and a Sub-Inspector has since been arrested. The Human Rights Commission summoned three officers, including the Officer-in-Charge. Police Spokesman ASP F.U. Wootler went further than such spokesmen usually do, admitting that these incidents continued, despite repeated instructions from the IGP, because of negligence by some officers.

Then came Kobeigane. A man accused of a string of thefts was caught by villagers in the Beddegama area, tied to a tree, and handed over to the Kobeigane Police last Sunday (25 October). He died after being admitted to the Nikaweratiya Hospital two days later. The Police has arrested several of the villagers, whose relatives insist the man was handed over unharmed and point out that the Police had previously asked them to apprehend him. The cause of death has not been established, and it would be premature to apportion blame. Even so, a man died after two days in Police custody, and the public deserves a full account.

The two cases are different and neither has been tested in court. What they share is a familiar pattern: a death in custody, an early explanation that does not hold, and assurances that the law will take its course. A Government asking Parliament to allow detention orders of up to two months at a time, issued by a ministry secretary rather than a judge, cannot afford that pattern. The swift suspensions in Homagama are a start. The real test is whether the investigations end in prosecutions and whether the safeguards on arrest and custody are actually enforced.

A plea in the name of the parents

The Rajapaksa family, meanwhile, spent another week in the courts, and once again the legal arguments became entangled with politics.

On Tuesday (27 October), the Bribery Commission informed the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court that indictments carrying 24 charges had been filed before a Permanent High Court-at-Bar against Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser Namal Rajapaksa and others over the alleged Rs. 100 million bribe linked to an Airbus transaction, with 59 witnesses listed. On the same day, the Matara Magistrate issued an open warrant for the arrest of former Minister Basil Rajapaksa over the Brown’s Hill land case.

However, it was the bail application in the separate Krrish case that captured public attention. President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for the remanded MP, sought bail on compassionate grounds, telling court that former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa was to undergo open-heart surgery that very afternoon and that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa had only recently returned home from hospital. As the eldest son, he argued, Namal had a duty to his parents.

Sabry then reached for a comparison few would have anticipated. If the State had extended care to the parents of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, he argued, compassion should surely be shown to the parents of his client. Coming from Counsel for a family whose political identity rests on the defeat of the LTTE, the remark was striking, and it set social media alight. He also questioned why a Government Minister facing Bribery Commission proceedings had not been treated in the same way, a suggestion the commission rejected, maintaining that it applied the law without discrimination.

The commission took particular exception to another remark, that those who exercise power today may find themselves on the receiving end tomorrow. Its Counsel asked whether the words were aimed at investigators, witnesses, or officials, and told court that some witnesses had earlier been reluctant to come forward for fear of their safety. Sabry maintained that he had been misunderstood.

What followed outside the courtroom was less edifying. Sabry faced a barrage of online abuse, much of it from accounts sympathetic to the Government and some of it plainly personal. Yet the following day, several fellow President’s Counsel reportedly approached him at the courthouse to offer their support. The contrast was telling. A lawyer’s submissions are fair game for criticism, but a lawyer’s duty to represent a client, however unpopular, is not. The online attacks cannot be laid at the Government’s door. Nevertheless, a party that has pledged to protect the independence of the Judiciary would do well to remind its more zealous supporters that intimidating counsel is no part of that pledge.

The Magistrate will rule on the bail application on Tuesday (3 November). Until then, the position remains what it always was. Namal Rajapaksa is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the prosecution is entitled to prove its case, and neither social media nor political rhetoric can substitute for evidence tested in court.

From Viharamahadevi to Anuradhapura

The satyagraha at the Viharamahadevi Park came to a quiet end last week, though hardly in the manner its organisers intended. Allegations surfaced on social media that monks associated with the protest had met Opposition politicians and businessmen at a leading Colombo hotel on 24 and 25 October. Ven. Kassapa Thera explained that he had fallen ill and had been accommodated at the hotel by devotees, and that former Minister Sarath Weerasekera had visited merely to inquire after his health. A letter from the Mahanayake Theras then offered the protesters a dignified exit and the satyagraha was suspended.

The Government, for its part, deserves credit for its restraint. The matter reportedly came up when the President telephoned his Public Security Minister on an unrelated issue. “What is happening at the Viharamahadevi Park now?” he asked. The Minister replied that the park authorities were preparing to take legal action themselves and that the Government need not intervene. “What they want is a confrontation with the Government. We are handling the situation carefully without giving them that opportunity,” he said.

The President agreed. “That is exactly what we should do. We must not act hastily. They are looking for a confrontation and we should not fall into that trap. Seek the advice of the Mahanayake Theras and proceed accordingly. Different people are trying to take this issue in different directions,” he instructed.

Among themselves, ministers were less guarded. At one gathering, Minister Wijepala turned the Opposition’s rule of law argument on its head. “Remember what happened during the controversy over the 22nd Amendment? They were shouting that nobody should interfere with the law. Now they want the President to disregard the law and exercise his Executive powers,” he said. The President was equally firm. “The people did not elect us to act according to the Opposition’s wishes. We cannot take the law into our own hands under any circumstances. That is not going to happen,” he said.

When another Minister predicted that the rain and the embarrassment of the hotel controversy would soon send the monks home, the President was less sanguine. “Even if they leave, they will not stop. They will emerge somewhere else with another issue,” he remarked.

He was proved right within days. The proposed Anuradhapura Sacred City Development Project, estimated at around Rs. 7.7 billion and expected to be funded by the Government of India, has become the latest flashpoint. Former MP Udaya Gammanpila has questioned the effect of underground construction on ancient structures and asked whether new religious buildings were planned, while claims of a fence around the Ruwanwelisaya, and even of the stupa sinking into the ground, have circulated freely.

The Government benches found some humour in the shift. During an informal exchange in Parliament, Minister K.D. Lalkantha patted MP Sena Nanayakkara on the back. “First it was Kandy, then Viharamahadevi Park in Colombo, followed by a Colombo hotel. Now they have reached Anuradhapura,” he quipped. Nanayakkara reckoned the campaign would run for a few more days, but Lalkantha was confident it would not. “Once we present the complete plan, including the digital illustrations, and explain everything to the public, there will be very little left to argue about,” he said.

Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe turned to the substance. “We are talking about a place of immense archaeological and religious importance. Of course it must be protected and conserved. The gazette clearly explains how the work is to be carried out, but people do not usually read gazettes. That is why Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila are creating unnecessary fears,” he said. 

Nanayakkara dismissed the fence story as completely false, while Lalkantha took particular exception to the claim that the Ruwanwelisaya could sink. “Think about the engineering knowledge our ancestors possessed. They built enormous reservoirs centuries ago. By making such claims, these people are actually belittling the technological achievements of our ancient civilisation,” he said.

On Thursday (29 October), National Physical Planning Department Director General Ruchira Withana said that the gazette contained no provision for new kovils or flower altars, and that the fence in question was an existing one, some 500 metres from the stupa, meant to keep animals out. Cabinet Spokesman Jayatissa, meanwhile, urged critics not to cast doubt on Indian assistance, reminding them where the Buddha came from and from where the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi was brought.

Plainly, the Government regards the controversy as little more than politics, and some of the more lurid claims certainly deserve to be dismissed. Even so, it cannot simply point to a gazette published on 27 February and expect the public to have read it. A multibillion-rupee project in the island’s most sacred city demands clear answers on expenditure, procurement, archaeological safeguards, and timelines, and those answers should have been offered before the rumours took hold, not after. 

The President’s decision to establish an advisory committee under the Chief Prelate of the Atamasthana is a sensible step. Its value, however, will depend on whether it is given real authority to scrutinise the plans, rather than serving as yet another consultative body.

A diplomat’s farewell

It was left to a departing diplomat to strike a warmer note. Speaking at the Annual General Meeting of the Sri Lanka–India Media Friendship Association in Colombo on Wednesday (28 October), Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha, who is nearing the end of his term, said that Sri Lanka had been the number one posting of his career, drawing cheers from those present.

Jha arrived in December 2023, although Colombo was hardly new to him. As a Counsellor at the High Commission between 2007 and 2010, he helped build the architecture of India–Sri Lanka development cooperation after the war. 

His second stint spanned a change of government. He presented his credentials to President Wickremesinghe and stayed on to see President Dissanayake make New Delhi his first foreign destination, followed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit in April 2025. It was Jha who signed the defence cooperation Memorandum of Understanding during that visit, an agreement whose full text has yet to be made public in either capital. When Cyclone Ditwah struck, he was on the ground in the worst-affected areas as Indian Army engineers worked alongside their Sri Lankan counterparts.

His successor will inherit a relationship that is closer than it has been in years and yet, as the Anuradhapura debate shows, still capable of stirring old sensitivities at home.

The week ahead

This week will bring the first answers. Parliament will meet from 3 to 6 November with the Speaker’s motion on the agenda, and the Magistrate will rule on Namal Rajapaksa’s bail application the same day. Then, on 12 November, the President will present the 2027 Budget.

None of these tests is beyond the Government. It holds a commanding majority, it retains considerable public goodwill, and it has shown, as with the 22nd Amendment, that it can move quickly when it chooses to. 

However, the standard it set for itself in Opposition was never merely to win votes in the House but to govern differently. A Speaker’s conduct debated in the open, security laws that do not outlive their purpose, Police stations where suspects survive their questioning, and public projects explained before they are questioned: none of this is too much to ask of any government. For one that promised a different political culture, it is the very least.