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

CPA Comms Officer on 16 December, 2025

Key Short-Term and Long-Term Issues to Consider for Post-Cyclone Ditwah Recovery

16 December 2025

His Excellency the President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka,
Presidential Secretariat, Galle Face,
Colombo 1,
Sri Lanka

Your Excellency,

Key Short-Term and Long-Term Issues to Consider for Post-Cyclone Ditwah Recovery

In the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah and its widespread impacts, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) convened a discussion on 11 December 2025 aimed at facilitating informed and constructive dialogue on recovery and response efforts. This meeting brought together representatives from a broad spectrum of civil society organisations, including those representing communities directly and disproportionately affected by the cyclone, alongside former public servants, economists, legal practitioners, and others from relevant disciplines. CPA is also appreciative of the presence of a representative from the Presidential Secretariat at this meeting.

It is imperative to acknowledge the realities posed by climate change as a global phenomenon with profound local consequences. Sri Lanka is increasingly vulnerable to a range of climate-induced natural disasters, the frequency, intensity, and nature of which are likely to differ significantly from those previously experienced. Events such as the recent cyclone underscore that the country must now contend with disasters of greater scale and complexity, requiring responses that go beyond conventional frameworks of disaster preparedness and recovery.

This evolving climate reality necessitates a fundamental shift in how Sri Lanka anticipates, prepares for, and responds to natural disasters. Recovery efforts must therefore be informed not only by immediate humanitarian needs, but also by longer-term strategies that strengthen resilience, protect vulnerable communities, and ensure that institutions are equipped to manage future crises effectively and in adherence to good governance principles and a rights-based approach. Recognising and planning for this reality is essential to safeguarding lives, livelihoods, and development gains in the years ahead.

The deliberations underscored the complexity and scale of the challenges associated with post-cyclone recovery, and a wide array of issues and concerns were raised by participants, drawing on both community-level experiences and technical expertise. In this context, CPA writes this letter to raise attention to several key issues that emerged during this discussion that can inform a comprehensive, inclusive, and sustainable recovery process and reforms. CPA also notes that this tragedy should be treated as a turning point—one that enables the adoption of forward-looking policies and practices aimed at building a stronger, more resilient Sri Lanka capable of withstanding future shocks.

Immediate measures to be taken as part of relief efforts

  • Assisting communities still seeking to recover the bodies of the dead as a matter of priority. Even where resources to do so may be limited, communities must be provided with clear timelines as to when this assistance will be available. When State resources cannot be provided, communities must be provided with financial assistance to do so using private resources. This is a matter that must be considered as a matter of urgency.
  • Transparent and accountable mechanisms are required to ensure equitable distribution of relief with effective oversight processes in place to monitor relief and recovery. Accountability in the distribution of aid is essential to deal with the lack of trust that people have in State mechanisms following decades of abuse of power and corruption.
  • Inadequate access to information: lack of collaboration and coordination between agencies, timely disbursement of critical information, internal conflicts across departments, and duplication of efforts.
  • Urgent attention is required with the need to have all information provided by the State in the two official languages (as mandated in the Constitution) and in English and to disseminate information swiftly and effectively.
  • There is a lack of reliable and accessible public data and information to guide the recovery process, and immediate attention is required to address this gap.
  • Addressing sectoral issues in a participatory and transparent manner with the inclusion of subject matter expertise. The following areas were identified as key in the short and medium term;
    • Physical Planning and Urban Development to address issues of landslides, flooding and other phenomena that can impact lives and livelihoods
    • Transport and road infrastructure to address access and movement issues
    • Education that includes providing for students affected by the disaster, and school buildings and equipment. Attention is also required to address challenges faced by A-Level students directly affected by the disaster
    • Agriculture and other livelihood support to communities affected by the disaster can also inform food security and other issues
    • Land and resettlement that need to be informed by durable solutions and related issues
    • Social welfare schemes that provide assistance and support in an equitable and conflict-sensitive manner and prevent discrimination. This includes the need for intersectoral response, collaboration and coordination.
    • Providing clear and accurate official information on the present condition of recovery efforts and dangers in Sri Lanka, to allow the tourism sector to recover from the disaster by promoting travel to unaffected or less affected areas.

Legal and Policy Issues

  • Utilisation of the systems duly set up under the Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005. Concerns are raised as to the fact that laws exist but are not understood, updated to address evolving issues and/or implemented comprehensively.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the default to Emergency Regulations when there is an existing legal framework. It is urged that the recently promulgated regulations No. 01/2025 be rescinded/amended, to keep in place only regulations that bear a direct nexus to the disaster at hand and for a specific time duration linked to the disaster response. CPA’s comments on this issue are annexed for your attention.
  • If it is necessary to utilise Emergency Regulations, then draft new regulations which are essential in the current situation. This may involve provision for issues such as delays, which may be caused by damage to courts, and the destruction of documents. The rationale for the emergency must be communicated in all three languages.
  • Review the applicability of the 2023-2030 Disaster Management Plan and ensure that necessary systems, procedures and mechanisms are put in place. Conduct an analysis of the long-term climate vulnerabilities threatening Sri Lanka in the context of climate change, and address these threats in the plan.
  • Rehabilitation – developing a rehabilitation plan with community consultation and input, in order to minimise inconvenience, loss of livelihood or loss of community to rehabilitated persons. Human factors such as social ties and language barriers must be taken into consideration when developing such a plan.

Governance and Structural Issues

  • Overburdening of the Ministry of Defence with functions relating to disaster prevention and disaster management, thus resulting in inadequate attention being paid to the subject. The subject of emergencies should be allocated to a Ministry which can allocate specialised resources and attention to disaster management.
  • The proper implementation of disaster management mechanisms. For instance, before August 2025, the Disaster Management Council had not convened since 2015. Disaster management mechanisms must always be operative, and not merely function as ad hoc bodies that are convened following a crisis.
  • Conducting a comprehensive audit on the gaps and shortcomings in the systems and mechanisms for disaster management in Sri Lanka, with an aim to build resilient systems which can stand the test of time.
  • Lack of preparedness at the administrative level among the public service/officers to immediately respond to the crisis, e.g., warning systems, communication in all three languages, drills, early search and rescue efforts to mitigate the scale of deaths and damage. Investigations must be conducted into what went wrong, not only for accountability, but also for improving systems to prevent further failures in the future.
  • Steps to preserve/digitise perishable data and steps to maintain data in digital formats to prevent further destruction. Eg: court records, land registries, archives, land deeds, identification documents.
  • Expedited and sensitive mechanisms must be put in place for the issuing of death certificates. The process must accommodate cases where bodies are recovered as well as those where individuals are missing/presumed dead, to allow affected families timely access to legal rights, compensation and inheritance claims.
  • Changes are required to address the lack of functionality of existing institutions/committees. Existing institutions must be strengthened and reformed.
  • Decentralisation/devolution of disaster response mechanisms, so that these mechanisms can deliver services more efficiently and in a timely manner.

Public Finance

  • Cash transfers must be made available to those impacted as a first step for ensuring immediate relief and that all communities affected are reached. At present, reports from the ground indicate that some communities/areas are yet to receive immediate relief, with concerns growing of the politicisation of the process.
  • Oversight and reporting mechanisms on the disbursement of allocations must be in place ensuring transparency and accountability of government actors including of Grama Sevakas, at the ground level.
  • While estimates for reconstruction continue to remain unclear at present, accessible and accurate information and data on financial needs must be made available to the public to aid the recovery process. This transparency must be paired with clear systems, due process safeguards and effective oversight mechanisms to ensure that any public, private, or international support and financial initiatives are accountable, equitable, and channelled effectively towards recovery and reconstruction efforts.
  • In making supplementary budgetary decisions for the reallocation of public finances and resources, sectors including national transport, education, social welfare, agriculture, tourism and export which have been significantly impacted must be prioritized.
  • Introduce safeguards to prevent assistance being used for purposes that are not linked to the disaster and have the potential to create/exacerbate tensions or be used for political gain.
  • A notable positive step is the immediate and ongoing consultations and engagement with the IMF to review/make adjustments, with the goal of returning Sri Lanka to a path that isn’t debt-borne. Such discussions must be continued in a constructive manner.

CPA recommends that the following should serve as guiding principles in addressing the above short and long-term issues:

Short term;

  • Take into account the disproportionate impact of the disaster on already marginalized communities, including aspects of gender, disability, language, systemic discrimination eg: Malaiyaha Tamil community, freetrade zone workers, LGBTQI community, and ensure disaster-response address this disproportionate impact.
  • Implement a durable solutions framework for return and resettlement.

Long term;

  • Take into account the disproportionate impact of the disaster on already marginalized communities, and ensure disaster-response related policy and legal reforms address this disproportionate impact.
  • Focus on improving governance issues on relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
  • Factor in broader climate and environmental issues, when determining policies including policies on pollution, waste management, sanitation, urban planning.
  • Systems to ensure better preparedness, disaster risk management, and long-term rebuilding, reconstruction, and resilience from climate and other shocks.
  • The use of technology, and other tools to assist in recovery and disaster preparedness.
  • Map out and review the existing policy planning documents and systems, map out learning from past responses to natural disasters including the 2004 Tsunami, in order to understand existing knowledge / resources on disaster response in order to be able to understand gaps and future steps.
  • All subsequent structural reforms and operational mechanisms must be transparent/accountable, consultative and inclusive with representation from all relevant stakeholders.

Emerging and Long-term issues

To build back better in the long term, Sri Lanka must:

  • Map existing legal and policy frameworks to comprehensively identify gaps and shortcomings in disaster management and recovery systems.
  • Introduce new laws and policies, developed in a transparent and inclusive manner, specifically required for the phases of Restitution, Rebuilding, and Reconstruction.
  • Implement structural reforms to address long-term needs in the broad areas discussed while factoring in underlying socio-economic issues.

We hope that this will assist in initiatives to build back better from this crisis. We urge you to initiate the necessary action, as well as regular consultations and the sharing of information in all three languages, on the above areas without further delay, and look forward to engaging in the furtherance of this goal.

A more detailed policy brief will follow this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu,

Executive Director

 

CC:

Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education

Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Leader of the Opposition

Hon. Vijitha Herath, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism

Hon. Prof. Chandana Abeyratne, Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, Local Government

Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration

Hon. Sarojani Savithri Paulraj, Minister of Women and Child Affairs

Hon. K.D. Lalkantha, Minister of Agriculture, Lands, Livestock and Irrigation

Hon. Anura Karunathilake, Minister of Urban Development, Construction and Housing

Hon. Ramalingam Chandrasekar, Minister of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources

Hon. Prof. Upali Pannilage, Minister of Rural Development, Social Security and Community Empowerment

Hon. Sunil Handunneththi, Minister of Industry and Entrepreneurship Development

Hon. Ananda Wijepala, Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs

Hon Bimal Rathnayake, Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation

Hon. Prof. Hiniduma Sunil Senevi, Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs

Hon. Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, Minister of Health and Media

Hon. Samantha Vidyarathna, Minister of Plantation and Community Infrastructure

Hon. Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports

Hon. Wasantha Samarasingha, Minister of Trade, Commerce, Food  Security and Co-operative Development

Hon. Prof. Chrishantha Abeysena, Minister of Science and Technology

Hon. Prof. Anil Jayantha Fernando, Minister of Labour

Hon. Eng. Kumara Jayakody, Minister of Energy

Hon. Dr Dhammika Patabandi, Minister of Environment

Mrs. Kushani Anusha Rohanadeera, Secretary General of Parliament.

 

 

CPA Comms Officer on 1 December, 2025

Statement on the Declaration of Emergency and Emergency Regulations Promulgated on the 28.11.2025

1st December 2025.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply saddened by the Cyclone Ditwah caused humanitarian crisis that has caused death and devastation across Sri Lanka, displacing and leaving many communities without basic essentials, thereby heightening concerns with regard to recovery, relief, rebuilding and rehabilitation.

Amidst such a disaster, CPA notes the need for measures to be taken to address the immediate recovery and humanitarian concerns, through existing laws such as the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005 specifically designed to address natural disasters, including floods, landslides, cyclones and other hazards. It is in such a context that CPA is concerned by the decision of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to declare a nationwide state of emergency, and the simultaneous gazetting of Emergency Regulations (both dated 28thNovember 2025, though they were made public on the 29th November), purportedly to address the cyclone and flooding situation currently affecting the country. This was followed by the appointment of Mr. B.K. Prabath Chandrakeerthi, a Special Grade Officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service as the Commissioner-General of Essential Services under the Emergency Regulations. These steps were subsequent to statements by several opposition political actors calling for the declaration of a state of emergency.  CPA is concerned with the reverting back to a state of emergency as a default response to a crisis, regardless of Sri Lanka’s past experiences with natural disasters and the tapestry of laws and frameworks in place.

While CPA recognises the severity of the disaster and the urgent need for coordinated relief efforts, we emphasise that the powers conferred by such a declaration of emergency are extraordinary, and intended to be exercised only in circumstances where the ordinary laws of the country are manifestly insufficient to protect public safety or to secure the provision of essential services. The authority to declare a state of emergency derives from the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), which grants sweeping powers to the President, including the ability to override existing laws. These powers, by their nature, must be subject to strict necessity, proportionality and time-bound limits.

CPA has in the past raised concerns with the declaration of emergency including in several instances in the post war period in 2018, 2019, 2021 and three instances in 2022. A common theme seen during all these states of emergency (except April 2022 where Emergency Regulations were not promulgated) is that the accompanying Emergency Regulations have been overbroad, giving the Executive extraordinary powers which are beyond those necessary for the management of the emergency at hand.

In this context CPA highlights the existence of several laws including the Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005, introduced after the devastating 2004 Tsunami that allows the President to declare a State of Disaster, upon which proclamation, broader powers related to disaster management are given to various authorities in order to respond to the situation at hand. CPA emphasises, as it did before in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic, that this is the most appropriate law to deal with the circumstances Sri Lanka is faced with today. Under the Disaster Management Act, the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) and the National Council for Disaster Management (NCDM) have clearly mandated powers to coordinate disaster relief, mitigation, rehabilitation and recovery — precisely the sort of coordinated, multi-sectoral response required in severe weather events. One of the functions of the NCDM is to ‘facilitate emergency response, recovery, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction in the event of any disaster’, a function which would have been directly relevant to the crisis.

Additionally, CPA notes that on 28th November, the President had issued a Gazette in terms of Section 2 of the Essential Public Services Act, No. 61 of 1979 declaring several services as essential public services. Furthermore, on 26th November, the President had issued a Gazette in terms of Section 12 of the Public Security Ordinance, calling out all the members of all the armed forces for purpose of maintenance of public order all over Sri Lanka – a step that has become routine under successive presidents. Moreover, the President is empowered with additional powers under the Public Security Ordinance including the power to declare curfew for the maintenance of public order without the need to declare an emergency. Thus, against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’ experiences of natural disasters and crisis and the availability of multiple legal options, questions must be posed as to the real purpose of declaring a state of emergency.

Even assuming that, in the extraordinary circumstances of this disaster, a state of emergency was warranted, the particular emergency regulations gazetted raise serious concerns. They echo the broad regulations of the past, granting sweeping powers, some that do not appear to bear a clear relationship to disaster response, relief or recovery. In addition to the Commissioner General of Essential Services, the emergency regulation promulgated provides for the establishment of a ‘Commissioner of Civil Security’ and advisory committees, with a vast amount of the regulations focusing on criminal offences that raises questions of relevance and nexus to the disaster. Several of these offences bear striking similarities to overbroad and unjustified offences contained in previous Emergency Regulations, raising questions as to whether parts of previous regulations have simply been duplicated without consideration to the situation at hand. For instance, causing disaffection among public officers (reg 18) or affixing or distributing posters, handbills or leaflets which are prejudicial to public security, public order or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community (reg 19) are made offences. Worryingly, information shared between persons or by any written, electronic, digital or other means, including through any media, information and communication technology, automated system or artificial intelligence system, communicate, publish, generate or disseminate any rumour or false statement which is likely to cause public alarm or public disorder are also made offences (reg 20). Such overbroad regulations risk undermining civil liberties, including fundamental rights of freedom of movement, assembly, expression, and due process — especially given Sri Lanka’s history of using emergency laws in contexts well beyond immediate security threats.

This is especially alarming given that this government came into power on a promise of systemic change. The people of Sri Lanka, already traumatised by successive crises, natural disasters, and social instability, deserve a departure from the pattern of concentrated Executive Power. While CPA notes the President’s statement on 30th November that assured the state of emergency is to be used solely for disaster management and for no other purpose, we call on the government to:

  • Ensure that any emergency regulations are strictly necessary, proportionate, time-limited, and directly related to immediate disaster-response needs.
  • Guarantee transparency, oversight, and protection of fundamental rights during the period of emergency.
  • Commit to promptly rescinding any provisions not essential for relief, rehabilitation and recovery.
  • Fully implement existing laws including the Disaster Management Act.

CPA urges that the country should not return to a cycle in which states of emergency become the default response to crisis, whether economic, political or natural. We hope that this government will honour its promises of system change and uphold the rule of law, human rights, and democratic norms even in times of national hardship.

This statement will be followed by a more detailed commentary on the Emergency Regulations promulgated.

Click Here to download the Statement in English

Sinhala & Tamil translations of the statement will be made available soon.

CPA Comms Officer on 7 August, 2025

Letter to the Minister of Justice and National Integration on Critical Law and Policy Reforms

Over the decades, CPA has highlighted the critical need for reforms addressing truth and justice in Sri Lanka, which require renewed attention against the backdrop of the ongoing work around mass graves and other developments linked to Sri Lanka’s past cycles of violence. Whilst CPA acknowledges the work done by state officials pertaining to forensics and other work, the complexities of ascertaining truth and pursuing justice require expertise and resources that are urgently needed. In this regard, CPA reiterates the need for capacity building and legal and structural reforms that can facilitate processes that are independent, impartial, and victim-centred. Based on interviews with a range of stakeholders, including those based in the North and East, CPA highlights the following:

  • Strengthen Forensic Expertise: There is a need to strengthen the overall forensic investigation capacity and expertise of the state, including the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) and others.
  • Provide Resources and Initiate Reforms towards the Establishment of an Independent DNA Facility: The work in the past with the Chemmani Mass Grave and other sites, and ongoing work with multiple sites, highlights the need for an independent facility that is able to store and process DNA samples.
  • The Need for Independent Investigations and Prosecutions: Recent events demonstrate the urgent need for the establishment of an office to independently investigate and prosecute serious human rights and economic crimes. The work around mass graves and Sri Lanka’s case load of enforced disappearances reinforce the need for such an entity.
  • Ensuring Procedure in Excavation: Standard operating procedure should be introduced in the excavation of mass graves to cover excavations, exhumations and investigations.
  • Obtaining International Assistance: The complex nature of excavations and investigations highlights the need for international observers and assistance that can support and strengthen the work.
  • Psychosocial Support for Victims: The discovery and exhumation of mass graves have deep psychological effects on victims and affected communities. The State must enhance local capacity to provide psychosocial support and related issues.
  • Victim-Centred Approach: The Government must ensure all processes and reforms are victim-centred, including the need for transparency and regular information sharing to address the trust deficit towards domestic initiatives.
  • Resource Allocation for Investigations, Prosecutions and Related Matters: The Government must take all steps to provide resources for ongoing excavations, forensic and other related work and investigations and ensure the required allocations are made with the forthcoming appropriations bill.

There is a considerable body of work done by the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), amongst others, on issues around enforced disappearances, the excavation of mass graves, and related issues. All efforts must be made to ensure there is no political interference with such entities and that they are provided the required resources to function independently.

We welcome an opportunity to meet and discuss these critical matters further and offer our continued support in implementing the necessary reforms to build a system of justice that reflects the aspirations of all citizens.

Click Here to Download the Document

CPA Comms Officer on 3 July, 2025

Urgent Reform: Establishing an Independent Public Prosecutor’s Office

I write on behalf of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in response to news reports that Your Ministry has appointed an expert committee as an initial step towards establishing an independent prosecutor’s office. The CPA has consistently advocated for creation of an independent prosecutors office as a means to ensure greater accountability and confidence in Sri Lanka’s justice system. The multiple and often conflicting roles of the Attorney-General’s Office have been addressed previously by CPA in ‘Rethinking the Attorney General’s Department in Sri Lanka: Ideas for Reform’ and, more recently, in ‘Calls for a Public Prosecutor’s Office – The Urgent Need for Reforms’. Thus, an Independent Public Prosecutor’s Office is crucial for ensuring fair, effective, and impartial prosecution of cases, especially high-profile and cases which relate to politically exposed persons. As part of the broader reform in Sri Lanka advocated for by CPA, we kindly urge you to consider the following issues and principles in establishing an independent public prosecutor’s office:

1. Impartiality and Insulation from Influence: The office must be non-partisan and thoroughly insulated from political bias, ensuring the law is applied equally to all. This requires robust recruitment practices and legislated tenure to protect against external influences and non-interference by the political actors regarding decisions of appointments and promotions within the office.

2. Independence in Structure and Function: The prosecution department should stand structurally independent from other branches of government to reaffirm the separation of powers. This promotes accountability, checks and balances, and transparency within the justice system, insulating prosecutorial decisions from political pressure or fear of retribution. Persons working for the office should not have any interface with the executive and political actors in the discharge of their functions. It is important not only to create an institution which is actually independent, but it has to also be seen as being independent in order to inspire public confidence.

3. Trust Building with the Public: As the primary means of pursuing punishment for criminal behaviour, the office must instill public trust in the justice system. It must primarily serve public interests and proactively increase the accessibility and transparency of the justice system, including by developing a prosecutorial policy that is accessible to the public.

4. Sufficient Resourcing and Training: As addressed by previous CPA reports, the office requires independent financial resources, comprehensive recruitment processes, and the logistical capacity to provide investigation services, alongside legal and administrative capabilities.

5. Accountability: The office must be accountable to Parliament, particularly concerning resource utilisation. Financial oversight should be carried out by a body (of Parliament) that include a variety of political actors representing different political parties (split equally between government and opposition). Such oversight should be without any derogation of the right and ability to independent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The office should be subject to judicial review.

CPA emphasises that the Ministry’s recent initiative to appoint an expert committee towards establishing an independent prosecutor’s office is only the first step in a process that needs to be transparent and inclusive, involving a process of obtaining representations from victims, lawyers, academics, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders. Such an inclusive process will foster broader discussion, engage all parties, and build public trust, demonstrating a genuine commitment to transparent and accountable reforms that strengthen the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We believe that these reforms are fundamental to upholding justice and restoring public confidence in Sri Lanka’s legal system.

Sincerely,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Executive Director

 

Click Here to Download the Document

CPA Comms Officer on 16 June, 2025

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to Sri Lanka: Recommendations and Key Issues for Consideration

June 2025

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights H.E. Volker Turk is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka this month—the first visit by a High Commissioner since the 2024 election of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP) government. The visit takes place at a key moment in Sri Lanka with the country grappling with the effects of its ongoing governance and economic crises, cycles of past violence, and the lasting effects of a nearly three-decade conflict. The 2024 change of government promised reform and reignited hope that a new political culture would emerge.

Yet, seven months later, the implementation of confidence-building measures and key governance and legal reforms have been delayed. A significant section of society also faces severe socio-economic challenges. Amidst such a context, human rights abuses persist. The recent use of the Prevention of Terror Act (PTA) has violated the due process of suspects. Long-standing issues, such as land appropriation, continue to deny communities of their right to access, own and use their lands, freedom of movement, and means of survival. Reports of torture and custodial death have also occurred under the Dissanayake government. These and other issues expose the prevalence of human rights violations that threaten to reinforce historical patterns of violence and trigger future conflict. They are also critical indicators of the need for a prevention agenda and engagement in promoting human rights and strengthening the rule of law in Sri Lanka.

The visit takes place at this critical juncture when the government can be supported in their plans of implementing its own promises. In light of the impending visit, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) urges the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to inform their meetings and messages to the government, state entities, and others with the following recommendations:

  1. Have a genuine and open dialogue with victims, survivors, and civil society in Sri Lanka, including visiting the war-affected areas in the North and East.
  2. Highlight the need for concrete steps to address accountability in Sri Lanka. This includes the need for tangible and time-bound progress on emblematic cases, legal and structural reforms, including the establishment of the promised Public Prosecutor’s Office, and other necessary reforms to ensure an independent and credible judicial process in Sri Lanka.
  3. Emphasize the need for an immediate moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and its immediate repeal. Any future attempts at law reforms must adhere to international standards and be drafted after wide consultations.
  4. Highlight the need for other urgent legal reforms, including the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA), reform to the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA), the Vagrancy Ordinance, provisions of the Penal Code, and other measures to ensure equality, non-discrimination, and the dignity of all citizens.
  5. Raise concerns about ongoing efforts at land appropriation and occupation that have dispossessed many individuals and communities. Particular attention must be paid to acquisitions in the North and East, a call for transparent land appropriation reforms that contain due process safeguards and address the grievances of affected communities.
  6. Visit sites of mass graves and raise the need for adherence to international standards of exhumation, recording, reporting, and identification.
  7. Reaffirm the right to religious worship and religious freedom.
  8. Raise the need for independent investigations into custodial torture and encounter killings, accountability for such violations, and urgent reforms in this regard.
  9. Highlight the continued challenges faced in civic spaces, including administrative and security issues that impede the work of human rights defenders, civil society, community groups, media, and others.
  10. Urge the Government of Sri Lanka to address persistent socio-economic challenges, including through the introduction of governance reforms that are just, fair, and equitable.
  11. Emphasize the importance of undertaking constitutional reforms in a transparent and timely manner that facilitate the abolition of the executive presidency, address a political solution, and bring required checks and balances, among other key reforms. These reforms should include a full implementation of Sri Lanka’s existing constitution, especially concerning the limited devolution of power granted by the 13th amendment, pending constitutional reform.
  12. Raise the need for a new Resolution on Sri Lanka with a two-year reporting period, that provides for continued monitoring and support for human rights, accountability, and reconciliation. CPA also recommends the renewal of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP) and its ability to visit Sri Lanka.

The human rights, accountability, and reconciliation issues underscored in these recommendations require urgent attention. CPA calls upon the High Commissioner and the OHCHR to use this visit to highlight these concerns and emphasize the need for immediate action, including a time-bound roadmap for implementation of reforms.

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives

 

Click Here to Download the Document