Shakeel nears century after 96-run stand with Ghori extends Pakistan’s dominance
India hold on to series lead after washout as New Zealand’s winning streak ends
Lahiru creates history with Youth Olympic silver
Sri Lanka fall for the green top trap
The infrastructure crisis at state universities
This September, on the sidelines of the 81 st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, a number of countries from North to South and East to West, thought it necessary to come together in a new coalition of states to protect multilateralism against the recent acceleration of unilateralism which has negatively impacted most of the world.
The members of the new formation called ‘Partners for Multilateralism’ or P4M , established on the 21 st of September 2026 in New York, aims to protect themselves against threats to global peace and security including through violent conflicts, disregard for international law, coercive measures such as sanctions and tariffs arbitrarily applied leading to disruptions of trade and supply chains, and to reaffirm their commitment to multilateralism based on the Charter of the United Nations.
The authentically global spread of the dissatisfaction with the subversion of the existing international order through unilateralism was evident from the initial co-sponsors of the initiative: Australia, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India and Kenya, covering all 5 continents.
Further signatories to this commitment were Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Council of Europe, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Guatemala, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Norway, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Türkiye and Uruguay.
This initiative of a formal commitment through a network of countries offering a common platform for dialogue and collective action, specifically as a response to unbridled unilateralism, is a significant moment in current international relations.
Its significance lies in the fact that this coalition of states includes countries of the Global North allying with those of the Global South, in an act of resistance, of breaking traditional ranks, of the rejection of the imposition of the will of the United States. This is a rallying of individual attempts at asserting sovereign independence into the synergistic enhancement needed to contain the obvious risks to each one.
The Joint Declaration states that the members “recognise that economic interdependence is increasingly used as a source of leverage, disrupting trade, supply chains, investment and development finance…”
The Declaration also recognises emerging multipolarity and the importance of international law and the multilateral system. It also recommits to the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity, among other things:
“We reaffirm that the multilateral system founded on the United Nations Charter remains indispensable. It has helped provide a framework for peace, decolonization, prosperity, and human dignity. It must now respond to a world that is more interconnected and complex, more contested and more multipolar.
We affirm the need to uphold and enforce the rules, principles and commitments that remain essential to international order, while renewing and reforming the multilateral system so that it is more effective, representative, inclusive and fit for purpose.
We reaffirm our commitment to international law and to the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of the threat or use of force.”
China and Russia have consistently reiterated their commitment to multilateralism, though they weren’t signatories to the 2026 declaration of the P4M summit. The Global South has been fighting multiple versions of unilateralism for many decades.
The final document and declaration adopted at the eighteenth Summit of meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Baku on 25 th and 26 th October 2019, condemns the “promulgation and application of unilateral coercive measures against countries of the Movement, which are in violation of the Charter and international law and undermine, among other things, the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, self-determination and non-interference”.
The UN Human Rights Council which appointed a Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCM) many years ago in 2014, passed its latest resolution in 2023 reiterating that no state can use unilateral measures to “ coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind…”
It also declared that secondary sanctions imposed on attempts to circumvent primary sanctions as contrary to international law and welcomes the launch of a ‘ sanctions research platform ’ and “ uniform and universal tool for monitoring and assessing the impact of unilateral coercive measures and overcompliance on human rights “.
As per the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Sanctions Research Platform is a “comprehensive online reference tool dedicated to collecting article, reports, videos and any research material and information on Unilateral Coercive Measures and their effect on human rights”. (OHCHR)
It further states that the tool for monitoring “offers the possibility to observe how humanitarian indicators have been changing yearly, comparative with the data before unilateral sanctions were imposed, with special attention to years when sanctions pressure has been increased or decreased.” (OHCHR)
The Special Rapporteur for Universal Coercive Measures described the tool for monitoring as follows: “The monitoring and impact assessment tool is unique…Due to the political discrepancy among states, adequacy of monitoring and assessment can only be achieved at the UN level through collecting information on specific indicators from all relevant sources, based on the principles of comprehensiveness, impartiality, transparency and verification.”
Submitted in 2023 at the UNHRC, this Resolution was voted against by several countries of the Global North with voting rights: Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.
However, the Resolution passed with 32 votes which included China and voting members from South Asia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal among others.
Canada and other European states have now found this particular scourge of UCM at their own doorstep as the current US administration declares its aspirations to annex sovereign territories to its own federation, to name their rivers to reflect US ownership, to impose crippling tariffs and involve itself in violent conflict overseas– affecting all countries of the world given the interdependency of trade.
Despite earlier unprincipled positions on the same issue, the new consensus on the negative effects of unilateralism and participation of the Global North in the P4M is of great value to the international efforts to minimize its consequences.
Given Washington’s economic power and unassailable military superiority, only one country, China, can realistically resist without great cost, the unilateral coercive action by the United States. China has already proved it with successful counter sanctions. This is a privilege not available to any other state.
Iran has been threatened with annihilation already, with a shocking ultimatum announced by the President of the USA at the recent 81 st Session of the UNGA, to make a deal, or be ‘quickly destroyed’. How long before the surreal transforms into the real? The premier multilateral institution, the UNGA, was platform for the most classically unilateral, coercive announcement conceivable.
It is in this context that P4M has been formed. Individually unable to prevent acts of coercion, coalitions of states on the other hand is a phenomenon that has the potential to effectively reinstate rationality in international relations, if the momentum grows as it should.
For small South Asian states like ours, groupings such as the Non-Aligned Movement and more recently BRICS, as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are sources of strength and hope, even if we are only aspirant members or associates of some of them. When Sri Lanka was an active member of NAM, it gave us stature and influence far beyond our actual strength in global affairs. Formed at a particular point in history, it served its members beyond their expectations in the decades following its formation, and lasts to this day as the biggest collective at the United Nations.
Coalitions of like-minded states are necessary also to respond to other global realities that exert influence and enforce strategies on countries unfairly, such as the dominance of the reserve currency, especially in the context of sanctions. BRICS has attempted to minimise this disadvantage by agreeing to trade among its members where possible, in local currencies, to circumvent unilateral sanctions regimes. It has also addressed the critical issue of debt and development financing by establishing the New Development Bank. Such groupings and the alternatives being facilitated by those initiatives are relevant to all who discern the unpredictability and uncertainty introduced by unilateralism.
For the rest of the world watching, the Munich Security Conference 2026 at which the US Secretary of State urged a return to a time of Western hegemony was a wake-up call, especially as the conference burst into applause. It’s a relief that things have got clearer, at least for most countries of Europe and Canada since then, as they too became victims.
Cultivating relationships with the members of groupings that are making the effort to carve out a more equitable way of relating to each other in the world should be a priority for us. Seeking membership, partnerships, associate membership or whatever is immediately available to them of such coalitions, to be enhanced later, should be a natural course of action for countries like Sri Lanka. Even as partner countries or associate members, these are platforms to discuss problems affecting us and even to intervene to shape a more equitable global order as a collective. Recent events in Sri Lanka suggest that these developments haven’t filtered through to policy makers, as opportunities to do just that, were squandered.
Much more concerning than the acts of omission are the recent acts of commission in the opposite direction by Sri Lanka’s current administration.
As disclosed by Colombo newspapers and confirmed by a US Embassy website report, Sri Lanka has decided to be partners in an activity that the UN has specifically declared as contrary to international law. Sri Lankan state officials were recently trained to assist in detecting violators of sanctions, unilaterally and extraterritorially imposed by the United States.
Apparently several officials attended:
“… a three-day training September 9–11 in Colombo to strengthen Sri Lanka’s ability to detect and respond to maritime sanctions evasion that threatens U.S. security interests and legitimate global commerce… More than 40 officials from the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Council, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Coast Guard, Merchant Shipping Secretariat, Sri Lanka Ports Authority, Ministry of Defense, and Sri Lanka Navy built proficiency…”
Now let’s check the preambular paragraph to Resolution 54/15 of the UNHRC on Human rights and unilateral coercive measures adopted on 11 th October 2023 which refers specifically to secondary sanctions:
“Alarmed by the expanding use of secondary sanctions, civil and criminal penalties for alleged circumvention and the means of enforcement of primary sanctions regimes, which are contrary to international law, give rise to overcompliance strategies of States, businesses and civil society
and indiscriminately affect the whole population of targeted countries and impede humanitarian work and deliveries, including those made pursuant to Security Council resolutions”
Perhaps it is time to read the signs and read them clearly, as Sri Lanka’s external relations and foreign policy are being dramatically redesigned.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Successive pre- Aragalaya governments appointed Presidential Commissions of Inquiry (PCoI) as well as various other committees for specific purposes to dissipate pressure from contentious issues. This despicable strategy was also used to divert public attention, suppress truth and delay the due process. The governments’ agenda was implemented at the public expense.
Governments squandered public funds on such mechanisms knowing that recommendations made by the committees concerned wouldn’t be implemented.
They had no qualms in resorting to such tactics, both in and outside Parliament. Appointment of Parliamentary Select Committees (PSC) is part of their overall strategy. Parliament should examine the cost of such endeavors, since 1977, and make the information public.
There had been many such commissions during pre- Aragalaya period and governments used them as political tools. Expert/Special committees as well as Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), a financial oversight committee, were often used to take the pressure off the government.
Recommendations made by PCoIs and other committees, however, hadn’t been fully implemented, though they had significant findings. In some instances, consequences were devastating. There cannot be a better example than the PCoI, appointed in late 2019, to probe the Easter Sunday carnage. President Sirisena appointed the PCoI but his successor, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, received the recommendations in February 2021. The recommendations were largely ignored. The President’s inaction ultimately contributed to the Catholic Church throwing its weight behind the campaign to oust the President, carried out in the following year.
Unfortunately, the incumbent government, having found fault with previous governments for time-wasting committees, is no exception.
The JVP- led NPP has proved in no uncertain terms that the appointment of various types of commissions is in line with its political strategy, too. Having lambasted previous governments for exploiting such mechanisms to their advantage, the JVP-NPP has ended up doing the same.
Those who genuinely believed in total transformation of government, in keeping with the much-touted objectives of Aragalaya, in the run-up to the 2024 Sept. presidential poll, never expected the JVP-NPP to take the same old path. Perhaps, the JVP-NPP had been determined not to take cover behind various commissions and committees, as previous governments did, though two major crisis compelled them to adopt previous governments’ strategies. Obviously, it had no option but to take counter measures to protect its interests as the public reacted with dismay to the release of highly suspicious 323 containers, marked with red label, from the Colombo Port, in January 2025, without even any cursory check, and the mega coal scam that erupted several months later. The coal scam shook the government.
Amidst public uproar, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne, at the behest of their party, appointed a PSC to investigate the release of containers without mandatory physical inspection. This was done on the pretext of tackling Port congestion. The PSC, headed by Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, embroiled in a number of controversies, is yet to submit its report. Therefore, the PSC proceedings inevitably resulted in relief to those responsible for want of law enforcement action. We cannot forget that the container case happened 19 months ago and the whole investigative process moved at a snail’s pace.
Responding to the writer’s query, key member of PSC, Attorney-at-law Ajith P. Perera (SJB/Kalutara) said that the gathering of evidence has been completed. “We are now awaiting the first draft of the PSC recommendations from its head, Minister Nanayakkara.” According to the SJBer, the PSC had not met over the past three months. The process appears to have been deliberately delayed by the Chairman, the lawmaker alleged. The former UNPer said that the NPP’s response to the obvious Colombo Port container scam of the government is deeply disappointing and unacceptable.
It would be pertinent to mention that the PSC, headed by Attorney-at-Law Nanayakkara, was named on 27 Nov., 2025, 10 months after the Colombo Port controversy. By the time the PSC began inquiring into the container case, the coal scam, perpetrated by the Power Ministry, was already in the public domain.
The coal scam was revealed by Pubudu Jayagoda of the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), in August 2025. Jayagoda’s revelation should be examined taking into consideration that the FSP was formed by an influential section of the JVP that split from the party in 2011. The FSP was officially launched in April 2012. But, the main Opposition party, the SJB, was somewhat slow. The SJB parliamentary group consists of 40 lawmakers. Ranil Wickremesinghe-led New Democratic Front (NDF) with five MPs and the SLPP comprising three lawmakers didn’t even bother to take up the issue soon after the FSP, erstwhile comrades of the JVP, made the gutty disclosure. However, the SJB subsequently took charge of the campaigns against the Port controversy and the Coal scam.
By early January 2026, the Coal scam gripped the country. But, the NPP, in spite of a devastating report by the National Audit Office (NAO) that directly held the Energy Ministry responsible for the massive crisis, strenuously defended the then Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, despite him already being embroiled in an earlier scam. Having blasted previous governments for defending wrongdoers, the NPP defeated the SJB-led no-faith motion moved against Jayakody in April this year. But, relentless political pressure finally compelled President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to ask Jayakody to quit. Ministry Secretary Professor Udayanga Hemapala, too, resigned. They resigned soon after the JVP-NPP defeated the no-faith motion. But, the thick skinned Jayakody continues to serve as a government member with no shame or remorse from either party. Can the country expect anything better from the JVP-NPP?
President Dissanayake appointed a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry (SPCoI), in April 2026, to probe coal procurement from 2009. Recently President Dissanayake extended the Commission’s mandate till Dec. this year. By Dec., 2026, the JVP-NPP government would have completed three years in power and two years short of completing its term. Whatever the outcome of the SPCoI, the NAO report had ruined the JVP-NPP image.
The JVP-NPP owed the country an explanation why Jayakody was chosen as the Energy Minister as he had been already under investigation by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). Since then Jayakody had been indicted by the Colombo High Court over a corruption case, under Section 70 of the Bribery or Corruption Act.
The CIABOC alleged that while serving as the procurement manager of the Lanka Fertiliser Company (Ceylon Fertiliser Company) in 2014/2016, Jayakody influenced a particular procurement process related to carpeting the company’s Hunupitiya warehouse complex, granting an undue advantage to a private firm and causing a financial loss of over Rs. 8,859,708 to the state. He denied the allegation like any other accused.
The Opposition questioned why Jayakody hadn’t been remanded or at least remanded for a short period after being arrested, whereas all others arrested in connection with corruption allegations were remanded, pending investigations/court proceedings, especially if they were connected to the Opposition.
In addition to the SPCoI on coal procurement, the Parliament appointed a committee, headed by SJB frontliner S.M. Marikkar (SJB/Colombo District), in early August, 2026, to probe financial losses, adverse environmental impact, etc., caused by low quality coal procured from South Africa, via Trident Chemiphar Ltd., an Indian company that hadn’t been at least qualified to take part in the tender process.
Their report, tabled in Parliament on 7 Oct., 2026, delivered a devastating blow to the government. Addressing the media at the Opposition Leader’s Office, former UNPer Marikkar, on the basis of the parliamentary report, estimated the losses to the country, from the shady deal, at Rs 20 bn, while Energy Minister Karunatilake and his predecessor Jayakody placed the losses at over Rs. 15 bn. Both parties based their estimates on the report. Marikkar alleged that the Energy Minister and his predecessor conveniently ignored certain sections of the report thereby reaching the wrong conclusion with regard to the colossal loss.
Both NAO and Marikkar’s report exposed the Energy Ministry. The writer had an opportunity to peruse the parliamentary report recently. Regardless of the government seeking to reassure the public that the losses could be recovered and the environmental damage minimal, the report depicted a catastrophic situation and even causing significant damages to the Norochcholai coal-fired power plant. The parliamentary report also represented by JVP-NPP members dealt a devastating blow to the government and also reinforced the NAO report.
The NPP definitely suffered irreparable damage. It would be ridiculous for them to campaign on an anti-corruption platform in the future as the release of 323 containers, sans physical inspection and procurement of low quality of South African coal, demolished the much-touted and valued NPP’s anti-corruption credentials beyond redemption.
For how long has the NPP intended to drag the container and coal issues? And they weren’t the only issues that ruined the NPP. The still unexplainable loss of USD 2.5 mn and the mysterious alleged suicide by Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksha, Assistant Director/Acting Director, assigned to the External Resources Department (ERD), interdicted over the incident, proved the NPP were not the bright doctorates’ hugging comrades they tried to make out to be, but cheap con artists. The breach happened within the ERD responsible for foreign funded payments and external debt serving.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently referred to the loss of USD 2.5 mn though the government pretended it was not so.
The status of the investigation is not known though the Committee on Public Finance (CoPF), headed by SJB lawmaker Dr. Harsha de Silva, found fault with the government for the unprecedented breach. The JVP-NPP that had been boasting of good governance and transparency in the run up to the national elections, in 2024, ended up being exposed to the core.
Responding to a query posed by the writer, lawmaker de Silva said that the government had no other option but to cover the loss of USD 2.5 mn by way of taxes imposed on the public. The government conveniently refrained from responding to the CoPF chief for obvious reasons. Regardless of humiliating developments, thick skinned JVP-NPPers continue to act as if they are squeaky clean. Public exposure of three major corruption cases, namely the Colombo Port container issue, low quality South African coal and unbelievable loss of USD 2.5 mn, considerably weakened the ruling party. Close on the heels of the USD 2.5 mn loss, Sri Lanka Post caused the disappearence of USD 625,000.
The NPP seems unable to cope up with the snowballing situation. The government has no other option than adopting delaying tactics while conducting intensive social media campaigns. However, public support seems to be dwindling as the NPP completed three out of a five-year parliamentary term, this month.
On top of corruption allegations and controversy over the missing USD 2.5 mn, the NPP now faced the daunting task of defending Speaker Wickramaratne against SJB-led Opposition no-confidence motion against the Polonnaruwa district MP. MP Wickramaratne, too, faces unprecedented corruption charges.
The JVP-NPP, with a steamroller majority in Parliament, can easily defeat the no-faith motion. Dissanayake, leader of both the JVP and the NPP, commands 2/3 majority in Parliament and defeating the Opposition move against Wickramaratne is child’s play. The JVP-NPP defeated the no-confidence motion against Energy Minister Jayakody last April and it can do the same again. The enactment of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of fierce opposition and strong stand taken by the Mahanayake Theras, underscored the government approach. JVP-NPP wouldn’t deviate from its strategy whatever the concerns raised.
Having initially declared its readiness to debate the allegations against Wickramaratne anytime, the JVP-NPP later sought a consensus with the SJB to amend the motion. The JVP-NPP seems to be seriously concerned over the developing situation. The government wants to avoid being publicly humiliated. The impact on the JVP-NPP can be quite devastating. The no-confidence motion needs to be examined, also taking into consideration the unprecedented case filed by sacked Deputy Secretary General and ex-Chief of Staff of Parliament, Chaminda Kularatne, against Dr. Wickramaratne. The government probably didn’t expect Kularatne to fight back. The sacked parliamentary official’s counter-attack obviously contributed to the SJB-led no-faith motion.
The Opposition challenged the Speaker over his personal conduct and corruption. Obviously, the challenges faced by the ruling party is not the defending the accused parliamentarian but the nature of allegations. The no-faith motion revealed how Dr. Wickramaratne, having succeeded Asoka Ranwala, the previous disgraced Speaker in Dec., 2024, abused the authority of his Office even after the matter was brought to the notice of the government. Now it is the moment of truth for the government on the verge of entering its fourth year in office.
Speaker Wickramaratne’s conduct, as alleged by the Opposition, badly exposed the NPP whose leaders can no longer preach good governance to other political parties. This particular case again underscored the failure of the top leadership of a political party to intervene the moment the media focused on an MP. The JVP used to act swiftly and decisively when allegations were made against its members. There cannot be a better example than removing Anuruddha Polgampola from its parliamentary group soon after the party established the MP facilitated the illegal entry of a person to Japan. This happened during the 2004-2010 period. The JVP acted on its own. In fact, the party never waited for the police to take action. In fact, the then government didn’t bother even to initiate legal action. Instead, Maithripala Sirisena’s SLFP later accommodated Polgampola. That should be dealt separately.
Polgampola was exposed during Somawansa Amarasinghe’s leadership. There hadn’t been a similar case before. Polgampola’s resignation was demanded by the party immediately after the media exposed the first time entrant to Parliament. The JVP had 39 members in Parliament, elected on the People’s Alliance ticket (Betel leaf) at that time and the group set new disciplinary standards much to the discomfort of other political parties.
But, in the case of the incumbent Speaker, the JVP seems hesitant to take action. The government indecision has boosted the Opposition. No holds barred attack on top JVPer Dr. Wickramaratne caused a sort of rift between those who wanted to shield the Speaker at any cost and the rest.
Amidst continuing furor over the Speaker’s action and NPP’s inaction, the former had undertaken more foreign visits.
Let me mention some of the accusations:
(1) While having an official residence for official and personal use, Dr. Wickramaratne secured additional official quarters at No 8-1 on Lauries Lane, Colombo 4 belonging to the Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government Ministry. This was done in January 2025, just weeks after he succeeded Asoka Ranwala who quit the Speaker’s post following his failure to prove much claimed higher educational qualifications. The Opposition has stressed that Dr. Wickramaratne perpetrated an offense of ‘corruption’ under the Anti-Corruption Act of No 09 of 2023.
(2) While occupying the Lauries Lane quarters, the Speaker, the Opposition alleged, had been assigned an eight-member staff to manage the official residence, situated at Rajamalwatta, Battaramulla. The staff had been paid Rs 760,000 (in salaries and allowances on a monthly basis), in addition to meeting water and electricity bills by the state.
(3) The Speaker, according to the no-faith motion, also secured official quarters at No 4-3, from the Laurie’s Lane, for his private secretary.
The list of allegations is long. On the basis of the listed allegations, the Opposition accused the Speaker of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
Examination of the motion in the public domain underscored the deterioration of parliamentary standards. The disclosure of allegations against top JVPer placed the government in an extremely embarrassing situation but thick skinned politicians and officials conveniently turn a blind eye to the unfortunate situation. Against the backdrop of damning no-faith motion, various parliament-led projects, including student parliament, seem a waste of time and energy.
Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, too, who served as Speaker during the previous Parliament, was accused of employing relatives on his staff. Abeywardena went ahead with his agenda, regardless of media exposure and criticism.
But, the still-to-be debated no-faith motion has not only exposed the Speaker but the top JVP-NPP leadership response to what can be safely described as an utterly unacceptable situation. Perhaps polls monitoring organisations, such as the PAFFREL, should inquire into the developments in Parliament if their own behaviour is above board.
In terms of the Constitution, the Speaker chairs the 10-member Constitutional Council meant to depoliticize appointments, ensure checks and balances pertaining to the executive and legislature and promote good governance. Of the 10, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, and Opposition Leader are ex-officio members.
The JVP-NPP forgot that the no-confidence motion against Yapa was debated while there were altogether nine cases against him in the Supreme Court. The JVP-NPP members voted against Yapa. But, today the same party sought to compel the SJB to amend the no-faith motion against Dr. Wickramaratne with no shame, while the whole country is watching in shock.
Former President of the BASL Saliya Pieris recently pointed out how recommendations made by the Committee on the proposed PSTA, which is being introduced to replace the PTA, were disregarded by the government. The top lawyer questioned the very basis of the Committee’s appointment if the government had no intention of implementing the recommendations made.
Pieris disagreed on three aspects, namely the definition of Terrorism (which, in his view, is too broad and liable to be abused by the authorities); administrative detention (which, in his view, should be in the hands of judicial officers and not the Secretary to a Ministry), and the power to proscribe organisations (which, in his view, should be left to a judicial authority).
Pieris said: “Apart from those provisions, all the members of the Committee agreed on the other provisions, including those on limiting the detention period and enabling the Magistrate to grant bail where there was no material against a suspect.
When I examined the Bill, tabled before Parliament, I observed that there have been major deviations from what was agreed on at the Committee, especially relating to the bail provisions and the process of extending detention.
The Committee was never made aware of these changes or of the reasons for the changes. The Committee has not been told as to who or what caused these changes to be made without any consultation with the Committee. Accordingly, yesterday I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee identifying how the Bill has deviated from the Committee report.
The Committee included members of the Attorney General’s Department, officials of the Ministry of Justice, the police and the forces as well as several PCs and Attorneys-at-Law and an MP.
If the Bill, in its present form, is passed, there will continue to be prolonged detention under the PSTA. Magistrates will be compelled to remand suspects produced under the PSTA even if there is no material against them. The abuse of the PSTA by politicians in power and by the police and security authorities, similar to what happened under the PTA, will be inevitable.”
The government strategy was clear. It had no intention of adhering to the committee report. It was meant to take time.
by Sasanka Perera (The writer is on X as @sasmester)
The controversy surrounding Professor Raj Somadeva’s report on the Chemmani burial site raises questions extending well beyond the interpretation of human remains. It concerns scientific competence, ethics, forensic accountability, institutional responsibility and the credibility of the Sri Lankan state in investigating potential historical atrocities. These were my thoughts when I read the initial commentaries on Somadeva’s report not only as a complete outsider to archaeology but also as someone who has read and thought about these and related issues over a long period of time.
The discovery of hundreds of human skeletons at Chemmani in Jaffna, should have presented Sri Lanka with an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to scientific investigation, judicial accountability and the rights of families whose relatives disappeared during decades of conflict. Instead, the latest archaeological report has generated unnecessary controversy, legal objections and renewed political distrust. The report titled, ‘Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani, Jaffna’ (2025/2026) is presented as the third interim report. It is authored by Somadeva and archaeologist, Anusha Wanninayake. It suggests that the site bears greater similarities to a formal burial ground than to a clandestine mass grave. It also raises the possibility that an epidemic or natural catastrophe might explain the concentration of human remains.
However, the report acknowledges that the available evidence is insufficient to establish definitive conclusions about the burials. This qualification is vital. A possible explanation is not an established fact particularly when crucial political events, natural disasters or epidemiological evidence in the area over the last forty years do not seem to have been seriously considered. Similarly, the absence of conclusive evidence of unlawful killings does not mean that unlawful killings did not occur. The controversy therefore raises a fundamental question: was the investigation organised with the necessary forensic expertise, methodological independence and institutional safeguards to produce findings that would command scientific, judicial and public confidence and avoid divisive political rhetoric?
Chemmani is not an ordinary archaeological location. Crucially, the Chemmani mass burial site is in and around an existing public cemetery that was mostly used for cremation on the outskirts of Jaffna. It was formally known as Sindhubathi Cemetery (and sometimes as the Siththupaththu Cemetery). The court-sanctioned forensic excavations and subsequent major discoveries took place immediately next to and in the perimeter areas of this public cemetery. The initial remains that triggered the major renewed excavation phases were uncovered directly within the Sindhubathi Cemetery and its periphery during local development and construction work.
Beyond this, the significance of the site is inseparable from Sri Lanka’s unresolved history of enforced disappearances, allegations of extrajudicial executions and the violence associated with the civil war given the fact this area experienced such violent politics in the recent past. The area became internationally notorious following allegations of kidnappings, disappearances and secret burials during the 1990s, particularly after revelations associated with the rape and murder of schoolgirl Krishanthi Kumaraswamy in 1996. Investigations and exhumations in 1999 reinforced public concern about possible clandestine graves in the area.
The discovery of human remains which did not seem to be part of regular cemetery practice during construction work in February 2025 renewed these questions. Court-supervised investigations subsequently developed into a major excavation involving archaeological personnel, judicial medical officers, police investigators and other institutional actors. By October 2026, the Sunday Times reported the recovery of 584 skeletons and more than 170 artefacts. The investigation had become one of Sri Lanka’s most consequential exercises in recovering human remains from a potentially conflict-related burial location. The historical context does not establish that every person buried at the newly investigated site was unlawfully killed. Nor does geographical proximity automatically establish a connection between different burial episodes. Nevertheless, this history makes an exceptionally rigorous forensic investigation absolutely indispensable. The burden is not to prove a predetermined political narrative, but to establish what happened through independently verifiable evidence.
What does the report actually establish?
Somadeva’s report raises several observations requiring careful consideration. These include concentrations of child burials, the limited presence of associated personal objects, differences in burial arrangements, coins bearing dates extending into the 1990s and indications that additional burials may exist beyond the excavated area.
Theoretically at least, the epidemic or natural-disaster hypothesis is not inherently unreasonable. Epidemics and natural catastrophes have historically produced large burial concentrations in many parts of the world. This has also happened in situations where more conventional cremation practices in some cultures such as among Tamil Hindus might be suspended. However, demonstrating such an explanation requires evidence beyond burial density or the relative scarcity of personal belongings. This necessitates moving beyond the skeletal and material remains uncovered into socio-political as well as a natural history of the area. For instance, if this thesis is to be taken seriously, we need to answer the following questions: What consequential epidemic or natural disasters have occurred in the area? When did they occur? Is there independent historical documentation for these events? If the argument is about an epidemic, then, do skeletal examinations reveal pathological evidence consistent with a particular disease? Can the remains be scientifically dated to specific period? At the moment, none of these questions have been answered.
Equally importantly, the report’s suggestion of formal burial practices within the areas excavated requires examination against historical cemetery records, traditional burial and cremation organisation, local funeral society records, stratigraphical analysis and socio-cultural evidence concerning the treatment of bodies. Crucially, reporting on the ‘Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani’ indicates that scientific dating of the remains and systematic analysis establishing causes of death have not yet been completed. The proposed explanations must therefore remain strictly hypothetical rather than seeing them as findings of historical facts. Regrettably, sensational information is rarely processed constructively in any society. The public uproar over the rumored findings in Somadeva’s report demonstrates how sensationalism risks obscuring the truth before facts can be properly established.
The distinction between a mass grave and an illegal burial site must also be maintained. A concentration of multiple human remains does not automatically demonstrate criminality. Conversely, organised burials do not necessarily exclude unlawful deaths or subsequent concealment. But these need explanation. For instance, why are so many adult burials found in an area where the dominant tradition is cremation? Why have the reports of skeletons discovered in sitting positions with hands bound not made it to the recently submitted report?
Archaeology is not automatically forensic archaeology
Somadeva is an established academic archaeologist with a popular following. His professional standing in archaeology, however, does not by itself establish specialist competence in forensic archaeology. The latter operates at the intersection of archaeological methods, forensic anthropology, medico-legal investigation, criminal evidence and judicial procedure. Its purpose is not merely to reconstruct past human activity, but to potentially establish facts relevant to criminal responsibility. A forensic archaeological investigation requires specialist knowledge of human decomposition, skeletal trauma, burial disturbance, commingled remains, evidence recovery and chain-of-custody procedures. Given this, it is important to clearly distinguish the absence or presence of specialist forensic qualifications among the individuals involved in the excavation. Somadeva’s or his team’s precise forensic training and relevant case experience should be independently established before any categorical judgement is made. It is however, an issue of concern. As far as I know, Sri Lanka does not have professional forensic archaeological expertise.
Nevertheless, the central question one should ask is this why was an investigation of this sensitivity was allowed to depend so heavily on the interpretive authority of a single archaeological specialist without a transparently demonstrated multidisciplinary forensic training and leadership structure or team makeup? The issue here is not whether a conventional archaeologist can contribute to such an exercise. Such expertise is essential. It is whether conventional archaeological expertise alone is sufficient to direct the evidentiary interpretation of a suspected crime scene. This question is germane in the wider context of forensic archeological excavations from other parts of the world.
There is also an important distinction between leading archaeological fieldwork in the academic sense and leading an entire medico-legal investigation. Official documentation indicates that Chemmani already involved a Judicial Medical Officer, police crime-scene personnel and other specialists. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the whole operation as an excavation conducted by Somadeva alone or with Wanninayake if all these other experts also contributed to the three reports that exist up to now. If so, those reports should ideally have been co-signed by all key personnel. This does not appear to be the case. As such, the more defensible criticism concerns the restricted allocation of interpretive authority, the composition of the reporting team and the extent of independent specialist scrutiny.
Excavation is destruction: Why methodology matters
A foundational principle of modern archaeology is that excavation inevitably destroys the original physical relationships it investigates. Mortimer Wheeler outlined this problem in Archaeology from the Earth (1954). Flinders Petrie had earlier emphasized the importance of systematic recording, while Philip Barker subsequently described excavation as an essentially unrepeatable exercise. Once soil layers are removed and skeletal remains extracted, the original spatial relationships cannot be simply reconstructed through another excavation. Consequently, the scientific record must preserve information through precise stratigraphic documentation, drawings, photography, spatial mapping, sampling and systematic recording of decisions. The problem becomes even more significant when seen through the lens of Ian Hodder’s concept of ‘interpretation at the trowel’s edge.’ That is, excavators do not merely uncover neutral facts. Their decisions about what constitutes a burial boundary, disturbance, deposit or associated objects influence what evidence survives and how it is subsequently understood.
These well-known arguments in both theoretical and field archaeology demonstrate why excavation should be a collaborative scientific process involving essential multiple experts rather than an exercise organised around the authority of one senior academic and an intellectually dependent field team around him. In a suspected mass grave such as Chemmani, errors are especially consequential. Poorly documented stratigraphic relationships may prevent investigators from distinguishing successive burial events. Inadequate recovery procedures may compromise evidence of trauma. Failure to record associations between individuals and objects may undermine identification or dating. These are not merely academic shortcomings. They may permanently diminish the evidentiary value of a given site including Chemmani.
There is insufficient publicly accessible information to conclude that such failures actually occurred at Chemmani. But the very possibility reinforces the need for transparent protocols, independently reviewable records and specialist oversight.
Why was the report not multidisciplinary?
The report, ‘Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani’ was not technically single-authored. Anusha Wanninayake is also identified as its co-author along with Somadeva. Nevertheless, its authorship raises an important question about whether the report’s interpretive conclusions reflect the full range of relevant forensic expertise. A report concerning potentially unlawful deaths should ideally integrate independently attributable findings from forensic archaeologists, forensic anthropologists, judicial medical officers, forensic pathologists and specialists in human identification.
To some extent, the Government Analyst’s Department could have contributed appropriate laboratory expertise, while the Ministry of Justice could have facilitated resources and institutional coordination. International specialists, including suitably qualified UN-associated experts, could have provided independent technical reviews. Nevertheless, the distinction between institutional support and scientific independence must remain absolute. However, there is no clarity of input from such cross-cutting expertise based on what is published. Indeed, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s September 2025 fact-finding report had already identified shortages of forensic expertise and technology. It also found that no formally adopted standard operating procedure existed for mass-grave investigations. These were serious institutional weaknesses requiring attention long before the present controversy and much before the actual excavations began.
A properly constituted multidisciplinary investigation need not produce a single consensus interpretation on every issue. Where experts disagree, those differences should be recorded with clarity. Such disagreements can strengthen rather than weaken scientific credibility by exposing assumptions to scrutiny.
Political consequences and the danger of institutional mistrust
The political repercussions of the interpretations in ‘Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani’ are already visible. According to the Sunday Times of 26 October, families of the disappeared have challenged the interim report before the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court. Northern parliamentarians, including Selvam Adaikalanathan and Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, have questioned its conclusions and called for international involvement. These reactions cannot simply be dismissed as political opportunism. While such opportunism is always present, they also emerge from a history in which investigations into disappearances and alleged atrocities have frequently failed to provide credible answers.
At the same time, political objections cannot substitute scientific evidence. The proper response to a disputed forensic interpretation is independent examination, not the automatic acceptance of either the report or its critics. For the government, the implications are serious. An investigation perceived as insufficiently independent risks reinforcing longstanding suspicions that state institutions are unwilling to investigate alleged abuses impartially. This is particularly damaging when the present government seeks to establish credibility through commitments to reconciliation, accountability and institutional reform which it has attempted to address to some extent notwithstanding that segments of the government are co-authors of Sri Lanka’s bloody history.
A multidisciplinary investigation with transparent national and international technical participation might not eliminate political criticism. However, it would make allegations of institutional manipulation more difficult to sustain, provided the experts are genuinely independent and their procedures are open to scrutiny. In the prevailing circumstances, the appropriate response is not to discard Somadeva’s report simply because it has become controversial. Nor should the authorities adopt its provisional interpretations as a definitive account. Instead, the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court could be assisted by an independent multidisciplinary forensic review, examining the excavation records, skeletal evidence, laboratory findings, methodological assumptions and alternative explanations within creditable scientific parameters. Such a review should also consider the epidemic and natural disaster hypothesis alongside possibilities of unlawful burial, multiple burial episodes and other historically plausible explanations.
Chemmani demonstrates the danger of confusing individual scholarly distinction with the collective expertise required for a complex forensic investigation. It also exposes a broader institutional problem in Sri Lanka: the tendency to address exceptionally sensitive public questions through prominent individuals with a popular public following rather than through robust, accountable and multidisciplinary systems. Ideally, and if credibility is important, scientific authority should emerge from methods that can be examined, findings that can be independently tested and conclusions that remain proportionate to the available evidence.
The lesson in this context extends beyond archaeology. Whenever the state investigates contested historical events, procedural credibility is as important as the eventual findings. A scientifically defensible conclusion that the Chemmani remains resulted from an epidemic would deserve serious consideration. Equally, credible evidence of unlawful killings would demand investigation and accountability. Neither possibility should be privileged in advance. Ultimately, the tragedy would be not merely that the wrong interpretation prevailed, but that irreplaceable evidence was inadequately examined, public confidence was irreparably damaged through avoidable institutional shortcomings, and the government is confronted with a needless public relations fallout that can have long-term international consequences.
Like an unstoppable blood-red rash,
Street battles of a harrowing kind,
Are on a wild spread on European streets…
A throw-back, it seems, to the classic debate,
Of whether it should be Bread or Guns….
Whether it should be social welfare,
That states need to lavish tax money on,
But the battle is also for the mind and heart –
Whether the citizen could stake a claim,
To be visible in the affairs of state.
Continue Reading Latest Trending Latest News 6 hours ago Shakeel nears century after 96-run stand with Ghori extends Pakistan’s dominance Latest News 6 hours ago India hold on to series lead after washout as New Zealand’s winning streak ends Latest News 7 hours ago Five dead over 50 injured in Rambewa bus collision Latest News 11 hours ago Lahiru creates history with Youth Olympic silver Latest News 12 hours ago Indian tourist killed after two helicopters collide near Everest base camp Latest News 12 hours ago Qantas to outsource 850 local jobs with most roles moving to India News 5 years ago ‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’ News 6 years ago Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines News 6 years ago #SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines News 6 years ago Sunday Island – 28th March News 6 years ago Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March News 6 years ago Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines Trending Opinion 5 days ago Searching for leadership: Can we bring back qualities of our golden years?
Wins for Dialog Axiata and Green Miracle Grand on Wednesday
Mendis and Udara steady ship with warm-up fifties
Prospect of ‘spaceport’ on Sri Lanka’s east coast
Batting frailties give Sri Lanka food for thought
A strong SL team leave for Under 19 Asia Cup
Political favour has weakened Police, and confidence will not return until enforcement of discipline without interference
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…