Centre for Policy Alternatives on 1 July, 2019

Centre for Policy Alternatives v Attorney General ( SC FR 273 / 2019)

01st July 2019, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers challenging the President’s act of signing the death warrant of four persons convicted of drug-related offences.

CPA notes that it has long been recognised that hanging by death is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment, not befitting a multi religious and civilised society. Though convicts have been sentenced to death, the long recognised practice in Sri Lanka for over 43 years has been that they were not executed.

CPA reiterates that the implementation of death penalty at this juncture is a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 11[Freedom from torture] and under Article 12(1) [ All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection before the law] of the Constitution

CPA’s statement on the resuming of the death penalty can be found here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 27 June, 2019

CPA Statement on the Resuming of the Death Penalty

27th June 2019, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply alarmed by President Maithripala Sirisena’s comments made on 26th June 2019 on signing the death warrants of four persons convicted of drug-related offences; advocating the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution; attacking the Parliament Select Committee probing the Easter Sunday attacks; and attacking NGOs, among others. All these comments require urgent attention considering their impact on democracy, governance and security in Sri Lanka, and CPA will provide specific comment on each in future, but at the present moment it focuses on the most urgent matter—resuming the death penalty—which is reported to be imminent.

At the outset, CPA notes that resuming the death penalty goes against decades of Sri Lanka’s domestic and international policy practice. Sri Lanka has maintained a de facto moratorium on the death penalty since 1976. The secretive nature in which the process is being carried out is also extremely concerning as none of the details of who is to be executed, the exact crimes they were convicted of and the date they will be executed have been made public.

Resuming the death penalty goes against a rapidly accelerating global trend towards its abolishment. Since 1976, when Sri Lanka’s last execution was carried out, 87 countries have abolished the death penalty completely, and today more than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished it in law or practice. Additionally, there is growing international recognition that harsh, punitive measures are ineffective at addressing drug-related social issues, which is driving the adoption of rehabilitation and decriminalisation measures instead. Resuming the death penalty for drug-related crimes would therefore make Sri Lanka an outlier among strong international consensus.

CPA also notes that Sri Lanka is obliged under international law to refrain from carrying out the death penalty. Sri Lanka is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which both stress the right to life and oblige states to impose the death penalty in only the most exceptional circumstances for the most serious crimes. The UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR, has repeatedly held that drug offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”. Further, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2016 and 2018, Sri Lanka voted for UN General Assembly Resolutions in support of the moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Morally, the use of the death penalty speaks to the kind of society a country aspires to have. All the major religions practiced in Sri Lanka are founded on principles of non-violence. The re-imposition of the death penalty is a clear violation of these principles. While CPA recognises that the criminal justice system should reproach persons who have committed and are convicted of offences, it also stresses that mistakes can be made in even a perfect legal system. The unique significance of the death penalty as a criminal punishment is its irreversible nature. There are countless examples from around the world where persons sentenced to death have been found not guilty of the crimes they were charged with. The possibility of causing the deaths of innocent persons is a heavy burden for a country to have on its conscience.

CPA calls upon President Sirisena to immediately halt plans of carrying out the death penalty. We also urge the Parliament of Sri Lanka to initiate urgent reforms to repeal the death penalty, a power no one person should possess in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law. Finally, we call upon fellow citizens and others to publicly condemn the imposing of the death penalty and to agitate on the need for urgent reforms.

 

Download this statement in English, Sinhala and Tamil.

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 20 June, 2019

Centre for Policy Alternatives v Attorney General ( SC FR 256/ 2019)

20th of June 2019: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers challenging the Presidential Pardon of Gnanasara Thero who was convicted for contempt of court by the Court of Appeal on 8th August 2018. He was sentenced to 19 years of rigorous imprisonment to be completed within 6 years.

CPA notes that the Constitution does not permit the President to act in a manner that undermines and erodes the independence of the judiciary in exercising his right to pardon under Article 34 of the Constitution. Further. after the Nineteenth (19th) Amendment to the Constitution came greater accountability as President’s action (except for the exercise of power to declare war and peace) is reviewable by way of the fundamental rights application before the Supreme Court.

CPA reiterates that grant of pardon for Gnanasara Thero for contempt of court frustrates the power of the judiciary to maintain its authority and upholds its dignity and the rule of law. It is submitted that therefore, that fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) [ All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection before the law] has been violated.

[Update – 04 October 2023]
The Supreme Court, today, granted leave to proceed in a Fundamental Rights Application filed by CPA and it’s Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, (SC FR 256/2019), challenging the granting of a Presidential Pardon to Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero, by the then President Maithripala Sirisena.

Leave was granted under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and the Respondents were directed to file several documents which were sought by the Petitiones.

The case is to be argued on the 6th of May 2024.

CPA’s Statement on the Presidential Pardon of Gnanasara Thero can be accessed here

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 1 June, 2019

The Time is Now | දැන් කාලය ඇවිත් | தற்பொழுது காலம் உருவாகியுள்ளது

A media campaign was launched in June 2019, addressing the need for reflection as we mark ten years since the end of the war, in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday attacks and the violence that has followed.

Trilingual videos are embedded below.

 

The Time is Now

Sri Lanka and its people have suffered through decades of violence, and continue to do so. Over 70 years after independence, ten years on from the end of the war, and as the country undergoes another period of crisis, this is a time to remember and reflect, in the hope that we never have to experience such violence again.

 

දැන් කාලය ඇවිත්

ප්‍රචණ්ඩත්වය හේතුකොටගෙන දශක ගණනාවක් පුරා ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සහ එහි පුරවැසියන් දුක් විඳ ඇත. නිදහසින් පසු වසර 70කට වැඩි කාලයක්ද, යුද්ධයේ අවසානයෙන් පසු වසර දහයකට වැඩි කාලයක්ද, වර්තමානයේ රට මුහුණ දී ඇති අර්බුදකාරී තත්ත්වය යටතේද , එය නැවත සිහිපත් කිරීම සහ මෙනෙහි කිරීමටත් , එවැනි ප්‍රචණ්ඩකාරී වාතාවරණයක් නැවත ඇති නොවන බවට බලාපොරොත්තු දල්වා ගැනීමටත් කාලය එළැඹ තිබේ.

 

தற்பொழுது காலம் உருவாகியுள்ளது

வன்முறையினை காரணமாகக் கொண்டு இலங்கை தேசமும் அதன் மக்களும் பல தசாப்தங்களாக பல்வேறு இன்னல்களுக்கு ஆளாகியுள்ளார்கள். சுதந்திரத்தின் பின்னர் 7௦ வருடங்களாகியும், யுத்தம் முடிவடைந்து 10 வருடங்களாகியும் தற்பொழுது நாடு எதிர்நோக்கியுள்ள நெருக்கடி நிலைமையின் கீழ் அதனை மீள நினைவுபடுத்துவதற்கும், இது போன்ற வன்முறைகள் மீண்டுமொருமுறை உருவாகாமல் இருப்பது தொடர்பில் சிந்திப்பதற்கும், செயல்படுவதற்குமான காலம் உருவாகியுள்ளது.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 30 May, 2019

Public Opinion Poll on Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Reform

Throughout the past three decades, successive governments have stressed the importance of constitutional reform. This has been either as a means of addressing minority grievances which in turn would form part of a solution to the ethnic conflict or as a means of restructuring various contentious aspects within the 1978 Constitution (i.e. the executive presidential system and the electoral system.)

Although there had been many glitches and gaps in proceeding with the constitutional reform process since its initiation – the constitutional crisis that transpired in October 2018 further confirmed the lack of political will within the government to bring about proposed reforms and thereby brought the entire process to a complete halt. Ironically though, the many debates that followed the crisis inadvertently created a heightened level of awareness and interest about the constitution amongst the general public.

It is in this context Social Indicator, the survey research arm of the Centre for Policy Alternatives ventured into this study in order to capture public perception on the manner in which people perceive the contents of the constitution and their perception of the constitutional crisis that occurred in October 2018. Opinion surveys are a powerful medium through which the general public can voice their opinion on issues that matter to them. Furthermore it is also one of the best scientific methods that could help policy makers, academics and those in power understand the pulse of the citizenry. Therefore, we strongly believe that this survey will make an invaluable contribution towards understanding the citizens’ knowledge, perception and attitudes towards the constitution and constitutional reform process.

 

Download the report here.

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 28 May, 2019

Centre for Policy Alternatives v Attorney General (SC FR 199/2019)

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed papers challenging some of the Regulations included in the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No. 1 of 2019.

It must be noted that this is not a challenge of the Declaration of a State of Emergency, but rather some of the Regulations which are found in Gazette Extraordinary No. 2120/5 dated Monday April 22, 2019.

While CPA agrees that certain emergency measures are needed to combat security threats that the country is currently facing, the position it takes is that such Regulations must be reasonable, and proportionate to the means that they seek to achieve, especially when they have the effect of curtailing the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of the country.

It is submitted that some of the Regulations in effect violate the right guaranteed under Articles 4(c) [judicial power of the peope], Article 10 [freedom of thought], Article 11 [ freedom from torture] ,Article 12(1)  [equal protection of the law]) & Article 12 (2)  [non-discrimination], Article 13 [ freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and punishment] and 14 (1) (g) [freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, profession]  &14 (1)  (h) [ freedom  of movement and choosing residence within Sri Lanka] of the Constitution.