Political Commentary

The government’s determination to tackle corruption, drug trafficking and organised crime is one of the most important challenges it has taken upon itself. The scale of the problem is evident from recent seizures of drugs at sea and at the airport, which indicate the enormous dimensions of the illicit drug trade. The street value of some consignments has reportedly approached staggering sums, running into hundreds of millions of dollars. The financial resources available to those involved in this trade must be immense. Their ability to corrupt individuals and institutions cannot be underestimated. The revelations of the involvement of persons connected with previous governments, their families and even members of the security forces in the drug trade are particularly disturbing. This is not simply a problem of law enforcement. It is a threat to the integrity of the State itself. The government appears to be approaching this challenge more systematically and seriously than any government in the past.

The unexpected challenge that the government had to face in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke the presidential pardon given to the well-known Buddhist monk Ven. Galagodaatte Gnanasara would come as a warning about the extra-parliamentary methods that might be used to undermine it. The episode demonstrated that even a government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority is not immune to political pressures that can arise outside Parliament. Leaders who initially attempted to resist the political demands of the Buddhist clergy have often found themselves compelled to retreat or accommodate them when the opposition became too difficult to withstand. This may be one important factor in the emergence of three pieces of legislation intended to strengthen the coercive powers of the state.

The Chemmani mass grave site has today become a focus of public concern in the North and a challenge to the government’s credibility among the Tamil people. After months of excavation and the recovery of more than 580 human skeletons, a report by Sri Lanka’s leading forensic archaeologist, Prof Raj Somadeva, has concluded that the site bears greater similarities to a formal burial ground than to clandestine burial sites with signs of criminal activity and non-conventional burial. The report acknowledges that the available evidence is insufficient to establish conclusively the nature and circumstances of the burials. Its findings, which are markedly different from two previous interim reports by Prof Somadeva have caused dismay among Tamil political parties, civil society organisations and families of the disappeared. Establishing the scientific truth is essential, but so is ensuring that the investigation is seen to be fair, independent and transparent.

The government appears set to overcome the first major challenge to one of its foundational principles. It has faced down demands from sections of the Buddhist clergy and opposition parties to release Ven. Galagoda Atte Gnanasara from his prison sentence for contempt of court.

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The death sentence on Sivarasa Anojan, a Sri Lankan citizen convicted of blasphemy in Saudi Arabia has taken a central place in national consciousness for the past several weeks. It has been in the headline news since it was first reported last month. There have been many initiatives taken locally to get a more lenient sentencing by the Saudi authorities. There is also an undercurrent that is critical of both the culture and religion from which this sentencing emanates. This also sustains the widespread publicity being given nationally to the issue. By way of contrast, the controversy caused by the forcible removal of the Thileepan statue in Jaffna has not significantly impacted upon the national consciousness. There was only passing mention of the incident in the national media which has been overtaken by other events.

There is an important change in the way peace is being understood in Sri Lanka. The notion that peacebuilding is not simply the responsibility of governments, politicians and peace organisations, but is also a responsibility of educational institutions, appears to be permeating the consciousness of at least a section of the academic community. This was visible on International Peace Day at an event held at Eastern University by the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences. The event was unusual not least because the medical and nursing faculty of the university had decided that peacebuilding was relevant to its academic and professional responsibilities.

The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for war-time human rights violations.

International Peace Day was observed on 21 September. It finds Sri Lanka with a real achievement to record and a demanding test to meet. The UN’s theme this year was “Invest in Peace: For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day.” The UN statement also honoured the “everyday architects of peace”—people driving local action and building a lasting peace from the ground up. The Sri Lankan government's achievement was that in the 2026 Global Peace Index, Sri Lanka rose 30 places, from 97th to 67th among 163 countries. Over the same period, global peacefulness declined for the twelfth consecutive year to its lowest level since the index began, and South Asia suffered the sharpest regional deterioration. The test is whether the government will protect the civic space in which those architects of peace work.

The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa on corruption charges related to the massive Airbus purchase
scandal of 2013 has captured the centre stage of public attention. He was arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) on September 4 and remanded until September 18.

The government is preparing to meet the challenge of the UN Human Rights Council next month. A Sri Lankan delegation led by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is expected to attend the 63rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva, where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a written update on Sri Lanka. The government has already submitted its response to the advance version of the report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Foreign Minister, accompanied by officials from Colombo and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission in Geneva, is expected to explain the progress made on reconciliation, accountability and human rights. This is therefore an important moment for the government. It is an opportunity not merely to defend its record but to make new commitments.

It appears that the die has been cast on the 22nd Amendment. The government appears unshaken in its determination to ensure its passage into law. From the government’s perspective, the 22nd Amendment and associated legislation, by increasing the tenure of all judges by two years, will give them the extra time to complete their existing cases, among others. This will do away with the need to change judges midstream and have complex legal cases go back to the beginning, which has too often been the case. The completion of these cases will be to the benefit of the victims who have waited for decades for justice in some cases. It will also be to the government’s benefit as many of the wrongdoers are those in the political opposition. In the past, human rights and democracy activists, not to mention lawyers in the field, have bemoaned the manner in which court cases have got delayed for a variety of reasons, including judges being promoted or transferred midstream or reaching the age of retirement.

The tabling of the 22nd Amendment has brought the significance of constitutional change once again to the centre of public attention.

The controversy surrounding the proposal has become larger than the question of two additional years for judges. It has raised a more fundamental question about the direction in which the new government is taking Sri Lanka. In its 2024 election manifesto, the NPP promised to introduce a new constitution while implementing the existing constitutional framework till then. It pledged to hold long overdue provincial council elections within a year, and implement the constitutional guarantees already contained in the existing Constitution. It therefore has to think beyond whether it can secure the numbers to pass an amendment and whether the manner in which it exercises its majority strengthens or weakens confidence.

Sri Lanka is witnessing an unprecedented effort to challenge a culture of impunity, with senior political figures, public officials and others facing investigation and prosecution. The significance of the present moment is whether Sri Lanka can establish a system in which no person, regardless of political position or social status, is above the law. The credibility of accountability depends significantly on an independent judiciary capable of deciding difficult cases without fear or favour. It is in this context that the government proposal to amend Article 107(5) of the Constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 has attracted particular attention. The government has also approved amendments to the legislation governing the other courts to increase their retirement ages by two years.

More than seven years after the Easter Sunday bombings ripped through churches and luxury hotels, the first major criminal convictions of senior state officials have taken place. Last week, former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundera and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando were convicted by a two to one majority at a Trial-at-Bar of criminal liability arising from their failure to act on repeated intelligence warnings that preceded the attacks. They were sentenced to death. One of the parents who had filed action before the Supreme Court regarding the Easter bombing wept when interviewed after the verdict was announced. In response to the journalist’s query whether he felt vindicated by the decision, he replied that it would not bring back his son and daughter.

Forty three years after the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983, Sri Lanka still carries the burden of an injustice that has never been adequately acknowledged or remedied. The destruction of lives, homes and livelihoods on a hitherto unprecedented scale, in the capital city of Colombo and elsewhere, shattered the confidence of the Tamil community in the ability of the state to protect all its citizens equally. The passage of time does not diminish the responsibility of the state, nor can what happened be glossed over in the name of moving forward. Successive governments have failed to provide adequate redress to those who suffered. The unresolved issue of compensation for lives lost and property destroyed remains a source of deep grievance among survivors and their families, particularly when compared with the compensation provided to victims of more recent man-made disasters.