NPC convened a dialogue bringing together Sri Lanka’s two principal institutions dealing with the past, the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and the Office for Reparations (OR) with international human rights lawyer and New York University Professor of Law Vasuki Nesiah. NPC is currently engaged in working with the OMP with support from the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI).

The discussion provided an opportunity to reflect on how Sri Lanka’s approach to truth, reparations and reconciliation could evolve. Opening the meeting, NPC Executive Director Dr Jehan Perera recalled that following Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 in 2015, the government had pledged to establish four transitional justice mechanisms. Eleven years later, only the OMP and OR have been established. Despite changes in government policy and criticism of transitional justice, both institutions continue to function within their respective mandates.

Professor Nesiah urged a broader understanding of reparations. Drawing on experiences from Kenya, Haiti, Namibia and the French Caribbean, she cautioned against reducing reparations to individual monetary payments. Historical harms can be collective and can continue to shape present inequalities. Reparations, she argued, can therefore include financial compensation, restitution, memorialisation and symbolic measures but can also address the structures of dispossession and exclusion that have allowed past harms to persist.

This broader perspective was reflected in the presentations by the OMP and OR. OR Chairperson Ms Wasantha Perera described an approach extending beyond its initial revival payment of Rs 200,000 to livelihood assistance, psychosocial support, land and housing, administrative assistance and community infrastructure. She noted that the needs of families, particularly the second generation, are changing and require continuing engagement.

OMP Executive Director J. Thatparan highlighted the need for greater consistency in addressing disappearances across communities and periods of history. He noted that there had been no consistency in the past in providing reparations. He advocated a common framework for reparations while recognising the different experiences of affected families. He urged CSOs to engage with OMP in achieving this objective.

The discussion pointed to a significant change in thinking about how Sri Lanka can deal with its past. Reparations are increasingly being understood not simply as compensation for past suffering but as an ongoing process of recognition, redress, recovery and reform. By placing victims and affected communities at the centre, this approach can help address continuing injustices and make dealing with the past part of building a more peaceful and inclusive future.