CPA Comms Officer on 19 February, 2026

Vacancy : Executive Director

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is looking for a principled, strategic, and resilient leader to serve as its second Executive Director. In an evolving national and international landscape, the ED will be responsible for renewing and delivering on CPA’s mandate, ensuring financial strength, and maintaining the organization’s standing as an independent and respected voice in Sri Lanka’s public sphere.

The Role

The Executive Director provides the strategic vision and operational discipline required to lead CPA’s multidisciplinary team. You will oversee a diverse portfolio including research and advocacy, public-interest litigation, civic media and outreach.

Key Responsibilities:

  • Strategic Leadership: Develop and execute a 3-5 year strategic plan that identifies new opportunities for growth and visible impact, while continuing CPA’s legacy of decisive public interest interventions.
  • Programmatic Oversight: Ensure all research and advocacy efforts meet high standards of quality, relevance, and policy impact.
  • Organizational Management: Lead the senior staff, oversee financial stewardship, and ensure robust governance and risk management.
  • Resource Mobilization: Diversify income streams and manage relationships with donors and other partners, to ensure long-term sustainability.
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Act as CPA’s chief spokesperson, engaging with government, media, academia, and international partners with clarity and dignity.

Who We Are Looking For

We seek a leader who carries authority through substance – someone who acts with courage, is guided by evidence, and who has the mettle to withstand external pressure. He or she should be deeply rooted in CPA’s values, with the vision and ability to lead the organization’s adaptation in its next phase of life.

Essential Competencies:

How No Deposit Bonuses Actually Work, Explained by Casinozoid

No deposit bonuses have been part of online casino marketing since the early 2000s, when operators began competing aggressively for new registrations in an increasingly crowded market. Despite their long history, these promotions remain widely misunderstood — players often assume they represent straightforward free money, when in reality they operate under a framework of conditions that significantly shape their practical value. Understanding the mechanics behind these offers helps players make informed decisions rather than chasing promotions that may never convert into withdrawable funds.

The Basic Mechanics: Where the Money Actually Comes From

When a casino offers a no deposit bonus, it is extending a form of promotional credit funded directly from the operator’s marketing budget. Unlike a deposit match bonus, no player funds are involved at the point of claim — the casino absorbs the full cost of the promotion upfront. This is why no deposit offers tend to be modest in size, typically ranging from €5 to €25 in bonus funds, or between 10 and 50 free spins on a nominated slot title. Larger no deposit offers do exist but are rare and usually tied to specific licensing jurisdictions or seasonal campaigns.

The bonus is credited to a separate promotional balance in most modern casino platforms. This separation is deliberate and regulated in several jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Gambling Commission’s 2019 guidance on bonus terms required operators to clearly distinguish between bonus funds and real money balances, reducing the likelihood of players accidentally wagering real money under bonus conditions. Many European-licensed casinos adopted similar internal structures even where not legally mandated, partly to reduce customer service disputes.

Free spin variants work slightly differently. Each spin carries a fixed value — commonly €0.10 or €0.20 per spin — and any winnings generated are credited as bonus funds rather than cash. This means that even if a player generates €30 from 50 free spins, that €30 enters the system as bonus money subject to the same wagering requirements as any other promotional credit.

Wagering Requirements: The Core Condition That Defines Real Value

Wagering requirements, sometimes called playthrough requirements, are the multiplier applied to bonus funds before a withdrawal can be processed. A 30x wagering requirement on a €10 no deposit bonus means a player must place €300 in qualifying bets before any winnings become withdrawable. This figure is not arbitrary — it is calculated by operators to ensure the house edge erodes the bonus funds in the majority of cases, protecting the casino’s exposure while still allowing occasional players to cash out.

The industry average for no deposit bonus wagering requirements sits between 30x and 50x, though some operators set requirements as high as 60x or 70x, particularly in markets with less regulatory oversight. Casinozoid, which tracks and analyzes bonus structures across licensed operators, has noted a gradual tightening of wagering conditions since approximately 2018, coinciding with increased regulatory scrutiny in markets like Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK. Operators in these markets have responded by either reducing wagering multipliers or capping the maximum withdrawal from bonus winnings — sometimes both simultaneously.

Game contribution rates add another layer of complexity. Slots typically contribute 100% toward wagering requirements, but table games like blackjack or roulette often contribute only 10% or are excluded entirely. This means a player attempting to clear a 30x requirement on a €10 bonus by playing blackjack — where the house edge is under 1% and skilled play can theoretically preserve funds — would need to wager €3,000 in blackjack stakes to satisfy the same requirement that €300 in slot play would fulfill. Casinos design these contribution rates specifically to steer players toward higher-margin games.

For readers who want a clear breakdown of the terminology involved, the resource explaining what is a no deposit bonus on Casinozoid covers the structural definitions in detail, including how different bonus types are classified and what distinguishes a no deposit offer from a free play or welcome package.

Expiry Windows, Caps, and the Hidden Constraints

Beyond wagering requirements, no deposit bonuses carry several additional constraints that are often buried in the terms and conditions. Expiry windows are among the most consequential. Most no deposit bonuses expire within 7 to 14 days of activation, and some expire within as little as 24 hours. If wagering requirements are not met within this window, both the bonus funds and any associated winnings are forfeited entirely. For a player with a busy schedule or limited gaming time, this can make an otherwise reasonable offer practically unusable.

Maximum withdrawal caps are another significant restriction. Even if a player successfully completes the wagering requirements, most no deposit bonuses limit the amount that can be withdrawn to a fixed ceiling — typically between €50 and €100. Some operators set this cap as low as €20 or €30. This means that even an unusually fortunate run of play, where a player converts a €10 bonus into €500 through high-variance slot play, will result in a withdrawal capped at whatever the terms specify. The remaining balance is removed from the account once the cap is applied.

Bonus abuse detection systems have also become increasingly sophisticated. Operators use device fingerprinting, IP tracking, and behavioral analysis to identify players who create multiple accounts to claim the same no deposit offer repeatedly. This practice, sometimes called bonus hunting or bonus abuse, was widespread in the early 2010s but has been substantially curtailed by technological countermeasures. Casinozoid has documented cases where legitimate players were flagged by these systems due to shared household IP addresses or the use of VPNs, resulting in bonus forfeiture or account suspension — an outcome that underscores the importance of reading terms carefully before claiming any offer.

Regulatory Variations and How Jurisdiction Shapes the Offer

The structure of no deposit bonuses varies considerably depending on where the casino is licensed. In the United Kingdom, the Gambling Commission’s tightened bonus regulations since 2019 have led many operators to scale back or eliminate no deposit offers entirely, viewing the compliance overhead as disproportionate to the marketing benefit. The Swedish Spelinspektionen introduced a bonus restriction framework in 2019 that limits the number of bonuses an operator can offer to a single player per session, which has similarly reduced the prevalence of no deposit offers in that market.

By contrast, casinos licensed in Malta under the Malta Gaming Authority, or in Gibraltar and Curaçao, face fewer restrictions on bonus structure and tend to offer more aggressive no deposit promotions. This regulatory divergence means that the same parent company may offer substantially different bonus terms depending on which licensed entity a player registers with — a distinction that is rarely highlighted in promotional material but can significantly affect the player experience.

In jurisdictions where no deposit bonuses remain common, operators have increasingly shifted toward free spin formats rather than cash bonuses. Free spins are easier to cost-control because the operator knows the exact maximum liability per spin, whereas cash bonuses carry slightly more variable exposure depending on which games a player chooses. This shift has been documented in industry reports from the European Gaming and Betting Association, which noted a marked increase in free spin promotions relative to cash bonuses between 2017 and 2022.

Understanding the full architecture of no deposit bonuses — from the source of the promotional credit to the jurisdiction-specific conditions that govern withdrawal — transforms these offers from opaque marketing tools into something a player can evaluate rationally. The bonus itself is neither inherently valuable nor inherently deceptive; its practical worth depends entirely on whether the attached conditions align with how a player actually intends to use the platform. Approaching any no deposit offer with a clear reading of the terms, an awareness of wagering mathematics, and realistic expectations about withdrawal outcomes is the most reliable way to extract genuine value from what is, at its core, a calculated promotional instrument.

  • Leadership: At least ten years of experience in policy research, civil society, or governance-focused environments
  • Expertise: Deep understanding of democratic governance, constitutional reform, human rights, and / or Sri Lankan political dynamics
  • Management: Proven track record in fundraising, budget oversight, leading multidisciplinary teams, and creative problem-solving
  • Communication: Exceptional written and oral skills; fluency in English and one other national language
  • Education: A postgraduate degree

Desirable Attributes:

  • Fluency in both Sinhala and Tamil
  • A doctoral degree and/or significant international exposure
  • Experience in organizational restructuring or work related to CPA’s mandate

Terms & Compensation

This is a full-time role based in Colombo, requiring local and international travel. CPA offers compensation that is competitive within the Sri Lankan civil society sector.

Application

 Apply by 20th March 2026 by emailing a brief cover letter and CV to [email protected]. Please note that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

CPA Comms Officer on 5 February, 2026

Land Ownership, Use, Alienation & Development: Revisiting the Proposed Kivul Oya Project

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.

Click Here to Read the Full Statement

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.

Click Here to download the complete document

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.

Click Here to download the complete document

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.

___

Case Update

The President promulgated Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 1 of 2026 on or about 28th January 2026. These new emergency regulations amended several of regulations challenged by CPA [See Table 1 below].

The Supreme Court on 26th February 2026, took up CPA’s case for support for leave to proceed. On behalf of the President, it was contended that since the regulations challenged by CPA had been amended, the case was of mere academic importance.

In response CPA submitted to Court that;

  1. The Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 operated for a period of two months during which time it operated in violation of the rights of the citizens of Sri Lanka, prior to amendments being brought on or about 28th January 2026,
  2. Even though the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 were repealed, the regulations could be used to prosecute any individual accused of committing an offence in terms of the said regulations between 28th November 2025 and 28th November 2026. Therefore CPA argued the case had real world consequences,
  3. A substantial portion of the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations 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 If no ruling is made by Court on these regulations there is a risk of them being reproduced again and again.
  4. To support this argument CPA cited the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in July 2025, in a previous case on Emergency Regulations. In this judgement ;
    • the Supreme Court “noted much merit in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners with overwhelming cogence, that particularly during the states of Emergency declared in 2022, the Emergency Regulations promulgated purportedly under section 5 of the PSO fit into a particular template, and that Regulations had been made in a stereotypical and repetitive manner, disregarding the actual purpose for which they were required to be made. Furthermore, the Court noted that most such Regulations would not withstand judicial review due to being overbroad, vague, arbitrary, in excess of restrictions that may be imposed under Article 15 of the Constitution on the exercise of fundamental rights and incompatible with standards relating to the Rule of Law.”
    • the Supreme Court ordered Attorney General to, within three (3) months from the date of this Judgment incorporate the principles of law contained in this Judgment into a detailed legal advisory, and forward such advisory to the Office of His Excellency the President for necessary consideration.
  5. CPA filed two cases challenging Emergency Regulations in 2022. On both occasions at the time the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed, the emergency regulations had lapsed. Nevertheless the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed and in one of the cases delivered final judgement in July 2025.

On this basis CPA and its Executive Director argued that the Supreme Court should grant leave to proceed in this matter as well.

However, after hearing the arguments of parties the Court made order refusing to grant leave to proceed in the case.

Read more about the case

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