• Mahinda writes from Nawaloka as Namal remains in remand
• President tells callers a pardon is not on the table
• Gampaha Magistrate turns rule-of-law spotlight on IGP
• CID searches EPDP offices as Chemmani report sparks fresh row
• Katchatheevu research station: Science, sovereignty, or a Trojan horse?
• Ranil’s personal diplomacy fills gap left by protocol

Those who expected a dull political week, with Parliament occupied by the destruction of seized narcotics and the registration of dogs, were in for a surprise. The most moving political document of the week came neither from the floor of the House nor from a party headquarters. It came from a hospital ward.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has written an emotional letter to his son, MP Namal Rajapaksa, who remains in remand custody, recalling the advice he gave when his eldest son first entered politics in 2010. Namal, he wrote, had sought his permission, and he had warned him to be prepared for imprisonment and hardship. 

“If you want to enter politics, do so. But be prepared to go to prison and face hardships,” the former President recalled telling his son. The advice, he explained, had been based on his own experience of being imprisoned over what he described as baseless allegations shortly after entering politics, before Namal was born.

The letter is, in many ways, a portrait of a family under siege. Mahinda revealed that he and his wife Shiranthi were both receiving treatment at the Nawaloka Hospital, where Namal was born, while their younger sons Yoshitha and Rohitha looked after them. Family sources say that Shiranthi’s first heart surgery, carried out after an emergency during her inpatient treatment, was successful, although a further open-heart operation is due. Only recently was she granted bail on medical grounds in the case concerning funds given to her charity for a children’s hospital scanner.

Notably, the patriarch urged his son to keep his faith in the Judiciary, which he said had been his only source of confidence during his own imprisonment. “Whatever anyone says, place your trust only in the Judiciary,” he wrote. He also counselled against vengeance should Namal return to power. “Children are not responsible for what their parents do. Not taking revenge is the way and tradition of the Rajapaksas,” he said. 

Referring to the cases against Yoshitha, he claimed that one of them stemmed from his son’s decision to join the Navy. He further maintained that the family had been unfairly blamed despite its contribution to ending the war and, although it had suffered electoral defeats, urged Namal to keep believing that Sri Lankans are a grateful people. The letter closed with a Buddhist blessing.

Whatever one’s view of the Rajapaksas, the timing is hard to ignore. On Friday (23), the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court further remanded Namal and former Director of Krrish Group Janaki Siriwardena until 6 November, after rejecting their bail applications in the Krrish transaction case. Earlier in the week, Namal’s Private Secretary was arrested by the Bribery Commission and later released on bail with a travel ban, while the Attorney General is reportedly seeking an Interpol red notice for Basil Rajapaksa, following a blue notice. A former President and former First Lady in hospital, the heir apparent in remand, and a brother sought abroad: the question that follows is obvious.

Who will hold the fort?

While the United National Party (UNP) and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) have been concentrating on their grassroots organisations, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has found itself grappling with a rather different challenge. Namal’s absence from day-to-day politics has inevitably set tongues wagging about who might step forward to keep the party machinery running.

Although the SLPP leadership insists that there is no search for an alternative, speculation continued last week over whether a senior figure could be brought forward to shoulder greater responsibility in the interim.

One name that surfaced was that of former Minister of Power and Energy Kanchana Wijesekera, who served in the Cabinet under President Ranil Wickremesinghe and became closely associated with the restructuring of fuel supply arrangements during the economic crisis. 

Wijesekera, who hails from a political family in the Southern Province, has experience in both party politics and government. Some went further, claiming that Wickremesinghe himself had floated his name as a stand-in until Namal’s return. Readers will recall that Wijesekera broke ranks in 2024 to back Wickremesinghe’s presidential bid and lost the SLPP’s Matara District leadership as a result.

However, there has been little indication that Wijesekera is interested. Political circles suggest he has shown no particular enthusiasm for becoming the party’s principal figure in Namal’s absence. Moreover, a fact-checking outlet has rated as false the viral posts claiming he would become the next SLPP leader, noting that he is not an active member of the party, and the SLPP has rejected the idea outright.

Another name mentioned was that of former Minister of Health and Industries Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, the senior Galle politician and son of former Minister Richard Pathirana, who has held several Cabinet portfolios. Pathirana has kept a comparatively restrained profile and is generally associated with a less confrontational style of politics. Consequently, some within SLPP circles reportedly question whether his approach would suit the highly visible role now associated with Namal.

Meanwhile, it is long-standing Rajapaksa loyalist and former Cabinet Minister Rohitha Abeygunawardhana who appears to be shouldering much of the visible political work, attending to the party’s engagements and organisational activities. Within the SLPP, the argument is that there is no vacuum requiring a new appointment, since existing senior members are capable of carrying the party forward.

Indeed, Namal himself seems determined to make the same point. From remand, he has announced that the party’s village-level constituency meetings will begin next week and has continued to comment on national affairs, most recently on the Inspector General of Police (IGP), a matter to which this column will return.

Nevertheless, the very circulation of names such as Wijesekera and Pathirana suggests that questions about the party’s immediate direction have not vanished from private conversations. The SLPP was built around the Rajapaksa family’s political identity, so any talk of another figure taking a prominent role, even temporarily, is bound to attract attention. 

For now, the official message is that Namal’s position remains unchanged. Whether the speculation hardens into something more substantial may well depend on how long the courts keep him where he is.

A storm in saffron

The other storm of the week also had a prison cell at its centre. Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera is serving the remainder of a six-year sentence for contempt of court, after the Supreme Court annulled the pardon granted to him in 2019 and the Court of Appeal ordered the sentence to be enforced. His appearance in court in prison clothing provoked the Mahanayake Theras, although the Cabinet Spokesman insisted that the same prison rules had been applied to all 63 monks serving sentences.

Since then, the controversy has grown into a full-blown campaign. Monks who marched from Kandy to Colombo have been staging a satyagraha at the Viharamahadevi Park since 16 October, after a court order moved them away from the Presidential Secretariat. 

On Thursday (22), Ven. Balangoda Kassapa Thera raised the stakes, declaring that the President had only two options: resign or pardon Gnanasara Thera. Later that day, the Police read out a fresh court order barring the protesters from remaining in front of the Prime Minister’s Office on Flower Road or near the Buddha statue in the park. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal put off the petitions challenging the removal of the monk’s robes until 18 November.

The week also produced an unexpected confession. Former President Maithripala Sirisena issued a statement accepting that the court’s decision was correct, explaining that the pardon had been signed without the required approval of the Ministry of Justice and apologising to the Maha Sangha for an error he largely attributed to his officials.

The Opposition, for its part, sought to turn the President’s words against him. At a press conference organised by the People’s United Opposition, Patali Champika Ranawaka claimed that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake had pardoned 285 convicts on Independence Day in 2025 and another 49 in 2026, and asked how that squared with his pledge not to act contrary to court orders.

The President’s telephone

President Dissanayake’s telephone, meanwhile, was reportedly kept busy, with Buddhist monks, legal professionals, and several others contacting him over Gnanasara Thera’s imprisonment and the controversy surrounding the saffron robe.

Interestingly, according to those familiar with the conversations, most callers were not necessarily seeking a pardon at all. Rather, they were concerned about whether the Thera could be permitted to wear his robes when produced before court. Several senior monks and professionals pointed out that, irrespective of the circumstances of the conviction, it would be appropriate for a Buddhist monk to appear before court in his traditional attire. 

The President explained that a committee appointed to examine the matter had already recommended allowing such arrangements, and that he personally saw no objection to implementing the recommendation.

However, the conversations soon moved to the wider implications of presidential pardons, particularly in contempt cases. Some legal professionals reportedly cautioned that the indiscriminate use of pardons could undermine the significance of constitutional power itself, while others feared for public confidence in the Judiciary if a person convicted of contempt of court were granted Executive clemency.

Having heard the different views, the President made his position clear. “This is not a matter in which I can grant a pardon as President. If such relief is to be obtained, it must be sought through the courts,” he reportedly told the callers.

He also acknowledged that some long-standing provisions of the law needed reconsideration. “There are certain provisions in our laws that have remained unchanged for a considerable period and these need to be amended. We can change the rules concerning the attire in which religious leaders are brought before court. I believe such decisions should be made after consulting the relevant religious leaders, depending on the circumstances,” he explained. 

“We can discuss these matters further if necessary, but there is no point in discussing a presidential pardon,” he added.

He struck the same note in public at a women’s conference in Badulla last week, reiterating that his administration would not interfere with judicial decisions.

Laughter in the Cabinet room

The issue also found its way into an informal discussion after Monday’s (19) Cabinet meeting, when the President and several Ministers began exchanging views on developments at the grassroots. The talk soon turned to the Opposition’s demands for presidential intervention, prompting a wry observation from the Minister of Justice.

“When we were in the Opposition, we opposed the granting of presidential pardons. Now the Opposition is pressuring the President to grant one. What a strange Opposition we have,” the Minister remarked with a smile.

Minister Nalinda Jayatissa then pointed to the Government’s responsibility to remain consistent with its mandate. “In any case, it is difficult for us to even consider granting a presidential pardon. It would go against the mandate given to us by the people. Besides, a Government like ours cannot use presidential powers to overturn a judicial decision,” he observed, adding that a pardon was no simple exercise, since the interests and views of victims would also have to be considered.

The President then recalled the Opposition’s criticism during the debate on the 22nd Amendment. “What did these people say when the 22nd Amendment was introduced? They accused the Government and the President of interfering with the Judiciary. They alleged that judges were being pressured and that the Judiciary was being politicised,” he said. 

“Now, these very same people are asking us to use presidential powers to disregard court judgments and grant a presidential pardon. [Lakshman] Kiriella even said that the President could issue orders. When they run out of arguments, the Opposition seems to forget even the positions it previously held.”

He then reminded his Ministers of the need for consistency. “As a Government, we must maintain a consistent position and act in a manner that strengthens public confidence in the Judiciary and the rule of law,” he emphasised. The conversation also touched on the monks’ protests and the public debate surrounding the tusker Kawanthissa.

Of course, consistency cuts both ways, which brings us to an awkward development on the Government’s own side of the ledger.

The IGP in the dock

Just as Ministers were extolling respect for the courts, a Magistrate in Gampaha delivered a pointed reminder that the principle applies to the State’s own officers too. On Wednesday (21), Gampaha Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne directed the court registrar to forward case files concerning IGP Priyantha Weerasooriya to the President of the Court of Appeal, so that contempt of court proceedings could be considered over the alleged failure to comply with court orders.

The background is instructive. The Gampaha Anti-Corruption Unit had filed drug possession charges against a resident of Delowewa, Makandana. Finding the charges baseless, the court ordered three Police officers and the Police Department to pay the accused Rs. 200,000 in compensation, and directed the IGP to issue a nationwide circular instructing officers not to file frivolous cases against innocent people. The Magistrate expressed serious concern that the directive had not been implemented.

The Police Spokesman said the Police Legal Division would most probably consult the Attorney General’s Department. It must be stressed that no proceedings have yet been instituted, and that the decision rests with the President of the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, the symbolism is hard to miss. Namal Rajapaksa wasted no time in asking what action would be taken against the IGP, arguing that the law should apply equally to the Police chief and to Gnanasara Thera, who is, after all, in prison for contempt of court.

For a Government that has staked its reputation on equality before the law, this is a test it cannot afford to fail. If court orders must be obeyed by monks and Rajapaksas alike, they must also be obeyed by the most senior Police officer in the land.

Back to the grassroots

With few headline-grabbing developments last week, the main Opposition parties have been quietly turning their attention to their grassroots organisations.

Former President Wickremesinghe is understood to be preparing a fresh round of UNP reorganisation from January next year, with particular emphasis on rebuilding the party’s grassroots network and bringing younger faces into leadership positions. He has been discussing these plans with close associates, including former Secretary to the President Saman Ekanayake, who worked closely with him during the difficult period after the 2022 upheaval, and is said to be particularly keen to identify a new generation of organisers.

Across the divide, SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa has also kept himself occupied. He is making arrangements for an almsgiving in memory of Kawanthissa, the country’s largest tusker, which died of a gunshot wound on 16 October, while continuing discussions with his inner circle on organisation and political messaging. Indeed, the tusker’s death has become a political issue in its own right: the Opposition has moved for a Parliamentary Select Committee, Premadasa has proposed a special task force to protect tuskers, and the President has appointed an expert committee to investigate.

However, the SJB’s waters were not entirely calm. Former State Minister Ashok Abeysinghe recently resigned from all his party posts, including that of Deputy General Secretary, and one report links his departure to frustration among some Members of Parliament (MPs) over the leadership’s failure to build a broad Opposition front, as well as its call for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment without prior consultation. These claims remain unconfirmed, but they suggest that the SJB, too, has its internal debates. 

Meanwhile, the Opposition’s No-Confidence Motion against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, handed over on 9 October with 44 signatures, appears to have stalled, with the Government reportedly pointing to technical issues and awaiting the Attorney General’s advice.

For the time being, the battle is being fought away from the spotlight, and the relative silence may therefore be deceptive.

A Thai visit and a personal touch

The recent private visit of Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister Suphajee Suthumpun has stirred up more than a diplomatic squabble. It has also raised questions about whether the present administration fully appreciates the value of personal relationships in dealing with foreign dignitaries.

The Deputy Prime Minister came to attend the enshrinement ceremony at the Mihindu Maha Seya in Mihintale, an occasion of considerable significance given the centuries-old Buddhist ties between the two countries and Thailand’s donation of the pinnacle, the chuda manikya. 

The UNP was quick to question the courtesies and security extended to her, while Sarvajana Balaya Leader, MP Dilith Jayaweera sought an adjournment debate. The Foreign Ministry dismissed the criticism, maintaining that the visit was strictly private and that all facilities requested by the Thai Embassy, including access to the VIP Lounge, had been provided.

The Government’s explanation may have addressed the procedural aspects, but not the broader question of whether hospitality should be confined to what is formally requested.

Against this backdrop, an interesting footnote has emerged. While the Government and the UNP were exchanging statements, Wickremesinghe quietly attended to a practical matter. The Deputy Prime Minister’s husband, who had been in Mihintale, required transport to Dambulla, where the party was staying, and Wickremesinghe personally arranged it. It was hardly a major diplomatic undertaking, yet it offered a telling contrast between formal protocol and personal attention.

Wickremesinghe has long valued such relationships and they have occasionally proved useful at difficult moments. In 2022, after Gotabaya Rajapaksa left the country amid widespread protests and resigned from Singapore, his next destination became a sensitive matter. 

Thailand eventually agreed to receive him in August that year, and Wickremesinghe’s personal connections are understood to have been an important factor. He had a close friendship with Thailand’s then Foreign Minister, while Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Bangkok enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the Thai Foreign Ministry.

The episode is a reminder that diplomatic relationships are neither built overnight nor sustained by protocol alone. The question is not merely whether the protocol book was followed, but whether an opportunity to show Sri Lankan hospitality to a long-standing friend was fully utilised.

Unease in the north

In the north, by contrast, the week was anything but quiet. On Monday, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) searched the Jaffna Headquarters of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) on Stanley Road under a warrant from the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court, recording statements in the presence of Party Leader, former Minister Douglas Devananda. 

The next day, a special CID team from Colombo searched the party’s office in Kurumadam, Kayts. According to the Police, as reported, the searches are part of an investigation into unlicensed firearms allegedly linked to Devananda.

Devananda’s response was characteristically shrewd. Rather than protest, he thanked the Government for confirming, as he put it, that no weapons had been concealed and invited further investigations, including beneath former EPDP camps. He also seized on an interim report on the Chemmani burial site, which he said challenged the allegations previously made against his party.

That report has become the most contested document in the north. Submitted to the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court by archaeologist Professor Raj Somadeva and Anusha Wanninayake, it suggests that the site more closely resembles formal burial practices than a clandestine grave, and raises the possibility of an epidemic or natural disaster. 

Critics point out that it does not establish how, when, or by whom the dead were buried, and that no carbon dating has been done. According to one account, nearly two-thirds of the 574 people exhumed were infants or children. The Democratic Tamil National Alliance and, interestingly, the EPDP have called for a credible and independent investigation, while Sinhala nationalist voices have hailed the report as a vindication of the armed forces. Few documents this year have been read so differently north and south of Elephant Pass.

Meanwhile, the CID questioned Jaffna Mayor V. Mathivathany for about two hours over a statue in Nallur honouring Thileepan, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) political leader who died on hunger strike in 1987. The military returned 11.23 acres of private land in Jaffna, a small fraction of the more than 2,500 acres still occupied in the district. And in Colombo, the Supreme Court began hearing more than 20 petitions against the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, which ITAK General Secretary M.A. Sumanthiran says runs contrary to the National People’s Power’s (NPP) own past position on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

Add the continued postponement of Provincial Council Elections, which Tamil leaders say the NPP promised within a year of taking office, and the Government’s balancing act becomes clear. In the south, it faces nationalist pressure over Gnanasara Thera. In the north, where it won most Tamil majority districts in 2024, frustration over land, accountability, and devolution is quietly building.

Katchatheevu: Science or sovereignty?

Across the Palk Strait, an old question resurfaced in a new guise. On 20 October, the Pathfinder Foundation, founded by former High Commissioner to India Milinda Moragoda, held a round table in Colombo on its proposal, first made in February 2017, to establish a marine research station on Katchatheevu.

The foundation’s case is that a low-impact station run by the Department of Fisheries, the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA), and Sri Lankan universities could monitor marine biodiversity, assess the damage caused by bottom trawling, and inform fisheries policy, while serving as a platform for scientific dialogue with India. Chairman Bernard Goonetilleke observed that the island was mainly used during the annual St. Anthony’s Church Festival and called for its potential to be explored, subject to the law and environmental safeguards. Distinguished Fellow Admiral Prof. Jayanath Colombage warned that fishing vessels crossing maritime boundaries could be used to carry weapons and narcotics, recalling that the 2008 Mumbai attackers had reached the city on a hijacked Indian trawler. 

Executive Director Dr. Dayaratna Silva expressed the hope that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay would view the matter beyond narrow political considerations. The timing was no accident either, since the Supreme Court of India took up the Katchatheevu question again on 6 October before adjourning it to February 2027.

However, the most pointed contribution came from journalist Manoj Abayadeera, who presented his views under the title ‘Katchatheevu: A Laboratory for Manufacturing Crisis Rather Than Leaving the Resolution to Time’. He questioned whether the proposal would offer a practical solution to the fisheries dispute, warning that it could instead revive a politically sensitive issue that has remained relatively contained.

Abayadeera argued that Katchatheevu had repeatedly been used as an electoral instrument in India, with parties accusing their opponents of surrendering sovereignty, and cited Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s criticism of the Congress in 2024 over the 1974 agreement. Reopening the question through a new institutional initiative, he contended, could give fresh momentum to a dispute that resurfaced whenever India went to the polls.

He further maintained that the more pressing issue was not the island’s symbolism but the destructive fishing affecting the Northern Province. Bottom trawling around Delft, the Gulf of Mannar, and Mullaitivu, he argued, posed a far greater threat to biodiversity, breeding grounds, and the livelihoods of local fishing communities. He also questioned the project’s feasibility, pointing to the costs of construction, transport, energy, water, equipment, and accommodation, while salt-laden winds would accelerate corrosion. Sri Lanka, he suggested, would do better to strengthen its existing marine research institutions.

Another concern was India’s proposed role in financing and staffing the institute. Reliance on Indian assistance, Abayadeera warned, could be portrayed by political opponents as a concession of national interest, reviving suspicions over ownership and straining bilateral relations. Nor, he argued, would scientific monitoring by itself stop powerful commercial fishing interests from sending vessels into Sri Lankan waters without effective enforcement and practical agreements.

His central argument was that a proposal presented as scientific cooperation could inadvertently turn a manageable dispute into a larger political and diplomatic crisis. Rather than investing in a costly facility on Katchatheevu, he urged caution, so that Sri Lanka could protect its marine resources and fishing communities without needlessly reopening the sovereignty question.

In fairness, both sides claim to be defending Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. One holds that it must be given practical meaning; the other that it is best protected by leaving well alone. As far as this column can tell, the Government has yet to say which view it prefers.

Keeping watch

Taken together, the week presents a curious picture. The Rajapaksa family, which once controlled every lever of power, is divided between a hospital ward and a remand cell, while its party insists there is no vacuum to fill. The Government has made respect for the courts its watchword, only to find its own Police chief facing a Magistrate’s displeasure. The Opposition, demanding a pardon it once opposed, is quietly rebuilding its machinery, while the north reads the same report in a very different light from the south.

‘The Watchtower’ will therefore be keeping a close eye on several dates: Namal’s next court appearance on 6 November, the robe petitions on 18 November, and the Court of Appeal’s decision on the IGP. In Sri Lankan politics, as old hands know, the quietest weeks are often the ones that matter most.