- Basil leaves on private visit amidst crisis; PM chairs Cabinet for second week
- Cabinet discuss gloomy economic conditions; no decision on a final solution
- More Ministers push for IMF support as India and others play it cool on aid
- Chinese envoys visit North; eyeing larger footprint on India’s doorstep
- HRCSL faces int’l downgrade over lack of independence, inaction on violations
- UN Special Mandate Holders urge President to comprehensively reform PTA
Amidst the soaring cost of living and bleeding foreign reserves situation in the country, Sri Lankans last Monday (13) morning woke up to the news of first, the Parliament having been prorogued and next, that the President was taking off to Singapore on a private visit for a routine medical check-up.
The biggest surprise however, was Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s departure to the US on a private visit last Wednesday (15). It is learnt that Basil travelled to his home in the US to spend time with his family during the festive season. Basil and wife Pushpa Rajapaksa left Colombo early Wednesday morning for Dubai, from where they had flown to their home in California.
The timing of the visit is quite conspicuous, since the country and its people are struggling for survival amidst multiple economic woes brought about by a dangerously low level of foreign reserves.
Several governing party members who are Basil loyalists were seen last week quipping that Basil had gone on a “small holiday”, while some others stated that the Finance Minister had to do some routine medical check-ups. They also asserted that Basil had put in motion several action plans and did what needed to be done to ensure that the country prepares itself to face the worsening economic crisis.
However, the week that passed started with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa proroguing Parliament from midnight last Sunday (12), scheduled to reconvene on 18 January 2022 at 10 a.m. The irony is that 18 January is also a decisive date for the country’s economy, as several payments are due on that day.
Upon hearing the news of the prorogation, the question that was on many minds was the reason for such a move, since Parliament was anyway on its annual vacation till 11 January 2022. However, the prorogation will result in the automatic dissolution of all pending procedures of the House and parliamentary committees, including the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) chaired by governing party MP Charitha Herath.
The COPE had been in the centre of controversy over the recent mass resignations at the Board of Investment (BOI), including that of its Chairman. The President declined to accept the resignation letters and directed his secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera to issue letters stating so. However, BOI Chairman Sanjaya Mohottala met the President and reiterated his intention of stepping down from his post at the Board.
The President last week appointed Raja Edirisooriya as the new BOI Chairman.
However, while political circles were buzzing with talk of the prorogation of Parliament and the President’s departure on a private visit, President Rajapaksa returned to the country last Tuesday (14) night. The Finance Minister left for the US when the President returned to the country.
Meanwhile, a meeting was planned to hold a discussion with ministers, parliamentarians, and local governments, as well as provincial officials on the implementation of the 2022 Budget. With talk of the Finance Minister’s foreign travel on the cards, the meeting was speculated to be chaired by Prime Minister Rajapaksa. However, the Finance Minister chaired the meeting last Tuesday prior to his departure.
Interestingly, one of the main topics discussed at the meeting at Temple Trees was the ministers’ suffering from insomnia due to the present crisis situation in the country. Several Cabinet Ministers at the meeting openly discussed with State Ministers their inability to sleep at night after hearing the country’s economic woes.
Amidst the country’s economic crisis, people are also facing difficulties in securing their food commodities, including vegetables that are currently in short supply. Traders at Economic Centres had claimed that the average supply of vegetables to economic centres had reduced by about 85% so far, and that it was difficult to sell even that small quantity of vegetables as prices keep rising daily. In most places, consumers who come to buy vegetables were seen turning back after hearing the prices.
Floating the rupee
It is in such a backdrop that the Cabinet of Ministers met last Monday (13) under the patronage of Prime Minister Rajapaksa in the absence of the President at Temple Trees.
The Ministers discussed several key issues currently plaguing the country with a lengthy discussion on the current economic woes faced by the country. The Cabinet meeting that commenced at 5 p.m. concluded at around 9.30 p.m. However, no solid decisions were made on formulating viable solutions to the present crises at the end of the Cabinet meeting.
Energy Minister Udaya Gammanpila informed the Cabinet that difficulties in importing fuel had become further compounded with the depleting dollar reserves and the inability to open letters of credit (LCs). He said $ 420 million was required to import fuel for the month of December resulting in the need for opening LCs weekly. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) had meanwhile informed the Energy Ministry last month that the CBSL was unable to continue releasing funds from its reserves for fuel imports.
Gammanpila cautioned the Cabinet that a disruption to fuel supplies would bring the country to a standstill, with a total disruption in the power supply as well.
Trade Minister Dr. Bandula Gunawardana also weighed in saying he was facing difficulties in getting food items due to the dollar crisis. “Dhal, potatoes, and other food items are all in short supply as imports are hindered,” he said.
Gammanpila quipped in, saying that people could find other alternatives for certain food items, but without fuel, the economic impact would be far reaching.
Justice Minister Ali Sabry PC then spoke of the dollar rate, and questioned why the rupee is not set afloat as the CBSL intervention in holding the rupee was ineffective, as payments were not being carried out at Rs. 203 rate, but at around Rs. 230-240.
Finance Minister Rajapaksa had also agreed with Sabry, saying that payments were not being made at rates publicised by the CBSL.
Minister Ramesh Pathirana also noted that the only solution is to float the rupee. While many ministers agreed with floating the rupee, no final decision was reached at the Cabinet.
The conversation then turned to seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to find some respite from the burgeoning crisis.
This time around, more ministers were seen supporting the IMF solution.
Minister Pathirana, in fact, told the Cabinet that there should not be any undue fear in approaching the IMF as it had been done by the Government in 2009 and 2012. He added that the conditions put forward by the IMF are mostly public sector reforms.
Several ministers supported Pathirana and cautioned that a further delay in reaching out to the IMF could worsen Sri Lanka’s situation.
The Ministers opposed to seeking IMF assistance and the strict conditions it would entail have instead proposed that efforts be made to reach out to Sri Lanka’s friends among the international community for support.
Ministers Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Gunawardana opposed seeking IMF assistance.
Gunawardana explained to the Cabinet that the IMF would impose strict conditions on Sri Lanka that would result in the Government becoming unpopular. “The Yahapalana Government went to the IMF and they were unable to even win the villages,” the Minister had said, adding that the IMF would stop public sector recruitment, overtime payments, salary increments, call for the floating of the rupee, and sale of loss-making state entities.
Responding to Gunawardana’s statement, several Cabinet Ministers said that if the Government failed to address the crisis situation, the public would anyway oppose the incumbent administration with or without seeking IMF assistance.
Nanayakkara had vehemently opposed IMF assistance and threatened to quit the Government if such a move was mooted.
“Vasu, we will not go to the IMF because you are opposed to it. But can you tell us the alternative you are proposing?” the Prime Minister asked Nanayakkara. After a slight hesitation, Nanayakkara said: “Let’s look for an alternative,” indicating he had no alternative proposal.
Finance Minister Rajapaksa said an IMF delegation was in the country looking at Sri Lanka’s economy for Article IV consultations. “Let’s wait and see how things turn out,” he noted.
The Finance Minister also informed the Cabinet that there will be added restrictions on imports due to the dollar shortage. He noted that the restrictions would had to be in place until there is an improvement in the foreign reserves situation.
However, he said that priority would be given to fuel, health sector imports, and raw materials for the manufacturing sector.
The Finance Minister sought the Cabinet’s input on selling the country’s gold reserves to increase liquidity in foreign reserves.
Minister Nanayakkara said that the Finance Ministry should seek expert opinions on the matter as such a move would require expert knowledge.
Basil also informed the Cabinet that the Government had already initiated discussions with India, China, and Japan seeking assistance.
Snowballing woes
The Cabinet meeting last week concluded without any firm decisions being made on addressing the current crises.
Also, there will not be a Cabinet meeting this week, it is learnt.
“Restructuring of debts is a must. Government should first announce a temporary suspension on debts and should look for ways and means which will minimise the suffering of people,” Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Dr. Harsha de Silva told a press conference last week, adding: “The Government should have sought IMF assistance months ago when we suggested it.”
According to de Silva, Sri Lanka’s debt service needed for the next six weeks is $ 1.44 billion, which includes payments in relation to development, sovereign bonds, and other obligations which include $ 200 million development bonds and several other obligations.
The CBSL had reportedly sold $ 372.35 million in November to defend the rupee – a record high in recent years – reflecting the seriousness of the foreign currency liquidity crisis Sri Lanka is currently in.
According to the latest data, the CBSL had sold $ 372.35 million in foreign exchange and bought $ 61.71 million from the domestic foreign exchange market in November, staying as a net seller of foreign exchange for the second consecutive month.
In October, after months of being a net absorber or buyer of foreign currency from the market, the CBSL had turned to a net seller of $ 72.32 million worth of foreign currency.
Sri Lanka’s rupee had been under heavy pressure since this June, when the expected inflows to the reserves started to minimise.
Meanwhile, Fitch Ratings had downgraded Sri Lanka’s Long-Term Foreign-Currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to “CC” from “CCC”. Fitch typically does not assign outlooks or apply modifiers for sovereigns with a rating of “CCC” or below.
“The downgrade reflects our view of an increased probability of a default event in coming months in light of Sri Lanka’s worsening external liquidity position, underscored by a drop in foreign-exchange reserves set against high external debt payments and limited financing inflows. The severity of financial stress is illustrated by elevated government-bond yields and downward pressure on the currency,” Fitch stated, adding that the agency had affirmed the Long-Term Local-Currency IDR at “CCC”, as authorities had continued access to domestic financing, despite high and still-rising government debt and an elevated debt service burden.
“Sri Lanka’s foreign-exchange reserves have declined much faster than we expected at our last review, owing to a combination of a higher import bill and foreign currency intervention by the CBSL. Foreign exchange reserves have declined by about $ 2 billion since August, falling to $ 1.6 billion at end-November, equivalent to less than one month of current external payments (CXP). This represents a drop in foreign currency reserves of about $ 4 billion since end-2020. We believe it will be difficult for the government to meet its external debt obligations in 2022 and 2023 in the absence of new external financing sources. Obligations include two international sovereign bonds of $ 500 million due in January 2022 and $ 1 billion due in July 2022. The Government also faces foreign currency debt service payments, including principal and interest, of $ 6.9 billion in 2022, equivalent to nearly 430% of official gross international reserves as of November 2021. Cumulative foreign currency debt service, including interest and principal, amounts to about $ 26 billion from 2022 through to 2026,” Fitch had further stated.
However, the CBSL, in a statement, mentioned that the Government strongly objects to the Fitch downgrade, claiming that it was a “hasty move” as they had failed to take into consideration the impact of the pandemic on the national economy, as well as failed to recognise the potential of the reforms introduced through Budget 2022.
Senior governing party MP Anura Priyadarshana Yapa last week went on record calling on the Government to be truthful about the ongoing economic crisis in order to find solutions.
“This is something that needs to be resolved honestly, not something that can be solved in secret. When we ask, they claim that there will be this much of foreign exchange by the end of the month, but both they and we know that it is not going to happen, because we don’t have a way to get foreign exchange. Therefore, during such an isolated time, we can only move forward with leaders and officials who speak and deal with the truth,” he had told the media.
Yapa had further said that he did not understand how the country’s economy was currently being run, adding that no one had taken into account the seriousness of the economic crisis in the country and had also accused certain officials of telling large-scale lies to the leaders including the Head of State. “We don’t understand how the economy is being run. No one is taking the gravity of this economic crisis seriously. I think that a few officials are telling a lot of untruths to the leaders including the Head of State.”
The growing crisis had resulted in Prime Minister Rajapaksa last Sunday (12) telephoning Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for support.
The Premier had tweeted that during the conversation, he had discussed areas both nations can work together to strengthen bilateral relations to mutually benefit people from both countries.
Prime Minister Rajapaksa had also added that Bangladesh had been a true and sincere friend of Sri Lanka, and that he greatly values the historic friendship between the two nations.
It is believed that the Prime Minister had sought Bangladesh’s further support to resolve the crisis.
Indian support
While negotiating with Sri Lanka to provide financial assistance sought by the country, the Indian Government is firm that Sri Lanka had to show some goodwill on its part as a confidence building measure.
India, during the past few months, had undergone several bitter experiences at Sri Lanka’s hands. The first was the move by the Sri Lankan Government to renege on the tripartite agreement reached with India and Japan to develop the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo Port. The next was the proposed development of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and the Yugadanavi Power Plant, for which India was among the shortlisted bidders. The project was handed over to the US-based New Fortress Energy Inc. (NFE) by the Sri Lankan Government, bypassing the tender process.
Therefore, the Indian Government seems to be waiting for some positive developments in Sri Lanka in favour of India in order to “show the money”.
One of the key projects in the pipeline for India in Sri Lanka is the development of the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm. Discussions had been progressing for some time on a joint project between the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Lanka Indian Oil Company (LIOC) to develop the oil tank farm.
However, it is learnt that the Government is in the process of allocating two key renewable energy generation projects to India and Japan.
Japan had also been frustrated over the manner in which the Government of Sri Lanka handled several key development projects. The sudden cancellation of the Japanese-funded Light Rail Transit (LRT) project, and the joint venture with India on the ECT, earned much displeasure from the Japanese.
However, realising the consequences of such actions, the Government seems to be looking at mending relations.
It is learnt that while the wind powered renewable energy plant in Mannar is to be allocated to India’s Adani Group, the proposed renewable energy plant in Pooneryn is to be allocated to Marubeni Corp. of Japan.
Meanwhile, The Economic Times (ET) had reported that India was working on an urgent package of assistance for Sri Lanka to help the island nation out of an economic crisis.
The measures are said to cover areas including food and health security, energy security, and a currency swap, an unnamed official had been quoted as saying.
ET had reported that the plan was to extend credit lines for Sri Lanka to import food, medicine, fuel, and other essential items from India as Sri Lanka is at risk of a possible default amid dwindling foreign exchange reserves, even as its Central Bank Governor said he’s confident the Government will service all its overseas debt.
The two countries have “identified ways and means through which the existing bilateral economic relationship between the two countries could be further broadened and deepened,” ET had stated, citing a statement from the Sri Lankan Government.
Meanwhile, Government Spokesperson Minister Pathirana dismissed media reports that the solar power generation projects in the North about to be launched by China, but abandoned under controversial circumstances would be given to India.
The Chinese Embassy in Colombo initially announced that China had decided to suspend the construction of a hybrid solar power (renewable energy) project in three islands in the North – namely, Nagadeepa, Analthivue, and Delft off Jaffna – but decided to suspend the project owing to security concerns raised by a third party. However, the Chinese Embassy later stated that the company has not withdrawn from the Northern power plants project.
Chinese envoy in the North
Amidst the ongoing diplomatic cold war over the proposed renewable energy plants in the islands off the Jaffna peninsula between China and India, China’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka Qi Zenhong undertook a visit to the Northern Province.
During his visit, the Chinese envoy had visited the Nallur Kandaswamy Temple in Jaffna last Thursday (16) where the Ambassador offered pooja, adorned in traditional white vetti and bare-chested. Several Chinese officials also accompanied the ambassador dressed in vettis and bare-chested. It was the first time in decades that a Chinese envoy had paid homage at the historic Nallur Temple in Jaffna bare-chested and in vettis. The Chinese offered trays laden with fruits and poojas.
With the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) being officially declared as atheist, the Chinese Ambassador undoubtedly carried out a diplomatic stunt to establish a cultural connection with the people in the Northern Province. The bottom line is that the Ambassador’s visit last week is indicative of the growing Chinese interest eyeing the Northern Province.
The Chinese Ambassador also visited several Chinese projects in the North including a sea urchin project accompanied by Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananada.
While the Chinese envoy toured the North, there’s talk in the governing party that Prime Minister Rajapaksa was planning a visit to the Lord Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati this month.
Petition against Basil and Cabraal
Amidst the growing crisis situation in the country, Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President Saliya Pieris and Deputy President Anura B. Meddegoda last week filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court over the issue of conversion of foreign currency earnings into Sri Lankan rupees.
Finance Minister Rajapaksa, CBSL Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, and the Monetary Board of the CBSL were named as respondents.
The petitioners had stated that members of the BASL practicing law in Sri Lanka provide professional services in Sri Lanka and outside Sri Lanka to natural and juristic persons, who are resident within and outside of Sri Lanka. In the provision of such services in or outside Sri Lanka to a person resident outside Sri Lanka and deriving the benefit thereof outside Sri Lanka, the members of the BASL are paid their professional fees, in both local and foreign currency.
In the event where payment of professional fees are made in foreign currency for the services provided by its members within or outside Sri Lanka, the BASL had noted that such foreign currency is remitted to and deposited in Personal Resident Foreign Currency Accounts (PRFCA), Special Deposit Accounts (SDA), or other permitted accounts in licensed commercial banks (LCBs) in Sri Lanka, in such currency without conversion into Sri Lankan rupees.
The petitioners had further stated that the entirety of the professional fees for services provided to a person resident outside Sri Lanka and derived in foreign currency is for the entirety of services provided as a professional and can by no stretch of imagination be described as “Repatriation of Export Proceeds into Sri Lanka”.
The petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 140 of the Constitution on behalf of the members of the BASL in their own right, and in the public interest and for the public benefit, to have the purported Gazette Extraordinary 2251/42 of 28 October 2021 marked “P3” quashed, as being ultra vires to the powers of the first respondent and as being unlawful, irrational, unjustifiable, arbitrary, capricious, in breach of all principles of justice, and due process, and therefore vitiated in law and liable to be quashed.
The petitioners had stated that such draconian measures of forcefully converting or threatening to convert the foreign currency of Attorneys-at-Law who are members of the BASL amounts to a form of expropriation of private property which is both unconstitutional and wholly illegal and which cannot be sanctioned in law.
The petitioners had added that the relationship between a bank and a customer is governed by the law relating to banking in Sri Lanka.
“A bank cannot convert or utilise funds of a customer without the express consent either orally or in writing of the customer. Therefore, banks cannot be coerced by the first respondent under threat of sanction for non-compliance by the banks of Rule 8 of P3,” the petition had further stated.
Accordingly, the court had been requested to grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari, quashing the decision of the first and/or second respondent to issue Gazette Extraordinary 2251/42 of 28 October 2021 marked “P3” in terms of the Monetary Law Act No. 58 of 1949.
Further, the petitioners had sought a declaration to be granted that Gazette Extraordinary 2251/42 of 28 October 2021 made under Section 10(c) read with Section 68 of the Monetary Law Act No. 58 of 1949 is null and void and of no force or effect in law.
The petition was filed after the CBSL issued new rules, as published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2251/42 dated 28 October 2021, in respect of repatriation of export proceeds into Sri Lanka and conversion of such export proceeds to Sri Lanka rupees, repealing the existing rules issued under the Monetary Law Act No.58 of 1949. The new rules are applicable for both exporters of goods and services in Sri Lanka.
The Yugadanavi saga
Litigation against government decisions continued last week under the fundamental rights (FR) petitions filed before the Supreme Court against the controversial Yugadanavi agreement signed between the Treasury and US-based NFE Sri Lanka Power Holdings LLC.
The Cabinet of Ministers were expected to discuss the agreement last week but had not discussed the matter since the meeting was not chaired by the President.
The agreement was to initially be discussed at the previous Cabinet meeting with power sector officials making a presentation on the deal. However, the discussion was postponed to last week due to time constraints by Prime Minister Rajapaksa, who chaired the meeting on 6 December.
Minister Wimal Weerawansa told the media last week that for the first time in Sri Lanka’s history, three members of the Cabinet had informed the courts through a lawyer that the Cabinet papers regarding the Yugadanavi Power Plant agreement were not formally discussed in the Cabinet.
Weerawansa had further stated that the controversial Yugadanavi Power Plant agreement with New Fortress Energy Inc. was tabled in the Cabinet two weeks back and that he raised his concerns about it in writing as it contains factors unfavorable to the country.
Three Cabinet Ministers, Weerawansa, Gammanpila, and Nanayakkara, had reported their independent views to the Supreme Court against the Cabinet decision to approve the Yugadanavi agreement through a private counsel.
President Rajapaksa had also instructed the Finance Ministry and Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle to consult with the CEB Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) prior to making any decisions with regard to the deal, the CEBEU claimed.
“We met with the President last week, who listened to and understood our concerns with regard to the LNG deal with New Fortress. Attygalle was also present at the meeting and the President instructed him to not do anything with regard to it before discussing with us, the engineers, first,” CEBEU President Eng. Saumya Kumarawadu had said.
“There is already an ongoing legal case regarding the agreement, which will determine its legality. In addition to that, we also have financial and technical considerations about it, which we hope that the Finance Ministry will discuss with us first,” he added.
The People’s Forum headed by the group of 10 (G-10) governing alliance partners held its second public forum in Eheliyagoda last Tuesday.
The G-10 leaders formed the forum in order to create a public discussion on the concerns over the Yugadanavi deal as well as the LNG monopoly in the making.
Meanwhile, former Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) MP Sunil Handunnetti told a news conference last week: “According to clause 35 of the agreement, Finance Ministry Secretary Sujith Ruchira Attygalle had signed on behalf of the Government. Former power Ministry Secretary M.M.C. Ferdinando, who is said to be the advisor to the Finance Ministry, had signed as witness. He now appears in the media as CEB Chairman as well. But, he had signed the agreement as an advisor to the Finance Ministry. A person named Daniel Christopher had signed the agreement on behalf of the NFE Power Holdings Sri Lanka. The witness of the Government had signed as the witness of the US Company as well. Is it possible in an agreement?”
He further noted that the second witness Nimalka Morahela, who is the project co-ordinator, had signed the agreement as witness to both the Government and the US Company.
“She had earlier served in the Tourist Board projects. We don’t know if she had been in the power projects. She also had signed on behalf of the US Company. It means that two Sri Lankans have signed on behalf of the US Company. We can imagine why this agreement was not presented to the Cabinet and Parliament,” Handunnetti added.
Seeking intervention
Meanwhile, minority parties are continuing with the recently-initiated dialogue on the proposed new Constitution and the need to address the issues faced by the minority communities through a new Constitution.
The seven main political parties representing the country’s Tamil-speaking population, led by Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Leader R. Sampanthan, is to send a document with a set of common proposals to India and the international community by Tuesday (21). A special focus is said to be placed on the discussion in some political quarters on the removal of the 13th Amendment in the proposed new Constitution.
The decision to write a letter to India and the international community was decided at a discussion held between minority political party leaders last Sunday (12), which was the second round of discussions held between the main minority parties.
Speaking at a press conference following the meeting, Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) Leader MP Mano Ganesan explained the reasons for turning to India.
“India also has a responsibility towards the 13th Amendment. Do not criticise us by saying that we are taking Sri Lankan problems to the international community. It was Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa who first took Sri Lankan problems to the international community in 1989. Yes, we need a united Sri Lanka, but we also need a diverse Sri Lanka,” he had said.
Tamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) Leader MP C.V. Wigneswaran told the media that it was unanimously decided to submit the proposed common proposal document to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week, where objections will be made on the removal of the 13th Amendment in the proposed new Constitution.
Wigneswaran explained that such a removal would invalidate the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord signed in 1987 and that it would prevent India from being able to intervene in the issues of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
The document and the accompanying letter are to be co-signed by the TNA, the Tamil People’s National Front (TPNA), the TPA, the Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), and the Tamil National Party.
Meanwhile, Ganesan had also demanded that the Government immediately hold provincial council elections and the need for the devolution of power that goes beyond the 13th Amendment.
“Our hope is to live equally in a united Sri Lanka. We must stop the division and extremism in Sri Lanka. In today’s discussion, we focused on the 13th Amendment. But the 13th Amendment is not our final hope. It is a constitutional right and it is not a new thing. We demand that the Government enact the 13th Amendment and challenge them to win the hearts of the Tamil-speaking people,” he had further said at the press conference.
He added that the discussion between the party leaders had also focused on the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the issue of land-grabbing faced by Tamil-speaking minorities in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and prisoners held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979, as well as the land, housing, and political rights of plantation workers.
Sri Lanka Muslim Council (SLMC) Leader, MP Rauff Hakeem had also spoken at the press conference and noted the importance of going beyond the 13th Amendment in pursuit of a meaningful devolution of power.
Hakeem also condemned the actions of various Presidential Task Forces (PTFs) in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and added: “They are interfering in the Northern and Eastern populations. We condemn these actions.”
Downgrading HRCSL
Meanwhile, Sri Lanka’s human rights plight was once again in the limelight last week when the world’s leading organisation of national human rights bodies had recommended the downgrading of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL). It was recommended that HRCSL be downgraded to a “B” status, primarily due to its non-independent appointment process and its failure to adequately address human rights violations.
The recommendation was made recently by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), a partner of the United Nations (UN). It was contained in the report and recommendations of the virtual session of its Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA), held from 18-29 October 2021.
The SCA had reportedly noted that it questioned the HRCSL about the appointment process for its Chairperson and Commissioners; pluralism in the current membership, including the staff; the impact of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution on the HRCSL’s mandate; the responsiveness of the HRCSL to international human rights mechanisms; and actions taken by the HRCSL in connection with the intimidation of human rights defenders, the detention of protestors, deaths in police custody, and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979.
“During the 2021 session, the SCA conducted a telephone interview with the HRCSL in which the HRCSL was asked to provide responses in relation to a number of issues. While the SCA acknowledges that the HRCSL had provided some information in relation to the above-mentioned issues, in both its interview and written submission, it considers the responses insufficient to address the substance of its concerns,” the GANHRI had stated in its accreditation report that was released the previous week.
The previous review conducted by the SCA was in 2018, when it had considered an application for re-accreditation from the HRCSL and the SCA at the time had recommended that the HRCSL be re-accredited with an “A” status.
The SCA had now stated that the recent downgrade is set to be effective only from the second half of 2022, unless the HRCSL could convince the SCA to reverse it.
The SCA had further encouraged the HRCSL to continue active engagement with global human rights bodies and other national human rights institutions, as well as relevant stakeholders at international, regional, and national levels, in order to continue strengthening its institutional framework and working methods.
It had added that the HRCSL had challenged the recommendation in accordance with Article 12.1 (ii) of the GANHRI statute, and that the challenge is under review.
Concerns over PTA again
Meanwhile, the Government had received a joint letter dated 9 December 2021 from the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief ,and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 40/16, 45/3, 43/4, 41/12, 43/8, 40/10 and 43/20 on concerns over the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
“We wish to recall our previously communicated serious concerns with the PTA and to encourage your Excellency’s Government commitment to substantive review and revision of this national counter-terrorism legislation, ensuring the integration of key benchmarks to align the PTA with Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations,” the joint letter had stated.
“Nonetheless, we welcome the recent discussions on proposed reform of the PTA. In this context, we urge your Government to ensure that any amendments of the PTA aim to address identified international human rights law deficits and align the legislation with your international obligations, fully and comprehensively. To this end, we outline below key benchmarks that are aligned with previous communications and recommendations to enable substantive reform. In our view these recommendations are necessary prerequisites to ensure the PTA is amended to be compliant with international law obligations:
- Employ definitions of terrorism that comply with international norms
- Ensure precision and legal certainty, especially when this legislation may impact the rights of freedom of expression, opinion, association, and religion or belief
- Institute provisions and measures to prevent and halt arbitrary deprivation of liberty
- Ensure preventive measures are in place to prevent torture and enforced disappearance and adhere to their absolute prohibition
- Enable overarching due process and fair trial guarantees, including judicial oversight and access to legal counsel,” the letter had further noted
- 1. Please provide detailed information of how the counterterrorism efforts of Your Excellency’s Government and planned or in process amendments will comply with international obligations, including the benchmarks highlighted in this communication, specifically ensuring that any amendments:
- Employ definitions of terrorism that comply with international norms
- Ensure precision and legal certainty, especially when legislation may impact the rights of freedom of expression, opinion, association and religion or belief
- Institute provisions and measures to prevent and halt arbitrary deprivation of liberty
- Ensure preventive measures are in place to prevent torture and enforced disappearance and adhere to their absolute prohibition
- Enable overarching due process and fair trial guarantees, including judicial oversight and access to legal counsel
- Please provide information in detail of how the counterterrorism efforts of Your Excellency’s Government comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001), 1456 (2003), 1566 (2004), 1624 (2005), 2178 (2014), 2242 (2015), 2341 (2017), 2354 (2017), 2368 (2017), 2370 (2017), 2395 (2017) and 2396 (2017) ; as well as Human Rights Council solution 35/34 and General Assembly resolutions 49/60, 51/210, 72/123 and 72/180, in particular with international human rights law requirements of same.”