Speculation is rife about a possible attempt by the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) to take control of the 10-member Constitutional Council (CC). The only way to take command of the CC is to appoint those willing to pursue the NPP agenda as civil society representatives.
Against the backdrop of the NPP’s failure to obtain CC’s approval to finalise the appointment of the Auditor General, the government seems hell-bent on taking control of it. Civil society representatives, namely Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Dr. (Mrs.) Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr. (Mrs.) Weligama Vidana Arachchige Dinesha Samararatne, whose tenure is coming to an end in January, blocked President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s nominee receiving the AG’s position. They took a courageous stand in the greater interest of the nation.
Chulantha Wickramaratne, who served as AG for a period of six years, retired in April 2025. Following his retirement, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake first nominated H.T.P. Chandana, an audit officer at the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. The CC rejected the nomination. Subsequently, President Dissanayake appointed the next senior-most official at the National Audit Office (NAO) Dharmapala Gammanpila, as Acting Auditor General for six months. Then, the President nominated Senior Deputy Auditor General L.S.I. Jayarathne to serve in an acting capacity, but her nomination, too, was also rejected.
Many an eyebrow was raised when the President nominated O.R. Rajasinghe, the Internal Audit Director of the Sri Lanka Army, for the top post. As a result, the vital position remains vacant since 07 December. Obviously the overzealous President does not take ‘No’ for an answer when filling key independent positions with his minions
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) in a letter dated 22 December, addressed to President Dissanayake, who is the leader of the NPP and the JVP, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa emphasised their collective responsibility in ensuring transparency in the appointment of civil society representatives.
Cabinet spokesperson and Health and Media Minister, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, is on record as having emphasised the urgent need to finalise the appointment. Minister Jayatissa alleged, at the post-Cabinet media briefing, that the President’s nominations had been rejected without giving explanation by certain members, including three representatives of civil society.
Parliament, on 18 January, 2023, approved the former Ministry Secretary Dr. Ramanujam, former Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Medical Association Dr. Wijesundere, and Dr. Samararatne of the University of Colombo as civil society representatives to the CC.
They were the first post-Aragalaya civil society members of the CC. The current CC was introduced by the 21 Amendment to the Constitution which was endorsed on 31st of October, 2022, during a time of grave uncertainty. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been elected by the SLPP to complete the remainder of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, sought to manipulate the CC. Wickremesinghe received the SLPP’s backing though they fell out later.
During Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President, civil society representatives earned the wrath of the then Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe government by refusing to back Deshabandu Tennakoon’s appointment as the IGP. The then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was accused of manipulating CC’s ruling in respect of Deshabandu Tennakoon to suit Wickremesinghe’s agenda.
Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP, at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution.”
The NPP realises the urgent need to neutralise the CC. The composition of the CC does not give the Opposition an opportunity to challenge the government if the next three civil society representatives succumb to political pressure. The Speaker is the Chairman of the CC. The present composition of the Constitutional Council is as follows: Speaker (Dr) Jagath Wickramaratne, ex-officio, PM (Dr) Harini Amarasuriya, ex-officio, Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, ex-officio, Bimal Rathnayake, Aboobucker Athambawa, Ajith P. Perera, Sivagnanam Shritharan, Dr Prathap Ramanujam, Dr Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr Dinesha Samararatne.
In terms of Article 41E of the Constitution, the CC meets at least twice every month, and may meet as often as may be necessary.
The failure on the part of the NPP to take over Office of the AG must have compelled them to explore ways and means of somehow bringing CC under its influence. The end of the current civil society members’ term, has given the government a chance to fill the vacancies with henchmen.
BASL’s letters that dealt with the appointment of civil society representatives to the CC and the failure to appoint AG, both dated 22 December, paint a bleak picture of the NPP that throughout the presidential and parliamentary polls last year assured the country of a system change. The NPP’s strategy in respect of filling the AG’s vacancy and possible bid to manipulate the CC through the appointment of civil society representatives reminds us of the despicable manipulations undertaken by previous governments.
An appeal to goverment
BASL seems convinced that the NPP would make an attempt to appoint its own to the CC. BASL has urged the government to consult civil society and professional bodies, including them, regarding the forthcoming vacancies in the CC. It would be interesting to examine the NPP’s strategy as civil society, too, would face daunting challenges in choosing representatives.
Civil society representatives are nominated by the Speaker by agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
If consensus cannot be reached swiftly, it would cause further political turmoil at a time the country is experiencing an unexpected burden of dealing with the post-Cyclone Ditwah recovery process.
The term of non-ex-officio members of the Council is three years from the date of appointment. In terms of the Constitution, the civil society representatives should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. Their nominations should be approved by Parliament.
In spite of the NPP having an absolute 2/3 majority in Parliament, the ruling party is under pressure. The composition of the CC is a big headache for NPP leaders struggling to cope up with rising dissent over a spate of wrongdoings and a plethora of broken promises. The furore over the inordinate delay in finalising AG’s appointment has made matters worse, particularly against the backdrop of the BASL, Transparency International Sri Lanka Chapter and Committee on Public Finance, taking a common stand.
Having been part of the clandestine regime change project in 2022; Western powers and India cannot turn a blind eye to what is going on. Some Colombo-based foreign envoys believe that there is no alternative to the NPP and the government should be given the opportunity to proceed with its action plan. The uncompromising stand taken by the NPP with regard to the appointment of permanent AG has exposed the ruling party.
In the wake of ongoing controversy over the appointment of the AG, the NPP’s integrity and its much-touted vow to tackle waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement seems hollow.
The government bigwigs must realise that appointment of those who campaigned for the party at the presidential and parliamentary polls caused deterioration of public confidence. The appointment of ex-top cops Sharnie Abeysekera and Ravi Seneviratne with black marks as Director, CID and Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, eroded public confidence in the NPP administration.
A vital role for CC
The SLPP, reduced to just three lawmakers in the current Parliament, resented the CC. Having secured a near 2/3 majority in the House at the 2020 Parliamentary election, the SLPP made its move against the CC, in a strategy that was meant to strengthen President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s hands at the expense of Parliament. Introduced in 2001 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, the 17th Amendment paved the way for the establishment of the CC. Those who wielded political power subjected the CC to critical changes through 18th, 19th and 20th amendments. Of them, perhaps, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that had been passed in October 2020 is the worst. The SLPP replaced the CC with a Parliamentary Council. That project was meant to consolidate power in the Executive President, thereby allowing the appointment of key officials, like judges, the Attorney General, and heads of independent commissions.
People may have now forgotten the 20th Amendment removed civil society representatives from the so-called Parliamentary Council consisting of lawmakers who represented the interests of the government and the main Opposition. But such manipulations failed to neutralise the challenge (read Aragalaya) backed by external powers. The role played by the US and India in that project has been established and there cannot be any dispute over their intervention that forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country.
Interestingly, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been picked by the SLPP to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term, restored the CC through the passage of 21 Amendment on 31 October, 2022. Unfortunately, the NPP now wants to manipulate the CC by packing it with those willing to abide by its agenda.
It would be pertinent to mention that the 20th Amendment was aimed at neutralising dissent at any level. Those who formulated that piece of legislation went to the extent of proposing that the President could sack members appointed to the Parliamentary Council by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader without consulting anyone.
If not for the Aragalaya, the Parliamentary Council that didn’t serve any meaningful purpose could have paved the way for the President to fill all key positions with his nominees.
Recommendation of nominations to the President for the appointment of Chairpersons and Members of Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B of the Constitution.
Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B: The Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Audit Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Finance Commission, the Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission.
Approval/ Disapproval of recommendations by the President for the appointment to the Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C of the Constitution.
Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C: The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Members of the Judicial Service Commission, other than the Chairman, the Attorney-General, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the Auditor-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament.
NPP under pressure
In spite of having the executive presidency, a 2/3 majority in the legislature, and the bulk of Local Government authorities under its control, the NPP is under pressure. Their failure to muster sufficient support among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) to pass its 2026 Budget underscored the gravity of the developing situation. The unexpected loss suffered at the CMC shook the ruling party.
But, the NPP faces a far bigger challenge in filling the AG’s vacancy as well as the new composition of the CC. If the NPP succeeds with its efforts to replace the current civil society representatives with rubber stamps, the ruling party may feel vindicated but such feelings are likely to be short-lived.
Having criticised the government over both contentious matters, the BASL may be forced to step up pressure on the government unless they can reach a consensus. It would be really interesting to know whether the government accepted the BASL’s request for consultations with the stakeholders. Unless consensus can be reached between the warring parties there is possibility of opening of a new front with the BASL and civil society being compelled to take a common stand against the government.
The developing scenario should be examined taking into consideration political parties and civil society confronting the government over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Having promised to do away with the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in the run up to the presidential election, the NPP is trying to explain that it cannot do without anti-terrorism law. The civil society is deeply unhappy over the NPP’s change of heart.
The National Peace Council (NPP) that has been generally supportive and appreciative of the NPP’s efforts probably with the blessings of its benefactors in the West, too, has now found fault with the proposed PSTA. Dr. Jehan Perera, NPP’s Executive Director commented: “A preliminary review of the draft PSTA indicates that it retains core features of the PTA that have enabled serious abuse over decades. These include provisions permitting detention for up to two years without a person being charged before a court of law. In addition, the broad definition of terrorism under the draft law allows acts of dissent and civil disobedience to be labelled as terrorism, thereby permitting disproportionate and excessive responses by the state. Such provisions replicate the logic of the PTA rather than mark a clear break from it.”
Except the BASL, other professional bodies and political parties haven’t commented on the developing situation at the CC while taking into consideration the delay in appointing an AG. The issue at hand is whether the government intends to hold up AG’s appointment till the change of the CC’s composition in its favour. Whatever the specific reasons, a country that has suffered for want of accountability and transparency, enters 2026 without such an important person to guard against all types of financial shenanigans in the state.
All previous governments sought to influence the Office of the AG. The proposed establishment of NAO prompted the powers that be to undermine the effort. The Yahapalana administration diluted the National Audit Bill and what had been endorsed as National Audit Act, Nov. 19 of 2018 was definitely not the anti-corruption grouping originally proposed. That Act was amended this year but the Office of the AG remains vacant.
The NPP has caused itself immense harm by failing to reach consensus with the CC on filling the AG’s post. Unfortunately, the ruling party seems to be uninterested in addressing the issue expeditiously but is exploring the possibility of taking over control of the CC by stuffing it with civil society members favourable to the current ruling clique.
