Asianet Pakistan Private Limited

Matheesha Perera and Lidiya Fonseka were crowned champions at the Sri Lanka Badminton Novices Championship 2025 which concluded on Thursday 2 October at the Deshabandhu Lt. Col. W. Wimaladasa Indoor Stadium in Kuruwita, Ratnapura. While Matheesha pocketed the Men’s Open Singles title, Lidiya was crowned the Women’s Open Singles Champion, as she claimed a double after winning the Girl’s Under-17 Singles title.

Unseeded Matheesha easily overcame third seed Suresh in the Men’s Open Singles final, following a clean run up to the final. He was initially troubled by Suresh in the first set, but Matheesha remained composed to claim the first set 21/14, and continued his form to record a 21/7 win in the second set to seal the Men’s Open Singles title.

Lidiya easily overcame Shehani Wijenayake in straight sets with scores of 21/8 and 21/10 to claim her double title at the SLB Novices Championship 2025, emerging as one of the top performers of the five-day event. Subair Aathil teamed up with S.M. Imzan to beat Ashen Imalka and Adihtya Kalhara in straight sets to emerge Men’s Open Doubles champion, while Devindra Fernando paired up with Sandali Geekiyanage to overcome Omindu Bimsara and Sandumi Amaya in straight sets, in an otherwise exciting final to claim the Mixed Open Doubles title.

Nishadi Thenushika accounted for a double crown in the Under-19 category, winning the Girl’s Singles as well as the Girls’ Doubles titles, while Lafeer Ansaf recorded a straight win to overpower Yagama Gimhana in straight sets to win the Boy’s Singles title. Despite losing the Singles final, Gimhana teamed up with Irun Shakya to record a straight win against Omira Dinsara and Tharuka Rajin, and claim the Boys’ U-19 Doubles title. Nishadi beat Thashara Jayaratne in the Girl’s U-19 Singles in straight sets, and later teamed up with her opponent to record a comfortable straight win on their way to earn the Girls’ U-19 Doubles title.

While Women’s Open Singles winner Lidiya Fonseka earned her first title, beating Thesandi Dinuwari in the Girl’s Under-17 Singles final, Pubudu Melon claimed a double crown, winning the Boy’s Singles as well as the Doubles titles. Pubudu beat Mohamed Basim in straight sets to claim the Boy’s U-17 Singles title, and teamed up with Duvindu Edirisinghe to outsmart Basim and Munas Asmal to claim the Boy’s U-17 Doubles title.

Udan Peiris overcame Binupa Ratnayake in straight sets to claim the Boy’s Under-15 Singles title while Sesadi Anujana bounced back from an early setback to thump Vinuthi Mendis 2-1 and claim the Girl’s U-15 Singles title. Akram Ahamed and Lithum Fernando made a strong resistance before overcoming Sanira Mendis and Udan Peiris in straight sets to emerge Boys’ U-15 Doubles winners, while Isuli Rajapaksha and Siyansa Wickramasinghe thwarted the challenge possessed by Raini Gamage and Crystal Weerakkody on their way to become Girls’ U-15 Doubles champions.

Sashmitha Damsara beat Manul Fernando in straight sets to become the Boy’s Under-13 Singles Champion, while Sanuthi Mahinsha enjoyed a similar outcome against Sithuli Samarasinghe to emerge the Girl’s Under-13 Singles Champion. In a close contest where the final went down to the wire, Sanithu Mahinsha and Siheli Siriwardhana prevailed over Manudi Rehansa and Benadi Weerakoon by 2-1 to emerge the Girls’ U-13 Doubles Champions. Ruwan Basitha and Denuka Karunaratne recorded a comfortable straight win against the Jayawickrama brothers, Senon and Thinon, to claim the Boys’ U-13 Doubles title.

The Sri Lanka Badminton Novices Championship 2025 was held simultaneously at three prominent indoor facilities in the Sabaragamuwa region – the Deshabandhu Lt. Col. W. Wimaladasa Indoor Stadium in Kuruwita, the Sabaragamuwa Province Indoor Sports Complex and the Seevali College Indoor Stadium, both situated in Ratnapura. The organisers, SLB, received the full support of by the Regional Development Committee and Sabaragamuwa Province Badminton to conduct the five-day event.

The competition, which began at all three venues with the preliminary round matches on 28 September, concluded with the finals of all age categories on 2 October, followed by the awards ceremony. The tournament was sponsored by Mobil, Sunquick and LiNing.

Results of all finals

Men’s Open Singles: Matheesha Perera beat Suresh Jayasooriya 2-0 (21/14, 21/7)

Women’s Open Singles: Lidiya Fonseka beat Shehani Wijenayake 2-0 (21/8, 21/10)

Men’s Open Doubles: Subair Aathil/S.M. Imzan beat Ashen Imalka/Adithya Kalhara 2-0 (21/14, 21/15)

Mixed Open Doubles: Devindra Fernando/Sandali Geekiyanage beat Omindu Bimsara/Sandumi Amaya 2-0 (21/18, 21/18)

Boy’s U-19 Singles: Lafeer Ansaf beat Yagama Gumhana 2-0 (21/12, 21/18)

Girl’s U-19 Singles: Nishadi Thenushika beat Thashara Jayaratne 2-0 (21/10, 21/9)

Boys’ U-19 Doubles: Yagama Gimhana/Irun Shakya beat Omira Dinsara/Tharuka Rajin 2-0 (21/11, 21/15)

Girls’ U-19 Doubles: Nishadi Thenushika/Thashara Jayaratne beat Dinugi de Silva/Sethumdi Wijegunawardena 2-0 (21/9, 21/9)

Boy’s U-17 Singles: Pubudu Melon beat Mohamed Basim 2-0 (21/17, 21/14)

Girl’s U-17 Singles: Lidiya Fonseka beat Thesandi Dinuwari 2-0 (21/16, 21/9)

Boys’ U-17 Doubles: Duvindu Edirisinghe/Pubudu Melon beat Munas Asmal/Mohamed Basim 2-0 (21/16, 21/8)

Boy’s U-15 Singles: Udan Peiris beat Binupa Ratnayake 2-0 (21/14, 21/13)

Girl’s U-15 Singles: Sesadi Anujana beat Vinuthi Mendis 2-1 (13/21, 21/7, 21/8)

Boys’ U-15 Doubles: Akram Ahamed/Lithum Fernando beat Sanira Mendis/Udan Peiris 2-0 (21/15, 21/18)

Girls’ U-15 Doubles: Isuli Rajapaksha/Siyansa Wickramasinghe beat Raini Gamage/Crystal Weerakkody 2-0 (21/14, 21/20)

Boy’s U-13 Singles: Sashmitha Damsara beat Manul Fernando 2-0 (15/8, 15/13)

Girl’s U-13 Singles: Sanuthi Mahinsha beat Sithuli Samarasinghe 2-0 (15/9, 15/13)

Boys’ U-13 Doubles: Ruwan Basitha/Denuka Karunaratne beat Senon Jayawickrama/Thinon Jayawickrama 2-0 (15/6, 15/9)

Girls’ U-13 Doubles: Sanithu Mahinsha/Siheli Siriwardhana beat Manudi Rehansa/Benadi Weerakoon 2-1 (15/8, 12/15, 15/11)

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.

Sarvodaya Development Finance PLC’s (SDF) Rs. 2 billion listed debenture issue was snapped up on its opening day yesterday.

SDF issued 10 million Tier 2 listed, rated, unsecured, subordinated, redeemable, five-year (2025/2030) high-yield Sustainable Bonds of Rs. 100 each to raise Rs. 1 billion, with an option to issue an equal amount in the event of an oversubscription of the initial issue.

SDF said it received applications for over Rs. 2 billion and, accordingly, the issue has been oversubscribed.

The basis of allotment will be notified to the Colombo Stock Exchange in due course.

The Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) has called on Parliament’s Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development to intervene in the ongoing electricity sector reforms, alleging that the process is being carried out in violation of the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 36 of 2024 and its 2025 amendment.

In a detailed submission to the Committee, the union warned that the reforms, including employee assignations, company restructuring, and asset transfers, are proceeding without a coherent strategic plan, statutory compliance, or adequate stakeholder consultation. The CEBEU said the process risks undermining institutional stability, employee trust, and national energy security unless corrective action and parliamentary oversight are urgently introduced.

The CEBEU letter in full is as follows:

Request for the intervention of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development regarding the ongoing electricity sector reforms

The Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU), as the main representative body of engineering professionals within the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and a key stakeholder in the electricity sector, wishes to bring to the attention of the Hon. Members of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development a series of serious concerns regarding how the ongoing electricity sector reforms are currently being implemented in violation of the law, specifically the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 36 of 2024 and the Electricity (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2025.

While CEBEU has consistently extended its professional support toward a reform process that is transparent, technically sound, and beneficial to the public, we regret to note that the current process has deviated from the principles of good governance, institutional accountability, and statutory compliance envisioned under the Act.

We wish to highlight a few major concerns (but not limited to) as follows.

01. Absence of a coherent strategic plan

The reform program is proceeding in a fragmented and ad-hoc manner, without an approved and transparent strategic roadmap. Fundamental decisions affecting national energy security, public finance, and institutional restructuring are being taken without due technical consultation or feasibility validation.

02. Issuance of illegal Assignation Letters

It should be noted that the GM, CEB has been instructed to issue Assignation Letters to employees, even before the establishment and legal constitution of the successor companies, and to publish the terms and conditions of the VRS, under the provisions of the Act. Such actions have disregarded the due process outlined for employee assignation and consent. The premature issuance of these letters not only violates statutory procedure but also creates serious confusion and unrest among employees, undermining both the credibility of the reform process and the authority of the law itself.

03. Inadequacy of the Draft Preliminary Transfer Plan and HR Policy

The draft Preliminary Transfer Plan (PTP) and the accompanying draft Human Resource Policy documents circulated by the Power Sector Reform Secretariat are substantially inadequate and incomplete. These documents fail to meet the requirements prescribed under the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 36 of 2024, particularly those concerning the clarity of asset, liability, and human resource transfers, as well as the continuity of employee rights and institutional functions.

The absence of comprehensive, technically vetted, and legally compliant plans poses serious risks to the orderly implementation of the reforms. The preparation of these documents without adequate stakeholder consultation, supporting studies, or approval mechanisms undermines both the credibility and legality of the reform process.

04. Undermining the authority of the Board of Directors of the Successor Companies

The Minister has now appointed the Directors for the Successor Companies, and consistent with the primary objective of the Act, these companies should operate with independence and autonomy. However, all the reform committees have been appointed in an ad hoc manner, including members of PSRS in the committees, even for the responsibilities that are to be fulfilled by the Boards of Directors of the Successor Companies, in which PSRS also acts as the supervising entity. This dual role undermines independence and objectivity, conflicting with the principles of impartial oversight expected during this process.

05. Erosion of employee trust and institutional stability

The absence of clear communication, along with concerns about unequal treatment and the selective extension of retirement ages, in violation of Gazette No. 2309/04 of 5 December 2022, has generated uncertainty and unrest among employees. Such practices undermine public trust and risk destabilising a sector that is vital to the economy.

06. Non-Establishment of the Statutory Company for Pension and Provident Funds

Despite the clear requirement under the Act to establish a dedicated company for the management of the existing Pension and Provident Funds of the Ceylon Electricity Board, no such legal entity has yet been created. The absence of this institution leaves a critical vacuum in safeguarding the retirement benefits and financial security of over 25,000 employees and pensioners. This omission not only violates the legislative intent of the Act but also raises serious risks of mismanagement, legal disputes, and loss of employee confidence during the transition period. Immediate action is therefore essential to ensure that the statutory company is established, capitalised, and governed under proper legal and fiduciary frameworks before any employee transfers or assignations take place.

07. Unrealistic and frequently missed deadlines

The reform process has been marked by a series of unrealistic timelines and repeatedly missed deadlines set by the Ministry of Energy itself. Critical milestones-including the preparation of the Preliminary Transfer Plan (PTP), the establishment of successor companies, and the finalisation of employee assignation procedures-have been delayed far beyond the announced schedules. These recurring lapses have created serious doubts regarding the administrative capacity and sincerity of the process. Moreover, the tendency to hastily issue new deadlines without addressing the underlying institutional or technical bottlenecks has further eroded stakeholder confidence, giving the impression that the reforms are being driven by short-term political pressures rather than a structured, strategic roadmap envisioned under the Act.

08. Lack of transparency and public accountability

The reform process lacks an effective mechanism for stakeholder consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Information on the progress of the reform, including methods and people involved, its financial implications, and institutional design, is not being disclosed adequately to either the public or the employees who will ultimately implement these reforms.

In view of the above, we respectfully request that the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development urgently review the ongoing electricity sector reform process, summon the relevant officials for clarification, and ensure that the reforms are implemented in strict accordance with the law, established procedures, and the principles of transparency, equity, and accountability.

We further request that the Committee provide an opportunity for the Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) to present its professional observations and proposals before the Committee, so that Parliament is fully apprised of the practical and legal issues currently threatening the success of this nationally significant reform program.

Furthermore, we believe that only through proper dialogue and consultation can we effectively address the pending issues in PTP and the entire transition process, ensuring that there is no room for error, ambiguity, or future legal and operational challenges in its implementation, after the appointed date.

Please recognise that all these efforts are made by CEBEU in good faith and with genuine intent to guide the reform process in the right direction.

Sri Lanka’s first-ever National AI Expo and Conference 2025 concluded on 30 September in Colombo, marking a transformative milestone in the nation’s journey toward becoming a regional artificial intelligence hub. Pioneered by Digital Economy Ministry and SLT-MOBITEL, the two-day event brought together local and global leaders, innovators, policymakers, to chart an ambitious roadmap for Sri Lanka’s AI-powered future.

Landmark conference addresses AI integration across all sectors

The conference explored AI’s role in digital economy, education, healthcare, agriculture, and national security. Experts stressed human capital development, innovation ecosystems, ethical deployment, and inclusivity, highlighting the need to democratise technology, reform education for a future-ready workforce, and strengthen cybersecurity.

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya graced the occasion as Chief Guest and emphasised AI’s growing influence on decision-making, envisioning Sri Lanka as a leader in using technology to solve problems, create opportunities, and build a fairer society. She stressed that critical thinking and scepticism are vital to keep innovation ethical and impactful and the importance of preparing a workforce capable of navigating modern technology, with a focus on integrating digital literacy and data education into the national curriculum.

Digital Economy Deputy Minister Eng. Eranga Weeraratne stressed AI’s importance and its overall contribution to the Digital Economy. Deputy Minister compared AI to electricity in its transformative power, calling on industry to invest in talent and ideas while ensuring equitable access that supports rural and urban communities, local languages, and Sri Lanka’s unique needs. He also announced plans for a dedicated start-up funding program beginning in January 2026 to support AI research and innovation.

SLT Group Chairman Dr. Mothilal De Silva, highlighted the pivotal role of telecommunications infrastructure in enabling AI, describing data networks as the ‘arteries carrying blood.’ He underscored SLT-MOBITEL’s commitment to advancing AI responsibly, ensuring data sovereignty, providing AI-as-a-service for all, and fostering broad stakeholder collaboration to build an inclusive, AI-enabled society. Dr. De Silva also emphasised the importance of partnerships between Government, industry, and academia to position Sri Lanka as a leader in the global AI landscape.

Exhibition showcase brings AI to life

Alongside the conference, a dynamic exhibition brought AI to life through demos, workshops, and hands-on experiences, drawing thousands of participants. Huawei, as technology partner, showcased AI-powered cloud, smart city, healthcare, and education solutions, linking global innovations to local needs. The event was further supported by Microsoft, AWS, EGUARDIAN, Tech One Global, WebAppClouds, Xencia, Aventude, Inflow Tech, Universal College Lanka, Clarity, NCINGA, Sri Lanka Insurance General, Connex IT, SLASSCOM, and FITIS.

A key highlight was the SLT-MOBITEL AI Campus, where students engaged in robotics, coding, and AI tools, receiving mentorship and guidance on courses and career paths while exploring real-world applications. The exhibition also featured hackathons and innovation challenges, concluding with an Awards and Recognition Ceremony that honoured winners across categories. The National AI Expo and Conference established a platform for collaboration among research institutions, enterprises, and students.

The Expo concluded with a renewed pledge to position Sri Lanka as a South Asian hub for digital services, fostering an ecosystem where tech entrepreneurs, SMEs, and multinational investors can thrive in a secure, innovation-driven economy.