Recent media reports indicate the revival of the proposed Kivul Oya Project under the Mahaweli L Scheme, which has implications for land ownership and use for present residents, as well as environmental and other impacts. Furthermore, concerns have been raised that the proposed project will lead to new settlements of Sinhalese communities, which may adversely affect the land and livelihoods of Tamil farmers who have lived in the area for several decades. These concerns were first discussed by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in its 2011 report,titled “Land Issues in the Northern Province: Post-War Politics, Policy and Practices,” which reported on plans to alienate lands to the majority community in the guise of development projects with the potential to alter demographics. While the project stalled in the immediate post war period, documents and interviews indicate that the project is being revived under the present government. As noted in the 2011 report, the Mahaweli L Scheme is perceived by local communities as a tool used in the guise of development to alienate lands to the majority community and introduce new settlements, with it creating fear and apprehension among the minority communities. CPA notes that the 2011 initiative was introduced during the tenure of then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, with new documentation pointing to the project being revived in 2019 and continuing during the presidency of Gotabaya Rajapakse. CPA and others have noted several initiatives introduced during the post war years of 2009-2015 and 2019-2022 that attempted to alienate and acquire land in the North and East of the country that were informed by ethno-nationalism, militarisation and development projects and creating fears among minorities of losing their land and livelihood. With the revival of the Kivul Oya project, questions must be asked whether the present government is persisting with projects commenced under the Rajapakse government that aim to create new settlements in the guise of development with wide implications for land and livelihoods of minority communities, change ethnic demographics and threaten coexistence.
CPA Comms Officer on 4 February, 2026 A Brief History of the Prevention of Terrorism Act | Questions and Answers
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was enacted in 1978 as a temporary measure (initially only for 3 years) but was made permanent in 1982. It introduced offences previously not present in the ordinary law which were and are being abused with serious human rights implications for the nearly half century in which it has been in operation. Most noticeably, section 2(1)(h)1 has been severely misused to crush legitimate dissent and target human rights activists, journalists and politicians.
CPA Comms Officer on 4 February, 2026 Analysis of the significant concerns on the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill | Questions and Answers
The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, and public comments on the Bill have been called for, on or before the 28th of February 2026. This Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was a key campaign promise made by the present government. The following commentary provides an initial analysis of the concerns raised by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in relation to this draft Bill.
CPA Comms Officer on 14 January, 2026 The Centre for Policy Alternatives and Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu vs. The Attorney General [SC FR 293/2025]
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed a Petition on the 19th December 2025 in the Supreme Court challenging the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 gazetted by Extraordinary Gazette No. 2464/26 dated 28th November 2025.
CPA had previously raised concerns regarding the declaration of the State of Emergency and provided a commentary on the 2025 Regulations. In an earlier statement, CPA acknowledged the gravity of the disaster and the need for a coordinated response, yet emphasized that emergency powers should be a last resort. Under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), the President is granted significant authority to override existing laws. Reflecting on similar declarations in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022, CPA notes a troubling trend in which emergency regulations provide the Executive with authority that exceeds what is actually required to manage the crisis.
The Petitioners argue that the power of the Executive to make Emergency Regulations must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. Furthermore, it was submitted that in addition to the concerns raised about specific Emergency Regulations, as a whole the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No.1 of 2025 are overbroad and vague and undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
The Petitioners further argue that the regulations contained in Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No.1 of 2025 replicate Regulations issued in 2019, 2021 and 2022 and have no nexus to the natural disaster caused by the Cyclonic storm Ditwah.
CPA Comms Officer on 13 January, 2026 CPA Statement on the Institutional Stalemate in the Appointment of the Auditor General
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply concerned about the emerging institutional deadlock between the President and the Constitutional Council in respect of the appointment of the Auditor General. Sri Lanka has not had a permanent Auditor General since the retirement of Chulantha Wickramaratne in April 2025. In the period since, according to reports, the President has made four nominations to the post, which have all been rejected by the Constitutional Council.
The office of Auditor General is pivotal to the institutional framework of public financial integrity established by Articles 153 and 154 of the Constitution and the National Audit Act No 19 of 2018 (as amended by National Audit (Amendment) Act No 19 of 2025). The absence of a stable office-holder in the post for a period of over nine months causes serious concerns about the functionality of our system of public financial accountability. The absence of an Auditor General not only disrupts the normal processes of the national audit, but it also affects the capacity of Parliament and its committees on public accounts and public enterprises to carry out their constitutionally fundamental scrutiny and accountability functions. This concern is heightened in the context of the need for rigorous supervision of public expenditures, and methods of reception and allocation, involved in rebuilding efforts in the wake of Cyclone Ditwah.
The function of the Constitutional Council is to ensure the President’s nominations to the office of Auditor General meets the formal standards of independence, integrity, and professional competence established by the Constitution and the National Audit Act. The Constitutional Council is a collegiate body composed of cross-party political representatives and independent civil society representatives appointed, except for the ex officio members, predominantly by consensus. Its composition is designed to protect its decision-making from being hijacked by either the Government or the Opposition for partisan purposes. The expectation of respect for the decisions of the Constitutional Council by the President is not only central to the de-politicisation logic that underpins our ‘fourth branch’ institutions. It is also a rare but significant corrective to the overcentralisation of power and authority in the person and office of the President in our semi-presidential system of government. In view of its consensual and inclusive composition and its decentralised procedures of decision-making, the public can assume with a high degree of confidence that the Constitutional Council’s repeated rejections of the President’s nominations to fill the vacancy in the office of Auditor General were because such nominations did not meet the required constitutional and statutory standards.
In our system, the constitutional and moral responsibility for ensuring a successful and expeditious appointment, by securing the mandatory approval of the Constitutional Council, to a vacancy in the office of Auditor General lies squarely with the President. The President’s failure to secure the approval of the Constitutional Council through four unsuccessful nomination attempts over the course of nine months suggests a lack of constitutional competence in the advice he has so far received in the making of such nominations. If deadlock persists, it may even give rise to suspicions of bad faith on the part of the President.
This would be a regrettable outcome, not only for the quality of our public financial governance, but also for the reputation of a President elected on an explicit mandate to implement a ‘system change’ towards greater transparency and accountability in our culture of governance, and whose official biography proudly proclaims that in 2001 he “played a pivotal role in the adoption of the [Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution]” which first established the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions.
CPA Comms Officer on 10 January, 2026 Need for Immediate Attention post Cyclone Ditwah
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has monitored the human rights and governance situation post Cyclone Ditwah including the ground situation in several districts. A team from CPA visited several areas in the Central and Uva Provinces from 5-8 January 2026 and was able to engage with different stakeholders including affected communities in several GS divisions in the two provinces. CPA hopes to prepare a comprehensive brief on its findings shortly but sharing this letter considering the urgency of several issues that require immediate attention. The following are key points we raise for your immediate consideration-
- Lack of sufficient public information and awareness on warning and assistance. CPA spoke with affected communities, service providers and local groups who confirmed of continuing gaps with information and language discrepancies. This is exacerbated at a time when new weather warnings have been issued in areas in the two provinces, with some communities unaware of new warnings. CPA urges the authorities to urgently issues all warnings in the three languages and to ensure such warnings are accessible to all communities including those in temporary shelters and hazardous areas.
- CPA was also informed by several communities in the two provinces that they had not received any government assistance including the assistance of Rs25,000 and Rs50,000. For example, communities in the Bramley Estate in Highforest area had not received any assistance, despite over 40days passing since the cyclone. We urge you to be proactive in reaching out to all communities affected including those in estates who continue to face numerous challenges.
- Delays with infrastructure assistance. Several areas visited by the CPA team noted that damage to houses, schools, community buildings and other areas that have yet to be inspected by the authorities. Additionally, several roads are yet to be cleared and are not accessible to the public. The situation in several estates is dire with roads and buildings in a precarious situation. CPA was informed that in some areas affected communities have been informed to return to their areas of residence despite worsening weather conditions. The situation is made more complex with questions raised with certain findings of the NBRO that has ignored the hazardous conditions on the ground. CPA urges a comprehensive risk assessment conducted in all areas that are affected, ensuring that affected communities are informed of persisting dangers, alternative lands identified with a conflict sensitive approach taken towards rebuilding and recovery efforts.
- Urgent attention with educational needs. Several communities raised the fact that children in several areas in these two provinces are unable to attend school due to a range of reasons including displacement, non-functioning of schools, having to travel long distances in precarious conditions, destruction of class rooms, school books and supplies, being some of the reasons. We urge the authorities to immediately take steps to address urgent issues raised in the education sector including assisting children and communities affected, identifying alternative sites for temporary schools that are safe and accessible and immediate construction of educational facilities that are damaged and destroyed.
- Need to provide essential food, water, sanitation, shelter and livelihood assistance. CPA was informed by several affected communities in the two provinces of the lack of sufficient resources available with the above. In particular areas such as Spring Valley in Badulla and Highforest in Nuwara Eliya, communities live in precarious shelters with lack of proper water and sanitation available. With new weather warnings issued in the last 24hours, fears have exacerbated in relation to basic essential services facing further challenges and CPA urges the government to take immediate steps to provide basic facilities to these communities.
- Lack of confidence and trust with government assistance and services due to discrepancies and delays. CPA noted that several communities in the two provinces have either not received assistance and information or faced discrimination in the services provided so far. There are also concerns in light of the setbacks faced by vulnerable communities including women, children, youth, the elderly and others. In particular, many in the Malaiyaha Tamil community face multiple social and financial challenges in the face of structural inequalities. It is paramount that the authorities give leadership in communicating with all affected communities and facilitating assistance that is based on equity, non-discrimination, conflict sensitivity, transparency and accountability.
In addition to the above immediate concerns, many other issues were raised with the CPA team and these will be shared with the authorities shortly. We look forward to constructively engaging with you in addressing these and other concerns.
Thank you
Yours Sincerely,
Dr. P. Saravanamuttu
CPA Comms Officer on 18 December, 2025 Initial Comments on the Draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill
18 December 2025
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has been alerted to the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (Bill) published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, which invited public comments within a month of its publication. Whilst the government publicly announced in August its intention to publish a draft Bill for public comments, the publication at the present moment, when Sri Lanka is confronted with multiple challenges in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, raises serious concerns. Such a context limits meaningful public engagement of any proposed legislation, and the limited time further impedes an inclusive and transparent law reform process. Whilst CPA appreciates the decision of the government to place the Bill in the public domain for comment, we urge for further time for comments and discussion.
With the hope that more time is provided for a fuller comment on the Bill, CPA shares these initial comments with the view of constructive engagement and public awareness of key areas requiring attention. At the outset, CPA emphasises that the benchmark against which this Bill must be assessed is not merely whether it represents an improvement over the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), but whether the Bill, in and of itself, complies with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka and with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations. It must be borne in mind that the PTA was never constitutional, nor did its drafters claim that it was. No meaningful effort was made to ensure compliance with fundamental rights standards and due process safeguards, as it was taken as granted that the legislation could be enacted with a special two-thirds majority in Parliament. The result has been a draconian law that has been used for decades to target and suppress the rights of citizens, with limited debate as to what is meant by terrorism and the need for extremely broad terror laws in a post war context.
It is within this broader context that CPA sets out these initial observations on the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill. The following are several clauses that raises concerns:
The Offence of Terrorism and Other Offences
- The definition of the offence of Terrorism remains broad, seemingly designed in a manner that can be used to suppress dissent, rather than being limited to actual acts of terrorism. One of the main criticisms of the Anti-Terrorism Bill of 2024 was that it may have been used against those who protest against the Government, and while the present Bill contains a provision that seems to exclude protestors in clause 3(4), this clause is vague as to what will and will not be defined as terrorism in the course of a lawful protest.
Arrests made by Members of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard
- Clause 24 of the Bill provides that when a suspect is arrested by the armed forces or the coast guard, then they shall ‘without unnecessary delay, and in any event within a period not exceeding twenty-four hours’ be produced before the Officer – in – Charge of the nearest police station. When contrasted with clause 23, which requires a police officer making an arrest to produce the suspect before the OIC ‘forthwith’, it raises the question as to why the same urgency is not seen with the armed forces. This perpetuates the norm of militarising the powers of arrest and detention.
Pre-Trial Detention and Detention Orders
- As per clause 28(1), a person can be held in remand for up to a year. As per clause 28(2), if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.
Proscription Orders
- Clause 63 gives sweeping powers to the executive to proscribe an organisation, similar to what was seen in the 2024 Bill. Coupled with the wide power of the President to impose restrictions on such an organisation, the criminalisation of acts related to the organisation in terms of clause 6 gives the State a wide power to use this law to restrict freedom of association and crackdown on dissent.
Curfew Order and Prohibited Places
- The Bill provides power under clause 65 for the President to issue a curfew order and under clause 66 for the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to issue a direction that a place is a prohibited place. These clauses are broad and vague, thus making them susceptible to abuse.
The above are some clauses that raise concerns, though CPA notes that a fuller and in-depth study of the Bill is required for a comprehensive review and comment, which we hope to do in 2026. In the spirit of constructive engagement, CPA urges the authorities to provide greater time for public comments and consultation, enabling the citizens to be aware of proposed laws and facilitate a law-making process that is transparent, inclusive and contributes to upholding the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka.
Click Here to Download the Document in English