Harini–Sajith strike deal on Constitutional Council appointment
U-Turn on English Syllabus: Govt Agrees to Change Grade 6 Model
Bimal’s ‘full stop’ turns into a ‘comma’ after Nalinda’s intervention
CBSL–Govt rift widens over IMF agreement revision
From critic to cheerleader: ‘Rate Rala’ hails Sajith’s humanitarian move
Nandana the Next Government-Toppler?
Sri Lanka’s political history has often been reshaped by sudden and dramatic deaths—whether natural or by assassination. Each such event has altered the nation’s political trajectory. The assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, in 1959, opened the door for Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who until then had no political involvement, to step into leadership. The natural death of Dudley Senanayake paved the way for J.R. Jayewardene’s rise. Similarly, the assassination of Vijaya Kumaratunga created the political space for Chandrika Kumaratunga, who had not previously engaged in politics. These precedents confirm that in politics, death—be it natural or violent—cannot be dismissed as inconsequential.
Against this backdrop, the sudden death of Mr Nandana Gunathilaka last week already bears the hallmarks of a “political death.”
Nandana Gunathilaka was a prominent figure in the JVP’s 1988–89 insurrection. Following the death of Rohana Wijeweera, he became a central force in rebuilding the JVP from within. Operating underground since 1989, Nandana was instrumental in reconnecting the party with the people. His emergence into mainstream politics culminated in his candidacy as the JVP’s presidential nominee in the 1999 election. His passing, under a JVP-led government, is not only politically significant but has also stirred widespread speculation—was it truly a natural death, or an assassination?
Attacked the JVP
Though he had remained politically silent for some time, Nandana re-emerged with the rise of the JVP-led Malima government. His political journey was complex: beginning with the JVP, later aligning with the United People’s Freedom Alliance under Mahinda Rajapaksa, then moving to the National Freedom Front led by Wimal Weerawansa, and eventually joining the UNP, where he served as Mayor of Panadura.
In his later years, Nandana became a vocal critic of the JVP, particularly after the Malima government assumed power. He leveled serious accusations against the party, including claims that Ranga Dissanayake, the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, had once served on the JVP’s Legal Committee. Though Dissanayake and others denied the allegations, Nandana’s revelations gained significant public attention. While there were announcements of legal action against him, no case was ever reported to have materialized.
His criticisms extended to JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva and the party’s internal operations. In retaliation, the JVP branded him a traitor, launching public attacks against him.
The controversy deepened when the Malima government sought to abolish parliamentary pensions, a pledge made during the election campaign. Nandana, who relied on his pension for survival, fiercely opposed the move, even declaring publicly that he would take his own life if the pension was revoked. Strikingly, only days after the proposal was tabled in Parliament, Nandana died under mysterious circumstances.
Suspicions
His associates alleged that his death was not natural but a political assassination, demanding an immediate investigation. Reports surfaced that Nandana had lodged complaints with the Global Center for Monitoring Economic and Political Crimes in Sri Lanka, citing death threats. The Center’s Executive Director confirmed these claims, issuing a public statement and formally requesting the Inspector General of Police to investigate.
At Nandana’s funeral, Wimal Weerawansa delivered a highly charged speech, releasing a WhatsApp message purportedly sent by Nandana, in which he warned that strategies had been devised to kill him. Wimal concluded by asserting, based on his own experience, that the JVP was indeed capable of such acts.
Beginning of a Political Afterlife
Nandana is no more. Yet, while some may have assumed that his death would mark the end of his political relevance, history teaches us otherwise. Like other political deaths that have reshaped Sri Lanka’s political landscape, Nandana’s passing will not fade quietly into obscurity. Whether under the current JVP-led Malima government or a future administration, his death is destined to resurface as a central issue in national discourse. Inevitably, it will become a subject of inquiry—through a presidential commission or another investigative body—ensuring that Nandana’s demise remains a matter of political contention.
The decision by his family to cremate his body first and then bury it suggests a deliberate attempt to preserve the possibility of future scrutiny, underscoring the expectation that his death will not be forgotten but rather remembered as a political event with lasting resonance.
Final Hour of Helplessness
Through the ‘inside politics’ column, we now reveal details of Nandana’s last moments—details that were hidden from public view. After his death, leaders of the UNP and the United People’s Freedom Alliance, where Nandana last engaged in politics, were visible on television offering statements of sympathy. Yet, in his final hours, none of them stood by his side.
Nandana’s last moments were marked by hardship and isolation. Initially admitted to Jayewardenepura Hospital due to sudden illness, he received treatment for several days. But financial constraints forced his family to transfer him to Ragama Hospital, relying on contributions from individuals to settle a bill of 450,000 rupees. Despite his critical condition, no representative from the party he last served took steps to ensure his care or inquire about his wellbeing.
Ironically, the person who came to his aid was not a political ally but a former critic—Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa.
A Message from London to Sajith
The first call Sajith received about Nandana came from a friend in London. The caller explained that Nandana was gravely ill at Ragama Hospital, abandoned by the party he had last represented. The information had reached London through “Rate Rala,” a pseudonymous writer who had been publishing sharp criticisms of the JVP on social media. The plea was simple: if possible, help Nandana.
Sajith responded candidly. He admitted he had no personal friendship with Nandana and had never engaged in politics alongside him. Yet, he recognized Nandana as an honest politician. He asked his friend to arrange for a family member to contact him directly.
Oxygen Drops to 85
Following Sajith Premadasa’s urgent phone call, the hospital’s approach to Nandana Gunathilaka’s condition shifted dramatically. By that time, Nandana’s oxygen saturation had fallen to a perilous 85, and he was unconscious. Although doctors recommended immediate admission to the intensive care unit, no bed was available. Yet, through Sajith’s intervention, the hospital administration secured an ICU bed within minutes, and Nandana was promptly transferred. Sajith remained at Ragama Hospital until well past midnight, ensuring that Nandana received the necessary treatment.
Despite these efforts, Nandana’s condition was already too critical to be reversed. Sajith later remarked, while paying his last respects, that had he been informed earlier, Nandana’s life might have been saved. For this last-minute intervention, Nandana’s family expressed profound gratitude, acknowledging Sajith as the only political leader who had stepped forward to try to save Nandana’s life since the 1999 attack.
Voice of “Rate Rala”
This episode was further underscored by the reflections of “Rate Rala,” a former JVP member known for his sharp political commentary on social media. Before Nandana’s death, Sajith had been a frequent target of ‘Rate Rala’s criticism. Yet, in the aftermath, Rate Rala publicly acknowledged Sajith’s humanity and decisive action.
On his Facebook page, Rate Rala recounted how lawyer Janaka Peiris had first informed him of Sajith’s involvement. Sajith had personally called Nandana’s sister, arranged a conference call with the director of Ragama Hospital, and ensured that urgent medical attention was provided. Rate Rala noted that once Sajith arrived at Ragama, the pace of treatment accelerated significantly.
His words carried a striking admission:
“In fact, the people of this country did not think Sajith was such a sensitive person. There are political differences with Sajith. But the people do not hesitate to appreciate this great human being. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Sajith.”
Ranwala: A Political Disgrace
While Nandana’s death is poised to remain a recurring controversy for the JVP-led Malima government, another scandal has haunted the administration since its inception—the case of former Speaker Ashoka Ranwala’s doctorate certificate.
During the last election, Ranwala contested from Gampaha under the Malima banner, styling himself as Dr. Ashoka Ranwala. After securing victory, the JVP elevated him to the prestigious position of Speaker of Parliament. In the very first parliamentary session, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya formally nominated him, and Ranwala was duly elected. Yet, within days, he was forced to resign, entering the record books as the Speaker with the shortest tenure in Sri Lankan parliamentary history.
The reason was damning: the opposition alleged that Ranwala did not possess a doctoral degree. Unable to produce his certificate, Ranwala issued a statement on official Speaker’s letterhead promising to reveal it in due course. Cabinet Spokesperson Nalinda Jayatissa and other government figures echoed this assurance, insisting that Ranwala held a doctorate and would soon prove it.
But more than a year has passed, and the certificate remains unseen. Each time the media pressed the government for answers, evasions replaced clarity. Meanwhile, Ranwala made headlines for a car accident, followed by another involving his wife—events that kept his name in the public eye but did nothing to resolve the controversy.
Bimal Steps In
It was Bimal Ratnayake, Leader of the House, who finally sought to close the chapter on Ranwala’s degree scandal. Appearing on Derana 360, a program he rarely joins, Bimal addressed the issue head-on. His television appearances are infrequent, reserved for moments when his words carry weight and spark national debate.
Previously, after the government’s crushing defeat in local elections, Bimal had appeared on state media to declare that “the time has come to change the engine of the government”—a thinly veiled call for a change in the Prime Minister’s post and ministerial responsibilities. His remarks triggered immediate rebuttals from powerful ministers Sunil Handunnettith and Nalinda Jayatissa, who insisted there would be no reshuffle. Ultimately, the only change was Bimal’s removal from the Ports and Shipping Ministry.
Now, with the government’s popularity waning and crises mounting, Bimal returned to the spotlight. Journalist Kalindu Karunaratne pressed him directly on Ranwala’s degree. Bimal’s response was unequivocal: he believed Ranwala did not possess a doctoral certificate. He added that Ranwala’s removal from the Speaker’s post was itself the severest political punishment that could be meted out.
Comma from Nalinda to Bimal’s Point
Although Bimal Ratnayake gave a direct and definitive answer on Derana 360 regarding Ashoka Ranwala’s degree, less than twenty-four hours later the government found itself in contradiction once again. On Monday night, Bimal had sought to close the matter, but by Tuesday morning, Cabinet Spokesperson Nalinda Jayatissa reopened it at the weekly press briefing.
What Bimal had marked as a full stop, Nalinda turned into a comma. Nalinda stated that Ashoka Ranwala had not yet informed the party that he lacked a doctoral certificate and that he still had the opportunity to present one. He even suggested that journalists could inquire directly from Ranwala if they wished. Nalinda’s remarks revealed, once again, a divergence of opinion within the government—mirroring the earlier contradictions between Bimal and other senior figures.
Harini Faces a Problem
Last week further exposed fractures within the government, particularly over education reforms. The controversy centered on the Grade 6 English module, which teachers’ unions and the opposition claimed contained the name of an obscene website. Initially, the government insisted it would simply remove the offending pages and proceed with reforms, emphasizing that education policy would not be curtailed. Both the Prime Minister, ministers, and even the President reinforced this stance.
Yet, the President later retreated, announcing that the implementation of Grade 6 reforms would be postponed until 2027. This reversal highlighted internal discord and undermined the government’s earlier firmness.
Harini in Davos
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya traveled to Davos, Switzerland, to represent Sri Lanka at the World Economic Forum. The previous year, Industry Minister Sunil Handunnetti had attended, but his English-language remarks during an economic dialogue drew sharp criticism. Many accused him of embarrassing Sri Lanka internationally and squandering opportunities. Whether in response to that backlash or for other reasons, the government chose Harini to represent the country this time.
Harini has consistently championed education reforms, insisting they are essential for the future of children, regardless of opposition. Yet, while she was abroad, the President convened university lecturers and education experts at the Presidential Secretariat to discuss reforms. In that meeting—held without Harini—the President announced the formation of a high-level committee to review the reforms.
Two conclusions were clear: Harini had erred in not establishing such a committee earlier, and the President’s intervention underscored that the process had not been properly managed. This move confirmed that significant tensions exist within the government over the direction and execution of education reforms.
Central Bank in a Tug-of-War
One of Sajith Premadasa’s central pledges during the last presidential election was to renegotiate Sri Lanka’s agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in a way that would better serve the nation and its people. Sajith had boldly conveyed this not only to the public but also directly to IMF officials during his meetings with them. Following the devastation of Cyclone Ditva, which inflicted losses exceeding $4 billion, Sajith reiterated that Sri Lanka must urgently re-engage with the IMF to secure relief. He even declared in Parliament that if the government failed to act, he was prepared to support such negotiations from the opposition benches. The President, however, dismissed his proposal with a mocking retort: “Oh, please, no.” With that, the debate over revising the IMF agreement faded from public discourse.
Yet last week, the issue resurfaced when Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe publicly stated that the IMF agreement must indeed be revised. He argued that the economic targets set by the IMF were now unrealistic in light of the destruction caused by Cyclone Ditwa, and that Sri Lanka should renegotiate specific clauses. In essence, Nandalal echoed the very position Sajith had articulated earlier.
Government on a Different Path?
Despite the Central Bank’s stance, information suggests that the government intends to proceed without amending the IMF agreement. The staff-level agreement for the release of the fifth tranche, originally scheduled for December, was postponed by the IMF to March or April due to the ongoing crisis.
Meanwhile, the government’s unilateral decision to allocate Rs. 500 billion through a supplementary estimate for flood relief—without IMF approval—has deepened tensions. The IMF has repeatedly requested details on how the government intends to recover this sum, but no response has been forthcoming. The silence has only intensified the conflict.
On the other hand, the Central Bank remains committed to honouring the IMF agreement. Having played a pivotal role in negotiating the deal, the Bank has warned that breaching its terms could prompt the IMF to withdraw altogether, plunging Sri Lanka into yet another economic crisis. The government, however, appears confident that the IMF will not abandon the agreement midway, regardless of disagreements.
With an IMF delegation already in Colombo, the outcome of ongoing discussions between government officials and the Central Bank will determine whether the staff-level agreement for the fifth tranche can be signed. If consensus is not reached, the rift with the IMF will widen further, threatening to destabilize the country’s fragile economy.
Attorney General Conflict
A widening rift has emerged between the government and the IMF, and now between the government and the Attorney General. While the public witnessed the latest developments this week, the inside politics column had already hinted at the matter two weeks earlier. On January 10, the Mawrata newspaper carried a front-page report citing reliable sources:
“The government has decided to present an impeachment motion to Parliament to remove a high-ranking government official who is currently causing controversy.”
According to the report, the government is drafting a no-confidence motion based on serious allegations against this senior official. Legal advice has already been sought, and the motion is expected to be finalized and presented to the President within weeks for his signature.
History Repeats Itself
This is not the first time tensions have flared between the Attorney General and governments. During the Yahapalana administration, Attorney General Yuwanjana Wijetilake clashed with the government, as did his successor Suhada Gamlath. Later, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency saw similar disputes with Attorney General Dappula Livera.
The recurring theme has been accusations that the Attorney General’s Department failed to act in line with the government’s agenda. For instance, Suhada Gamlath, though respected in the legal field, faced allegations that his department was reluctant to pursue cases against the Rajapaksa family. Then-Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorale openly demanded his resignation.
Today’s conflict mirrors those earlier episodes. Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe and his department stand accused of dragging their feet on investigations into powerful figures of the previous government.
Clash Comes to Light
What had simmered behind the scenes erupted last week when civil society groups, including journalists, staged a protest outside the Aluthkade court complex. In response, a group of lawyers supportive of the Attorney General met him later that evening.
During this meeting, Ranasinghe made a strikingly brief but powerful statement in English:
“I am not above the law. If I have committed a crime, I will be prosecuted. Anyone can file a case before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.”
This declaration was widely interpreted as a direct challenge to the government, signaling his readiness to face political pressure without fear.
Cabinet Silence and Political Wrath
Amidst the controversy, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara publicly stated that the Cabinet had not discussed removing the Attorney General. His remarks, however, have placed him at odds with members of the Compass party, who are reportedly angered by his stance.
The unfolding conflict underscores a familiar pattern in Sri Lankan politics: the Attorney General’s office, tasked with upholding the law, repeatedly finds itself at the crossroads of political agendas and power struggles.
Who is this Mysterious Woman?
An unusual development occurred last week when the Criminal Investigation Department suddenly brought to Sri Lanka a woman named Melanie de Silva, who had been arrested in Dubai. Alongside her, two other individuals were also extradited, and the media gave the incident considerable publicity.
It is widely known that many of Sri Lanka’s top underworld leaders have fled to Dubai, and in the past, several such figures have been returned to the country. Yet, questions abound as to why Melanie de Silva—an obscure figure, virtually unknown to the public—was singled out and why her arrival was given such prominence.
Melanie had previously worked as a clerk in the accounts division of the Sri Lankan Embassy in Abu Dhabi, where she was accused of financial fraud and subsequently dismissed. Reports suggest she maintains close ties with several influential figures in Sri Lanka. Rumours circulating in political circles claim that her sudden return is part of a larger plan orchestrated by the government. It is said that the full details of this plan will soon be revealed to the public.
Two-faced Harini
Meanwhile, the government continues to grapple with mounting challenges—not only from education reforms but also from university lecturers. The controversy stems from proposed amendments to the University Act.
University professors argue that while the amendments outline procedures for appointing deans and heads of departments, they conspicuously omit provisions for appointing vice-chancellors and members of the University Grants Commission (UGC), including its chairman. According to academics, this omission threatens the independence and autonomy of the university system.
Two significant discussions took place in Parliament last week on this matter:
- Sectoral Committee on Education: Chaired by MP Hesha Withanage, this committee—dominated by government members—deliberated on the issue, and given its composition, the amendments appeared likely to pass.
- Meeting with the Opposition Leader: University professors also met Sajith Premadasa at the Parliament complex. They warned him that the proposed amendments would effectively abolish the independence of the UGC. Furthermore, they highlighted a striking contradiction: in 2015, Prime Minister Harini herself authored a report titled “The State of the University Grants Commission”, in which she advocated allocating 6% of GDP to education and depoliticizing university governance, including the appointment of vice-chancellors. Professors pointed out that Harini has now reversed her stance, pursuing policies that contradict her earlier position. Sajith pledged to intervene.
Additionally, the University Teachers’ Association had met with the President prior to their discussion with Sajith. At that meeting, they emphasized the need to incorporate amendments that safeguard academic independence. The message was clear: university teachers must remain vigilant to ensure that such protections are included in the revised Act.
Harini–Sajith Agreement
Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, who had traveled to Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum, returned to the island on Thursday. The following day, she held a crucial meeting with Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa to resolve the long-delayed appointments of three civilian members to the Constitutional Council.
As previously reported in the inside politics column, two earlier rounds of discussions between Harini and Sajith had failed to produce consensus. While both sides had agreed on two nominees, disagreement persisted over the third candidate, particularly one linked to civil service.
However, in Friday’s meeting, the deadlock was finally broken. Harini and Sajith reached full agreement, paving the way for the appointment of all three civilian members to the Constitutional Council. The consensus marked the end of a protracted dispute and ensured that the Council could now proceed with its full complement of members.
