Asianet Pakistan Private Limited

The Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to proceed with three Fundamental Rights petitions filed by former Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director Shani Abeysekara and two former CID officers, challenging their arrest by the Colombo Crime Division (CCD) in August 2021.

Abeysekara, along with former CID officers Sugath Mendis and Nawarathne Premarathne, was arrested over allegations of fabricating evidence in the case against former Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Vass Gunawardena.

The petitions claim the arrests were politically motivated and followed an allegedly fabricated case connected to a weapons cache uncovered seven years after the 2013 murder of Mohamed Shyam.

The bench comprising Justices Mahinda Samayawardena, Priyantha Fernando, and Sobitha Rajakaruna granted leave to proceed with all three petitions and scheduled the case for argument on 14 May 2026.

Counsel Shantha Jayawardena, Shehan De Silva, and Hafeel Farisz appeared for the Petitioners, while Sanjeewa Wijewickrema represented former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Deshabandu Thennakoon and Neville De Silva. State Counsel Sajith Bandara appeared on behalf of the Attorney General.

The latest Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka (60/L-1/Rev-1) was adopted without a vote in Geneva on the 6th of October 2025, despite Sri Lanka’s strongly stated rejection of it. What happened there and why was it adopted ‘without a vote’?

At its simplest, it was adopted that way because a call for a vote on the resolution was consciously passed up by Sri Lanka, which could have requested a member state such as China, to call for it.

Immediately after Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representatives at the UN in Geneva, Himali Arunatilleka’s speech rejecting the Resolution, the Chair of the UNHRC asked the Council if anybody would like to call for a vote on the Resolution, since there was clearly a difference of opinion on it, including those of China and Cuba which had disassociated themselves from what was seemingly a consensus on the Resolution earlier.

Despite the rejection of the resolution by Sri Lanka, there was deadly silence in the Council. The Chair then gavelled it through as adopted without a vote, indicating no serious objections by any country to its formal adoption. Clearly, Sri Lanka had not arranged for a friendly member country to call for a vote on its behalf.

This decision not to call for a vote, deliberately taken by Sri Lanka, presumably had some logic. One was articulated on TV the next day by a government representative, who explained that there was nothing the UNHRC could do to us, so we didn’t bother with a vote. Could the government then explain why the Foreign Minister, who didn’t go to some important international summits such as the BRICS and SCO, actually made the effort to fly to Geneva and speak there on this Resolution?

There could be far more credible reasons for this decision than this possible cover-up. The last time Sri Lanka called for a vote on the OSLAP at the UNHRC in 2022, it got 7 votes, and the mechanism of the Accountability Project was actually strengthened and extended through the Resolution it lost.

Was the government worried that it may not gather even that number of votes (which was the lowest thus far) in favour of the country and thereby expose to Sri Lankan citizens, its lack of skills in building global support for its position at international forums?

Or was the Govt not serious about challenging the legitimacy of the Accountability Project and the ‘rejection’ was simply throwing a bone to Sri Lankans anxious back home, an eyewash for public consumption, a show of bravado, which they never meant to follow through?

Slapping the OSLAP

Ambassador/Permanent Representative Himali Karunatilleka’s statement was clear. She said that Sri Lanka had fundamental objections to the Resolution due its reference to the Office of the Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP) set up within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the mandate of which had been extended in 2022 via subsequent Resolutions, and further extended this time in October 2025.

She explained to the Council that the issue was with ‘the external evidence gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka within the OHCHR, which, in our view is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council´s mandate.’ She further stated that Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath had ‘reiterated that Sri Lanka does not accept the external evidence gathering mechanism set up by the OHCHR.’

This mechanism set up in 2021 and strengthened and extended in 2022 according to the OHCHR website, and was established ‘to strengthen the capacity of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) ‘to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence and to develop possible strategies for future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka, to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings, including in Member States, with competent jurisdiction”.

This alludes to Universal Jurisdiction, which means that unlike in the case of the International Criminal Court, one’s country (in this case, Sri Lanka) doesn’t have to have signed up to the Rome Statute to be prosecuted for such crimes in another country which decides to take up the case for prosecution in their own jurisdiction.

What could be done?

Since the current government objects to this prospect, what options were available in order to achieve a favourable outcome for Sri Lanka? It had an entire year to think about this and to exercise at least one option freely available to it, since this mechanism already existed for a few years.

Since Sri Lanka declared that the new mechanism was an ‘unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council´s mandate’, setting out a generic criticism of the Office of the High Commissioner for exceeding the mandate, it would have been the logical thing to do to as a member of the United Nations, to convince as many members of the Council as possible of the dangers of such a precedence and the implications of it for all countries, and to convince them to oppose it for their collective benefit and of the UN system.

Since our diplomats are stationed in Geneva permanently, did the government instruct them to pursue this option? These efforts take time. Or did the government, including the Foreign Minister, simply pay lip service to these objections only at the very last session?

Did the Foreign Minister take this up with member countries of the Council when he visited Geneva in September? Did he take it up with his counterparts in other countries when he attended the High-Level Segment of the Human Rights Council in February/March 2025, with Ministers, Heads of State and other High Officials attending the sessions? Did Sri Lanka make a concerted effort to remove what they find so objectionable, from being further extended? Or were Foreign Minister Herath and the government unaware that this was a course of action available to them?

What does it say about the efficacy of their diplomacy as they opted to watch helplessly, unable to gather a minimum number of states to support them in their objections and rejection?

What really happened?

The truth may be more complex than it appears. China and Cuba, both influential at the Council and at the UN in general, also objected to this mechanism and disassociated themselves from the resolution on Sri Lanka. Why did the Sri Lankan government not use the leverage of these friendly states to garner support from other members of the Council?

Sri Lanka did not articulate any objections to or rejection of any other item in the Resolution. It had largely undertaken to do many of the things in the previous resolutions: Repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and appoint a committee to examine its repeal; amend the Online Safety Act, the reopening of investigations into some cases of human rights violations and the Easter Sunday bombings; to establish an independent public prosecutorial body, among other things.

In promising the Independent Public Prosecutor’s Office, they went much further than any other government to date, with the public yet unaware as to its contours, much like the (at least) 7 agreements signed with India by the Govt.

Therefore, the Govt had a good hand to play with, in any negotiations. Even after the Resolution was presented for consultations at these sessions (which is a mandated step in the process), was the Sri Lankan delegation unable to gather support for a debate at least on the one item (OSLAP) that they objected to? Obviously, the consultations with other states went cordially, as our Ambassador thanked them for their cooperation, positive suggestions and even amendments.

On behalf of Sri Lanka, our Ambassador questioned the ‘credibility, transparency of how this office was set up, its work and the budget.’ She said after 4 years, there had been no benefit to the people of Sri Lanka. She said it only served ‘those with vested interests’ and would ‘create division within the communities in Sri Lanka and will be counter-productive.’ She said nationally owned processes were best suited to ‘address matters related to human rights’.

Having said all this and on that basis rejected the Resolution, why not have a member state which had already objected to this mechanism (China, Cuba), call for a vote on this ‘counter-productive’ item on our behalf?

Inept at the international

The impression this course of action has left on the populace about this administration is one of incompetence and ineptness in dealing with the international community, inability to build a like-minded group of friends at UN forums, to gather their support to fight against one’s legitimate grievances in the international system. A TV station usually very supportive of this government, showed a member of their panel of journalists ask the government representative why they couldn’t secure a single vote for Sri Lanka.

This failure to negotiate their own preferred outcome for Sri Lanka, was predictable when this government decided not to attend the BRICS and SCO summits where they could have made or renewed contacts with the leaders of the emerging powers of the global South and lobbied their support in times of need. They are many, and wield great influence as a bloc and as individual member states at the United Nations.

It was also sadly predictable when Sri Lanka deviated from its traditional stance of standing up for others in their need, their visible, irrefutable and dire need such as in the case of Palestine, opting for vague and utterly bland language to call for peace at the UN General Assembly in reference to the raging war on Gaza, with many other leaders calling it a genocide. Sri Lanka showed itself to be playing safe and selfish, a bit player, in contrast to the time when it punched way above their weight, assuring support for itself in its own time of need.

Taj Samudra, Colombo was honoured to host the national women’s cricket teams of Australia, Bangladesh, and South Africa during their recent visit to Sri Lanka. In a heartfelt display of Sri Lankan hospitality, the teams were welcomed with traditional drummers and garlanding ceremonies, symbolising the warmth and cultural richness of the island nation. A warm welcome ceremony led by the Area Director – Taj Maldives

Cabinet Spokesman and Mass Media Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa has urged those questioning about the legality of the appointment of Ranga Dissanayake as Director General (DG) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to seek redress from the Supreme Court.

Addressing the weekly post-Cabinet meeting media briefing, he said that if the selection made by the Constitutional Council was flawed, irregular, and unconstitutional, former Minister Udaya Gammanpila or any other concerned party could go through a legal process to challenge Dissanayake’s appointment.

‘Criticising is of no use when there is a legal process available. I know former Minister Gammanpila is well conversant with the law in this regard,’ he said, questioning the motive behind raising allegations against the CIABOC DG long after his appointment was made.

Dr. Jayatissa expressed his suspicion over the timing of the allegation when the CIABOC had completed several investigations and begun arrests connected to corruption cases.

‘We have doubts whether some parties, including former Minister Gammanpila, are trying to discredit the CIABOC as they have some other interests,’ he said, adding that Government views such efforts as attempts not by those who are against fraud, corruption, and bribery, but only those who want to shield some involved in corruption and bribery.

He said that those who truly stand against fraud and corruption would not attack the CIABOC at a time when it is performing its duties.

Meanwhile, he reiterated the Government’s commitment to upholding the independence of the CIABOC, stressing that investigations into complaints should be carried out promptly and without interference.

Dr. Jayatissa emphasised that while the Government provided facilities and resources to investigative institutions such as the CIABOC and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), it would not intervene in their operations.

‘If someone makes allegations against an institution like the CIABOC, the best solution is for the DG or the Commission itself to respond, but not the Government,’ the Minister said.

He also said that the Government had full confidence in the officials of the CIABOC as they were performing their duties responsibly and professionally.

According to Dr. Jayatissa, the attempts to level baseless accusations against the CIABOC appeared to be efforts to undermine its ongoing investigations and the best means to challenge the appointment of the CIABOC DG, who has extensive legal experience as a former Magistrate and High Court Judge, was through a legal process.

Answering a question whether there was a lethargy in taking legal actions against those who have corruption charges in the Government, he said all complaints were going through a due legal process.

‘If any allegations have been made against ministers, the CIABOC will continue to investigate them according to its procedures. The Government remains committed to ensuring the CIABOC functions independently and efficiently to strengthen the anti-corruption framework,’ he stressed.

Prime Minister and Education, Higher Education, and Vocational Education Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya told Parliament yesterday that the Government aims to make all teachers degree holders as part of ongoing education reforms.

Speaking during the parliamentary debate on education sector changes, she said teacher training colleges had seen little reform in decades and required both structural and curriculum upgrades. ‘This is not just a matter of funding – there has been insufficient focus on how these institutions function,’ she noted.

Dr. Amarasuriya said a new curriculum will be introduced this year to align teacher training with national education reform goals. ‘Our priority is to produce teachers who meet the real needs of the country. We are already training both current trainees and those involved in teacher education,’ she said.

She added that the government’s long-term goal is to elevate all teacher training colleges to degree-awarding institutions. ‘At present, only the Kuliyapitiya Teacher Training College grants degrees. We plan to raise the remaining 19 colleges to that same level,’ the Prime Minister said.

Cabinet Spokesman and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa yesterday said that the Cabinet of Ministers had approved a proposal to award a long-term contract to Singapore-based BB Energy Asia Ltd. for the supply of four shipments of Murban crude oil to Sri Lanka.

The decision follows a competitive bidding process conducted by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) for registered suppliers under two payment options, immediate release from stocked tanks and payment within 30 days via a letter of credit issued by the Bank of Ceylon.

The contract covers deliveries over a four-month period from 1 January to 30 April 2026.

According to Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Jayatissa, the Cabinet approved the award based on recommendations from the Cabinet-Appointed Special Standing Procurement Committee, which evaluated six bids before selecting BB Energy Asia as the successful supplier.

Sanken Construction Ltd., has been awarded the contract worth Rs. 3 billion for an airfield facility at Ratmalana Airport.

The decision to this effect by the Cabinet of Ministers this week was disclosed by Cabinet Spokesman and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa yesterday.

He said the project, initially approved in September 2019, is intended to upgrade airport infrastructure and improve operational efficiency. Nine bids were received under the National Competitive Procurement Procedure, with Sanken selected as the lowest responsive bidder.

The contract, valued at Rs. 3.04 billion excluding Value Added Tax, was approved based on recommendations from both the Procurement Evaluation Committee and the High-Level Standing Procurement Committee.

The Asia Pacific Motorsport Championship (APMC) 2025 concluded at the SpeedBay Circuit, Bandaragama, Sri Lanka, from 26 to 28 September, drawing 210 competitors from 17 nations across the region.

After a thrilling weekend of competition across karting, autocross, eSports, and gymkhana disciplines, the Philippines emerged as the overall champions, while Sri Lanka secured second place and Hong Kong, China, finished third.

The event marked several historic firsts: the unveiling of the FIA Cross Car, locally designed, engineered, and built under the FIA’s Affordable Cross Car initiative; the first-ever Cross Car event in the region; the debut of 4-stroke Karting Endurance; and an Auto Gymkhana run using locally assembled Hyundai Grand i10s.

Meanwhile, a returning discipline included Karting Sprint, which saw the region’s best talent across the Cadet, Junior, and Senior categories take to the tracks. Karting Slalom, meanwhile, managed to pull in over 40 regional competitors who battled it out over a tight and twisting slalom course which testing driver’s memory, precision, and speed.

Winners in the eSports category received Next Level Racing F-GT Lite rigs, highlighting the growing importance of virtual racing in developing grassroots motorsport. The event was organised by the Ceylon Motor Sports Club (CMSC), a member of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA).

Medal Tally (Top Three)

Philippines – 2 Gold, 2 Silver, 2 Bronze (6 total)

Sri Lanka – 2 Gold, 2 Silver, 1 Bronze (5 total)

Hong Kong, China – 2 Gold, 1 Silver, 2 Bronze (5 total)

Highlights of podium results

Cross Car Autocross: Gold – Ashan Silva (Sri Lanka), Silver – Ricardo Enrique Montelibano (Philippines), Bronze – Mohd Shafic Bin Samsudin (Malaysia)

Auto Gymkhana (Male): Gold – Ashish Bharati (India), Silver – Kum Yao Tseng (Chinese Taipei), Bronze – Richard Gallardo (Philippines)

Auto Gymkhana (Female): Gold – Corrine East Johnston (Australia), Silver – Tarushi Vikram (India), Bronze – Dina Mukhametzianova (Kazakhstan)

Karting Endurance (Team): Gold – Kyrgyzstan, Silver – Pakistan, Bronze – Uzbekistan

Karting Slalom (Junior): Gold – Evan Samarajiwa (Sri Lanka), Silver – Sophia Zara Binti Mustaffa Kamal (Malaysia), Bronze – Shenuka Nithin Wijayaesekara (Sri Lanka)

Karting Slalom (Senior): Gold – Carlos Inigo Anton (Philippines), Silver – Yu Kuan (Chinese Taipei), Bronze – Chen Xuan Wu (Chinese Taipei)

Karting Sprint (Cadet): Gold – Mason Alexander (Hong Kong, China), Silver – Carson Choy (Hong Kong, China), Bronze – Sum Mei Alice Lo (Hong Kong, China)

Karting Sprint (Junior): Gold – Axel Nocom (Philippines), Silver – Tehan Amarasiri (Sri Lanka), Bronze – Hyungi Min (South Korea)

Karting Sprint (Senior): Gold – Yu Ka Po (Hong Kong, China), Silver – Aaran Dean (India), Bronze – Zarif Wakra (Malaysia)

eSports iRacing: Gold – Sota Muto (Japan), Silver – Nabil Azalan (Malaysia), Bronze – Russel Reyes (Philippines)

eSports Assetto Corsa: Gold – Naquid Azian (Malaysia), Silver – Luis Moreno (Philippines), Bronze – Yim Ching Kit (Hong Kong, China)

FIA Secretary General for Sport, Valerio Iachizzi, said: ‘It has been a huge challenge, with fierce competition and rivalry, but more than this, what I want to highlight is the fact that you have created memories and friendships, and this is something you will carry with you for your entire life. It’s important for me to acknowledge the tremendous work of the Ceylon Motor Sports Club (CMSC) and thank the entire organisation. On behalf of the President of the FIA, I warmly thank the working groups and everyone who dedicated so much time and effort to make this event happen. It’s a real honour for me to be here representing the entire federation, the staff, and everyone involved. I’m here to say congratulations to all of you.’

The championship was powered by an esteemed roster of partners: Hyundai Abans Auto – Official Automobile Partner, Westlake Tires – Gymkhana Tire Partner, Eastwind Logistics – Logistics Partner, Next Level Racing – eSports Title Sponsor, Chama Computers – Technology Partner, Akbar Tea – Official Tea Partner, and Meguiar’s – Coverage Partner.

Talks between the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and the Government over the ongoing restructuring process have broken down, prompting electricity trade unions to intensify their month-long work-to-rule campaign.

Union representatives said they have decided to suspend all cooperation with officials from the Ministry of Power, the CEB Director General, and others involved in the restructuring initiative.

‘We will not take part in discussions or participate in any activity connected to the restructuring process. Despite our continued trade union action for more than a month, the Government has neither resolved the issues nor held meaningful talks with us. Our campaign will continue and be further intensified until the authorities respond,’ a union spokesperson told the media.

Electricity sector unions have been protesting against the restructuring of the CEB, claiming the process is being carried out without transparency or consultation with employees.

The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) on Tuesday issued its findings on Sri Lanka during the ongoing session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

In its report, the Committee said it was concerned about the lack of a comprehensive register of disappeared persons and the limited progress in clarifying their fate and whereabouts, noting that the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) had only traced 23 disappeared persons out of the 16,966 received cases.

It also stated its concern about the high level of impunity, reflected in the lack of progress in the investigation and prosecution of alleged enforced disappearances, including those that occurred during the armed conflict.

The Committee also said it was concerned about the accidental discovery of at least 17 mass graves which underscored the limited forensic capacity among competent authorities and the absence of centralised ante-mortem and post-mortem databases as well as a national genetic database.

It urged Sri Lanka to strengthen the capacity of competent national institutions to locate and identify mass graves, seek and conduct exhumations, and develop a comprehensive strategy for the search for, identification, excavation, and investigation of identified burial sites.

This comes days after the UNHRC adopted a new resolution on Sri Lanka without a vote to extend for two more years the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). This means the Government will have two years before a comprehensive review of how it addresses human rights issues in the country.

The reality for any party that takes power in the country is that it has to address human rights issues that remain unaddressed for decades. It is not the doing of one government or of a few individuals, this is an issue that the citizens of the country need to collectively come to understand as one that cannot be sidestepped forever, if there is to be genuine interest in reconciliation in the country.

The NPP Government which won overwhelmingly at the Parliamentary election from the North and East of the country promised to address human rights violations/disappearances, etc. but so far not much has changed.

There were promises to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) but other than appointing an expert committee to review the law, it remains very much in place and people continue to be detained under the PTA.

There was also the pledge to set up an independent prosecutor office which too has made little headway.

The Government, during its submission to the UNHRC was firm that it will only be through the domestic process that human rights violations will be investigated, and those found guilty punished. Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath who addressed the meeting said State institutions have already been de-politicised and strengthened and there is more scope for independent and fair investigation in the country than ever before.

The problem with this position is that neither the UN nor the countries that have been calling for international investigations into Sri Lanka are willing to take it seriously. They see a lack of credibility in the domestic process as well a lack of faith in the system by families of victims of alleged war crimes/disappearances.

Hence for the Government both convincing international partners as well as the family members of victims to keep faith in the local system is a challenging task.

Successive Governments have used the UNHRC sessions to buy time, but justice has not been delivered. The NPP, unless it acts with sincerity and firmly, will tell the UNHRC the same story two years down the line with little to show for progress.