|
|
 |
The Department of Irrigation says that 89 reservoirs under its management are continuing to overflow due to the prevailing rainy weather.
Director of the Hydrology and Disaster Management Division of the Irrigation Department, L. S. Sooriyabandara, stated that the Mahaweli River remains at a minor flood level in the Manampitiya area.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has approved an immediate disbursement of approximately USD 206 million under the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) to assist Sri Lanka in the wake of the catastrophic Cyclone Ditwah.
Speaking shortly after the Executive Board’s decision, IMF Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka, Evan Papageorgiou, emphasised that while the funds are provided without the typical conditionalities of an Extended Fund Facility (EFF), the government must maintain strict fiscal discipline.
Papageorgiou stressed that emergency funds must be managed with high standards of transparency to ensure they reach the intended recovery efforts.
“All emergency spending should be executed in full compliance with the Public Financial Management Act and supported by enhanced monitoring and regular public reporting in line with transparency and accountability standards. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka should continue to refrain from monetary financing of the budget.”
He further noted that public investment management reforms will be vital to “prioritise reconstruction projects and ensure value for money.”
Unlike the ongoing Extended Fund Facility, the RFI is a one-time injection of liquidity designed for urgent needs.
“RFI is a single disbursement. So today’s board meeting is just for that. There are no other purchases or disbursements after this. As such, there is also no review of on-programme conditionality, unlike the EFF, which is an ongoing, long-standing engagement with the country.”
The IMF believes this disbursement will act as a signal to other international donors to provide further support.
“This 206 million USD disbursement from the rapid financing instrument will not undermine Sri Lanka’s good progress toward its sustainability. It will increase Sri Lanka’s IMF credit commitment by a relatively small amount… I would instead point to the catalytic effect that this access can have because this ensures that the authorities’ response can be augmented, and there is quick access to additional financing, not only from the IMF but also from other development partners, as well as bilateral donors.”
Papageorgiou clarified that the RFI offers more favourable terms than borrowing from the primary market or issuing domestic bonds.
“The repayment of the RFI has a grace period of three and a quarter years, and it starts to get repaid up to five years after that… The basic rate of charge right now, for the week of December 15th to 21st, is 3.274%. Even with [potential] surcharges, the cost of borrowing from the RFI is lower than the country borrowing in the primary market.”
The IMF has adjusted its short-term projections for Sri Lanka, citing supply chain disruptions and infrastructure damage.
·Inflation is expected to rise in the short term due to food shortages.
·Current Account is likely to widen over the next 6–12 months due to increased imports for construction and food.
·A potential reduction in agricultural exports and tourism earnings is anticipated.
With the fifth review of the EFF delayed by the cyclone, an IMF team is slated to visit Sri Lanka early next year.
“A significant natural disaster and significant events such as Cyclone Ditwah and ensuing damages require a very careful understanding of all these effects on programme parameters, on economic policies, and how the reforms that have already been planned for the EFF… fit into the next phase of the programme”
ථේරවාදී බුදු දහම අභියෝගයකට ලක් කරමින් ධර්ම විකෘතිය සිදුකරණ පැවිද්දන් හෙළිදරව් කිරීමත් ඔවුන්ගේ ධර්ම විරෝධී පූකාශයන් හෙළි කිරීමත් අපගේ ඒ්කායන අරමුණයි. ඒහි දී ඒම හිමිවුන්ගේ තරාතිරම හෝ ඔවුන් කවුද යන්න අපට වැදගත් නොවේ. මෙයින් මූලිකම කණ්ඩායම් තුනක් හදුන්වා දිය හැකි අතර, කිරිබත්ගොඩ ඤාණානන්ද හිමි සහ ඊනියා මහමෙව්නා අසපුව ඒයින් ප්රධාන තැනක් ගනී. දෙවන කණ්ඩායම පිටිදූවේ හිමියන් සහ කැකිරාවේ සුදස්සන දිවිතුුුරේ සුනීත ප්රමුඛ කණ්ඩායමයි. තෙවන කණ්ඩායම වන්නේ වහරක කණ්ඩායමයි. මෙයට මීවනපලානේ ධම්මාලංකාර හදපාංගොඩ නිවාතාප ඇතුලු බුදු හිමියන් ලංකාවේ උපන් බව කියන සියල්ලන් ඇතුලත් වෙයි. අනෙක් කණ්ඩායම හොර රහත් කණ්ඩායමයි. මේ පිළිබද දිගින් දිගටම අනාවරණය කරන අතරම, ධර්ම ධර විනය ධර හිමිවරැන් අනාවරණය කිරීමට ද බලාපොරොත්තු වෙමු. අවසරයි, පිටිගල ගුණරතන හිමියන්, මාංකඩවල සුදස්සන හිමියන්, පලුගස්වැවේ සධ්ධාතිස්ස හිමියන්, අලව්වේ අනෝමදස්සී හිමියන් කොත්මලේ කුමාර කාශ්යප හිමියන්, මාංකඩව නන්දරතන හිමියන්, මාංකඩවල සමාහිත හිමියන්, කිරිවත්තුඩුවේ අරියදස්සන හිමියන්, ඉලුකේගම අත්තදස්සි හිමියන්, බලංගොඩ රාධ හිමියන්, වටගොඩ මග්ගවිහාරි හිමියන්, නා උයන ආරණ්ය, පොල්ගස්දූව ආරණ්ය, ගල්දූව ආරණ්ය, ලබුනෝරුවකන්ද ආරණ්ය, නිස්සරණවන ආරණ්ය සේනාසනය, ථෙරවාද ධර්මායතනය, ඒසේ ධර්ම විරෝධී නොවන නිවැරදි ධර්ම මාර්ගය දේශනා කරන හිමිවරුන් ලෙස අප හදුනාගෙන තිබේ.
The Medical Supplies Division of the Health Ministry reveals that 93 types of medicines used in government hospitals failed quality assurance tests so far this year.
Among these substandard items, 42 originate from India, marking the highest contribution from a single source.
The remaining failed samples include 25 locally manufactured drugs, along with products from China, Pakistan, Japan, and Bangladesh.
The Health Ministry took immediate action to withdraw, temporarily suspend, or completely halt the use of several batches identified as poor quality.
Significant concern surrounds the ‘Ondansetron’ injection, used to control vomiting, following the deaths of two patients.
Scientific investigations are currently underway to confirm if these fatalities resulted from complications related to the drug.
Health Ministry records show 600 instances of drug quality failure in the country since 2017.
The highest number of failures occurred in 2019 with 96 cases, while 2024 saw 83 reported incidents.
The National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) continues to tighten inspection protocols to prevent substandard medication from endangering patient lives.
The leader of the United National Party, Ranil Wickremesinghe, has chaired a high-level meeting at his Flower Road office to discuss his impending departure from the party leadership.
Representatives from several political parties gathered in Colombo yesterday (18) for the special session.
The primary focus of the deliberations was Wickremesinghe’s decision to step down as the head of the United National Party (UNP).
The meeting served as a platform to navigate the transition of power and address the future trajectory of the party following his exit.
The International Monetary Fund Executive Board has approved an immediate disbursement of approximately US$206 million to Sri Lanka to help the nation navigate the aftermath of the catastrophic Cyclone Ditwah. This emergency support is provided through the Rapid Financing Instrument and is equivalent to 26 percent of the country’s quota. The funding arrives at a critical juncture as the nation faces urgent balance-of-payments needs and significant fiscal pressures resulting from the natural disaster that struck on November 28.
The impact of Cyclone Ditwah has been described as devastating, claiming more than 600 lives and affecting millions of citizens across the island. Heavy flooding and widespread landslides have displaced over 100,000 people and destroyed critical infrastructure, creating a massive humanitarian and reconstruction challenge. The IMF noted that these unforeseen circumstances necessitated immediate financial intervention to preserve macroeconomic stability while the government begins the difficult task of rebuilding livelihoods.
Because of the scale of the disaster, the IMF and Sri Lankan authorities have agreed to defer the Fifth Review under the existing Extended Fund Facility. This pause allows the government and the Fund necessary time to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the cyclone’s economic impact. By deferring the review until early 2026, both parties can ensure that the ongoing recovery and reconstruction efforts are integrated into the broader IMF-supported reform program without compromising long-term policy objectives or debt sustainability.
Deputy Managing Director Kenji Okamura commended the Sri Lankan government for its swift response to the crisis, noting that the relief measures were supported by strong fiscal performance earlier in 2025. He emphasized that while reconstruction needs will be substantial, the authorities remain dedicated to fiscal prudence. To ensure accountability, all emergency spending is expected to be executed in full compliance with the Public Financial Management Act, supported by enhanced monitoring and regular public reporting to maintain transparency.
While the Sri Lankan economy is still emerging from a deep economic crisis, the IMF highlighted that the current reform agenda has already led to a robust economic recovery and price stability. However, the economy remains vulnerable as GDP has not yet returned to pre-crisis levels. The IMF reaffirmed its commitment to the people of Sri Lanka, stating that close engagement will continue until the mission team returns in early 2026 to resume formal discussions on the long-term reform program.
Impact of Cyclone Ditwah (Image courtesy PTI)
Fifteen days after Cyclone Ditwah tore through the country, the floodwaters have receded and the immediate shock has given way to reflection. As of December 14, 2025, the bodies recovered from landslides have been laid to rest, survivors, whose homes were wiped out, are sheltered in Suraksha centres, and daily life has begun to inch forward. Roads, nearly 80 percent of them, have been reopened, power and water restored, and communities, through individual resolve and collective effort, have cleared homes and roads, even as heaps of damaged belongings still line the roadsides. Now, as the initial dust settles, the nation stands at a critical moment: beyond recovery, it is time to confront the deeper structural weaknesses laid bare by Ditwah.
Cyclone Ditwah has emerged as a defining test for Sri Lanka, both for the newly elected NPP government, facing its first major natural disaster, and for a nation still recovering from the economic collapse of 2022 and navigating the constraints of an IMF bailout programme. The storm not only challenged the country’s disaster-response machinery but also revealed the resilience of its people, the strengths of its leadership, and the gaps that must be urgently addressed as climate-related catastrophes become increasingly frequent.
Presidential Leadership in Times of National Crisis
From the earliest hours of the cyclone’s impact, President Anura Kumara Dissanayakatook an active and visible role in directing the government machinery. His rapid mobilisation of state institutions, technical agencies, and the Armed Forces helped Sri Lanka confront a multi-layered and complex emergency that spanned damaged roads, disrupted power lines, unsafe water supplies, landslides, and widespread displacement. The administration’s coordination, during these initial hours, set the tone for what became one of the most intensive emergency-response efforts in recent years. Mobilising and coordinating government institutions solely through presidential initiative is not an ideal administrative practice. A resilient state must, instead, ensure that its institutions are structurally prepared to act seamlessly when disaster strikes, closing the systemic gaps exposed by Cyclone Ditwah.
The President’s visits to all affected districts strengthened on-the-ground coordination by bringing together district coordinating committees, public officials, political representatives, and community organisations to align relief and reconstruction with local realities, while also helping to identify bottlenecks and clarify institutional responsibilities. However, these same district-level meetings exposed serious shortcomings in disaster governance: weak inter-agency communication, unclear response mandates, gaps in early-warning systems, and uneven political leadership at the local level. In several instances, critical information failed to reach the right actors in time, and some elected representatives were slow to engage, prompting the President to direct provincial governors to personally assess landslide-prone areas—underscoring the urgent need for a more robust, integrated disaster-management framework and stronger local political participation during crises.
Cyclone Ditwah serves as a powerful reminder that Sri Lanka must prepare better, long before the next storm arrives. Effective disaster response depends not only on the commitment of the central government and security forces but also on pre-trained communities and seamless cooperation between agencies at every administrative tier. This article seeks to contribute to a constructive national conversation on the lessons learned from Cyclone Ditwah. The intention is not to assign blame but to highlight the insights necessary to build a more resilient, better-coordinated system capable of protecting lives and livelihoods in the face of future disasters.
Equally notable was the spontaneous civic mobilisation that unfolded across the country. Communities self-organised to clear debris, distribute food, assist vulnerable families, and provide temporary shelter, demonstrating a deep social solidarity that often surfaces during national crises. In many affected districts, local volunteers were the first to reach remote or isolated areas, complementing government and military operations.
Rethinking Responses to Recurrent Climate Emergencies
Sri Lanka is no stranger to weather-related disasters, and Cyclone Ditwah is neither the first nor the last event the nation will confront. Over the past decade alone, the country has endured floods, landslides, droughts, and cyclones of varying intensity. These recurring emergencies underscore an undeniable truth: climate-related shocks are now a structural part of Sri Lanka’s future, demanding a disaster-management system that is agile, integrated, and continuously updated.
After the devastation of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Sri Lanka invested significant effort in building its institutional infrastructure for disaster risk reduction. Agencies were established, frameworks were drafted, and early-warning mechanisms were introduced with the hope of preventing a repeat of such a tragedy. Yet the experience of Cyclone Ditwah has revealed that many of these institutions have become moribund—functioning in isolation, following outdated protocols, and lacking the coordination needed for an effective national response. While the systems technically exist, they are not fully aligned with the mission they were created to serve. Too many agencies operate within narrowly defined mandates and fail to communicate or integrate their work with related entities. This siloed approach weakens the overall national response and limits the ability of institutions to mobilise collectively when disaster strikes.
Once again Ditwah highlighted the need for reliable early-warning system that requires constant technological upgrading. A robust interface between technologyand institutional networks is essential. Advanced and accessible communication technologies—early-warning systems, mobile alerts, satellite data, and community-level dissemination platforms— should play a crucial role in transforming timely information into effective action. Timely alerts, data-sharing mechanisms, communication networks, and community-level outreach must keep pace with global standards and evolving climatic threats. The gaps observed during Cyclone Ditwah indicate that Sri Lanka’s early warning systems need stronger digital infrastructure, better interoperability, and clearer channels for dissemination to all communities, especially those in vulnerable zones. Disaster risk management cannot rely solely on community participation.
Building a Disaster Management Architecture
Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948 in the aftermath of the devastating island-wide floods in 1947. Since then, the country has repeatedly faced severe natural disasters—particularly windstorms and floods—in 1957, 1964, 1969, 1976, 1986, and 1989. Yet, despite this long and painful history, no single, dedicated institutional mechanism existed, within the state, to manage disaster-related activities, until the mid-1990s. Responsibility for disaster response remained fragmented across multiple agencies, largely operating under the broad and limited mandate of social services.
A decisive institutional shift began in 1994 with the establishment of the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) by President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, under the Ministry of Social Welfare. The NDMC was tasked with coordinating disaster preparedness, mitigation, emergency response, recovery, and long-term rehabilitation and development. It also initiated the development of a comprehensive legal and policy framework for disaster management. By 2000, the NDMC had completed draft versions of the Disaster Management Bill and the National Disaster Management Plan. However, these initiatives stalled and were never formally adopted following the change of government in 2001.
The catastrophic human, economic, and social consequences of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami starkly exposed the limitations of this incomplete framework and underscored the urgent need for a systematic and comprehensive approach to disaster management. In response, disaster preparedness was elevated to a national priority, and on 10 February, 2005, a bipartisan Parliamentary Select Committee was appointed. Its mandate was to examine gaps in preparedness revealed by the Tsunami of 26 December, 2004, assess the absence of effective early-warning mechanisms, and recommend measures to strengthen institutional readiness and reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
The Parliamentary Select Committee met 28 times and produced a wide-ranging report within a short span, marking a decisive policy moment in Sri Lanka’s approach to disaster management. Its findings laid bare deep structural weaknesses in hazard mapping and risk assessment, preparedness, early-warning systems, mitigation, emergency response, and public awareness. Acting on these recommendations, Parliament enacted the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005—finally providing a legal foundation for coordinated disaster governance.
The Disaster Management Act of 2005 brought forward significant changes in the institutional framework for disaster management. It created the National Council for Disaster Management (NCDM), a high-level political body, chaired by the President, with the Prime Minister as Vice Chair, and established the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) as the country’s lead implementing agency. The DMC was mandated to coordinate disaster risk reduction at national and sub-national levels, supported by Disaster Management Committees at district and divisional levels. A dedicated Cabinet Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights followed in 2006, later streamlined as the Ministry of Disaster Management in 2010. On paper, this architecture promised coherence, authority, and reach.
Parallel to the setting up of new institutional framework for disaster management, the process of disaster management policy planning and policy formulation has taken a new turn. ‘The Disaster Management Policy of 2010’, prepared by DMC, in 2010, was adopted as the main policy line for disaster management. Furthermore, DMC developed ‘The National Disaster Management Plan of 2013-2017’(NDMP) in 2014 as the overall guiding document covering intended activities of the major phases–mitigation, preparedness, emergency operations and post disaster activities, such as relief, recovery and reconstruction. Training, public awareness and education are also covered in the above phases. It envisaged a multi-sector approach in which involvement of NGOs and CBOs are expected to translate policies into tangible action. Further, in 2014, NCDM approved the Sri Lanka Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (SLCDMP) for 2014-2018 to reduce disaster and climate risks by minimising impacts on people, properties, and the economy. SLCDMP also presented a comprehensive roadmap to improve capacity of local level operators by institutionalising local level support in its planning. It was prepared by the National Disaster Management Coordinating Committee (NDMCC), a multi-stakeholder national platform, established in November 2007 who also plays a key role in implementing disaster risk reduction strategies in the country. This is a clear manifestation of confusion and duplication of disaster management work.
Technological and informational capacities improved with the establishment of a Disaster Information System in 2008, supported by UNDP, and the gradual rollout of nationwide early-warning systems. Responsibility for hazard monitoring was formally vested in the Meteorological Department and the Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, operating through the Disaster Management Centre’s Emergency Operations Centre. While these developments marked genuine progress, their effectiveness has remained uneven in practice. International partners, such as UNDP, have produced extensive analyses and recommendations, but ultimate responsibility of implementation rests with domestic institutions. The core problem lies not in the absence of information, but in weak implementation, limited inter-agency cooperation, and persistent administrative inaction.
Fragmented Institutions and the Cost of Poor Coordination
At the heart of these shortcomings are deeper features of Sri Lanka’s political and administrative culture. Disaster management has frequently been treated as a politically advantageous domain—offering visibility and access to state resources—resulting in its fragmentation across multiple ministries and agencies. This dispersion undermines integrated planning, weakens accountability, and hampers coordination precisely when speed and clarity are most critical. The consequences of inadequate preparedness, poor inter-agency coordination, and inconsistent public messaging have repeatedly emerged during major crises. This was evident in the MV X-Press Pearl disaster in May 2021, where information on hazardous cargo damage was not shared across agencies. Similarly, the lack of inter-agency communication was a prominent issue during Cyclone Ditwah in December 2025.
Technological and informational capacities improved with the establishment of a Disaster Information System in 2008, supported by UNDP, and the gradual rollout of nationwide early-warning systems. Responsibility for hazard monitoring was formally vested in the Meteorological Department and the Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, operating through the Disaster Management Centre’s Emergency Operations Centre. However, their effectiveness has remained uneven in practice.
International partners, such as UNDP and other multi-lateral agencies, have produced extensive analyses and recommendations, but ultimate responsibility of implementation rests with domestic institutions. The core problem lies not in the absence of information and recommendations , but in weak implementation, limited inter-agency cooperation, and persistent administrative inaction.
NGOs: Critical Actors with Structural Limits
Another critical dimension of Sri Lanka’s disaster-management landscape is the prominent role played by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, to a lesser extent, private-sector institutions across almost every phase of the disaster-management cycle. Their contribution is especially visible at the community level, where state reach is often limited. It is, however, important to distinguish between spontaneous voluntary community action and the more structured, project-driven modes of operation, typical of NGOs. This distinction does not diminish the importance of NGOs; rather, it helps clarify both their strengths and their limitations within a national disaster-management framework.
NGO engagement is particularly valuable in Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM), where sustained local participation is essential. Through CBDRM initiatives, NGOs help Disaster-Risk Communities identify, analyse, and monitor risks, develop locally appropriate mitigation strategies, and strengthen coping capacities. Many international humanitarian organisations coordinate their work through the UN Humanitarian Country Team, while several local initiatives demonstrate the transformative potential of community-centred action. The Community Tsunami Early-Warning Centre (CTEC) in Peraliya, established with the support of two foreign donors and a Sri Lankan medical doctor, is a notable example. Equipped with round-the-clock internet-linked computers receiving real-time alerts from the US Geological Survey, CTEC has built a network of 30 focal points across the Galle District, each comprising 10 village representatives—illustrating how informed communities can play a frontline role in risk mitigation.
The Sarvodaya Community Disaster Risk Management Centre in Moratuwa further underscores the constructive role NGOs can play. Sarvodaya has worked to establish disaster-management committees linked with government district-level officers, strengthening coordination between communities and the state. In partnership with LIRNEasia, it has also developed early-warning systems designed to deliver alerts directly to households. With more than 50,000 community-based organisations, Sri Lanka possesses a potentially powerful grassroots network capable of making a decisive impact on disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. These organisations have been tasked with identifying vulnerable groups within their communities and ensuring their protection during emergencies—a role they performed actively in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami.
Yet, despite this potential, Sri Lankan NGOs, as a sector, suffer from persistent structural weaknesses. Many remain heavily dependent on international donor funding and tend to become inactive once external financing diminishes. Over time, this has led to cycles of intense activity during high-profile disasters, followed by organisational stagnation and decline. Unless NGO engagement is better integrated into long-term national planning, supported by stronger domestic institutional linkages and sustainable funding mechanisms, their contribution will remain episodic rather than transformative.
Early Warning Systems: From Forecasting to Community Action
The recent experience of Cyclone Ditwah has once again underscored the critical importance of effective early warning systems in mitigating the impact of natural disasters. Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to such events was starkly evident during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. The first tsunami waves hit the eastern coast of Sri Lanka at approximately 6.40 a.m. on 26th December, about one hour and forty minutes after the earthquake. A secondary wave struck approximately 20 minutes later. The western coastal area was hit by the tsunami waves much later. The tsunami hit the southern coastal city of Hambantota at about 9.10 a.m. and Peraliya on the south-western coast, where the train tragedy took place, at 10.10 a.m., three and a half hours after the first wave, the tsunami hit the eastern coast of Sri Lanka. If an emergency disaster early-warning communication system were in place, at least a part of the human disaster on the Western coast could have been avoided. More than two decades later, Ditwah revealed that preparedness remains inadequate, and simply issuing statements from government agencies is insufficient. Early warnings must be actively communicated to communities, accompanied by clear action plans implemented by relevant authorities, to ensure people are informed, prepared, and able to respond effectively to impending disasters.
A landslide
Cultural and Ethnic Sensitivity in Disaster Response
One of the most important lessons highlighted by Cyclone Ditwah is the critical need for inclusivity and sensitivity in a multi-ethnic, post-conflict society like Sri Lanka. Emerging from the ashes of a devastating ethnic conflict, the country must ensure that national unity and ethnic harmony remain central to every policy and action, especially during crises. Ditwah revealed that some state institutions are not yet fully equipped to operate effectively in a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic environment. Crucial notices and statements were, at times, released solely in Sinhala, in violation of the language policy enshrined in the Constitution. While practical administrative challenges may exist, it is the responsibility of political leadership to ensure that these requirements are addressed proactively. When vital information fails to reach communities in their own languages during emergencies, those communities would experience alienation and discrimination, with potentially grave consequences. In a multi-ethnic, post-conflict society, sensitivity to ethno-political dynamics is not optional—it is imperative across all phases of disaster management: preparedness, emergency response, and post-disaster recovery.
The real challenge begins now, and Sri Lanka cannot afford complacency. Resettling displaced and vulnerable communities is a formidable task that demands more than community goodwill—government institutions must bear the brunt of these responsibilities. Piles of spoiled food and debris left unattended in cities can quickly create serious public health hazards, underscoring the need for swift and organised action. With the North-Eastern Monsoon approaching, the country must be prepared for any eventuality.
Foreign Humanitarian Assistance and Its Geopolitical Dimensions
Sri Lanka did not stand alone in the wake of Ditwah. The country received substantial international assistance—not only in emergency humanitarian relief, but also in expertise, equipment, and resources for recovery and reconstruction. This support reflects the goodwill Sri Lanka continues to command globally, while also underscoring the need for credible and efficient domestic systems capable of coordinating effectively with foreign partners. At the same time, emergency relief is never geopolitically neutral. Sri Lanka must therefore approach foreign disaster assistance with a clear understanding of its national interests—without retreating into a besieged mentality. Instead, the challenge is to manage geopolitical competition to our advantage through an approach of omni-enmeshment: engaging all major powers simultaneously through dense networks of cooperation, institutions, and partnerships, creating mutual stakes and reducing the likelihood of strategic pressure or conflict.
Rethinking Development Strategies under Climate Stress
Beyond immediate relief, Cyclone Ditwah forces us to rethink the development model we are pursuing. Decades of deforestation and unplanned urban expansion have amplified the country’s vulnerability: between 1990 and 2010, Sri Lanka lost an average of 24,500 hectares of forest per year, totaling nearly 21 percent of its forest cover (Sri Lanka Forest Information and Data, The Rainforest S.). Forests once absorbed and regulated rainwater, but their loss has accelerated floods, triggered landslides, and intensified droughts, while impervious urban surfaces exacerbate flash flooding. The country is now paying the price for these environmental and planning failures, making comprehensive, forward-looking strategies a matter of urgent necessity.
Lessons from Ditwah and the Path Forward
Cyclone Ditwah is more than a weather event—it is a wake-up call that Sri Lanka must strengthen its resilience against future disasters. Fragmented responsibility, weak inter-agency coordination, and inconsistent communication are vulnerabilities that put lives and livelihoods at risk. We are compelled to face the challenges posed by extreme weather events repeatedly in the future. Learning and applying the lessons of Cyclone Ditwah is crucial for political leaders, state institutions, NGOs, and communities alike. Only by building a culture of preparedness, accountability, and coordination can the nation shift crisis response from reactive improvisation to proactive, life-saving action.
Prof. Gamini Kerawella can be accessed through keerawellag@gmail.com
by Prof. Gamini Keerawella
Colombo, Dec. 19 (Daily Mirror) – The Medical and Civil Rights Professional Association of Doctors (MCPA) had initiated legal action against the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), raising serious concerns about patient safety, an official said.
The case relates to several reported deaths allegedly linked to the use of Ondansetron Injection, severe allergic reactions, and the death of a pregnant woman after antibiotics were given during a caesarean section at Galassa Maternity Hospital in Kalutara. The complaint also involves medicines imported from an Indian company that had been withdrawn during the past two years.
Speaking to the media after filing the complaint, MCPA Chairman Dr. Chamal Sanjeewa said the medicines under concern include antibiotics, Ondansetron used to control vomiting, Haloperidol prescribed for mental illnesses and febrile seizures, and Iron Sucrose used to treat iron deficiency. He said most of these medicines were imported between 2024 and 2025.
Dr. Sanjeewa said that more than 100 batches of medicines imported from India have been temporarily or permanently withdrawn over the past two years due to quality issues. He criticized the Health Ministry, the Drug Regulatory Authority, and the State Pharmaceutical Corporation (SPC), saying drug regulation in the country has collapsed. He pointed to unsafe storage of imported medicines and repeated regulatory failures.
The Indian company should be banned or blacklisted over importing over the past two years. The Health Ministry and the Minister should hold the full responsibility over the incidents.
He called on responsible health officials to step down and urged the public to take medicines only under proper medical advice. He said the large number of withdrawals shows the urgent need for strong reforms in drug regulation and procurement, the MCPA chairman said.
According to Dr. Sanjeewa, the complaint highlights negligence by the former Executive Director of the Drug Regulatory Authority during the former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella administration, the current Drug Regulatory Authority, and the State Drug Corporation. The allegations include importing medicines without proper registration, failing to test random samples before and after supplying drugs to hospitals, and not properly investigating how bacteria entered vaccine vials.
The complaint also raises concerns about buying medicines from companies linked to drug quality failures, weaknesses in technical committee evaluations, poor estimation of drug stocks, approval of such stocks by the Ministry of Health, and repeated instructions to reuse medicines that had already been withdrawn.
Dr. Sanjeewa further said the complaint points to an instruction issued to reuse an expired antibiotic that had been fully withdrawn earlier due to the presence of glass particles. He warned that such actions have damaged public trust in the Drug Regulatory Authority and the Ministry of Health, and that ignoring repeated warnings about failures in the health system, leading to loss of life, is a criminal offence.
He has asked the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to urgently investigate the matter and take legal action against those responsible, similar to previous cases involving former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and senior health officials. A separate complaint has also been filed with the Bribery Commission, calling for an investigation into possible financial gains and corruption linked to the issue.
Meanwhile, the NMRA has ordered hospitals to temporarily stop using ten medicines until their manufacturing processes are confirmed to meet safety standards. NMRA Chairman Dr. Ananda Wijewickrama also told the Daily Mirror that an urgent circular has been sent to PTC Medical (Pvt) Ltd, instructing the company to stop distributing injectable medicines made by Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd of India until further notice.
The decision was taken following recommendations by the Safety and Risk Evaluation Subcommittee on December 16, 2025, after repeated reports of adverse drug reactions, including deaths. Early investigations by a consultant microbiologist at the National Hospital in Kandy also raised safety concerns.
PTC Medical, the market authorization holder, has confirmed that the affected medicines have been withdrawn from the private sector. Further testing is now being carried out at the National Medicines Quality Assurance Laboratory to check their safety, quality, and effectiveness.
The affected medicines include Ondansetron Injection, Cefotaxime, Co-amoxiclav, Haloperidol Injection, Imipenem with Cilastatin, Iron Sucrose Injection, Meropenem, Piperacillin with Tazobactam, and Sulbactam with Cefoperazone. PTC Medical said the withdrawal is a precautionary step and asked all private hospitals and distributors to comply immediately.
Sri Lanka plans $ 6 billion in extra spending in 2026 to fund the country’s recovery from Cyclone Ditwah, which killed more than 640 people and affected 3 million people, and floods and landslides caused by the cyclone left extensive damage throughout the country.
The government convened parliament on Thursday, to discuss what President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has described as the most challenging natural disaster to hit the island.
The government has already asked the International Monetary Fund for $200 million from a rapid relief fund and has secured World Bank agreement to repurpose $120 million from an ongoing project for disaster recovery spending. On Tuesday, Sri Lanka also secured a $200 million loan from the Asian Development Bank to finance water management, the first such funding since the cyclone.
The Finance Ministry said the funds would be used to complete a canal network in the North-Central Province, which was among the worst affected by flooding last month.”The objective of the project is to enhance agricultural productivity, farmer incomes and climate resilience in the NCP,” the Ministry said.
The World Bank has said it is in the process of assessing the damage caused by the cyclone, while Colombo has said preliminary estimates suggest it may need up to $7 billion to rebuild. The cyclone struck as the country was emerging from its worst ever economic meltdown in 2022, when it ran out of foreign exchange reserves to pay for essential imports such as food, fuel and medicines.
AFP / Yahoo News UK
Africa with 15, Europe with 10 and the United States with 2. Two-thirds of the victims recorded in 2025 were killed in an area of armed conflict (108). Among the countries most affected, the PEC deplores the deaths of 15 media workers in Yemen, including 13 in an Israeli attack on 10 September. Faced with violence from drug traffickers, Mexico remains a country with the highest number of journo-victims, with nine murders in 2025. The situation in Sudan has also worsened due to ongoing fighting, with at least eight deaths among Sudanese media personnel.
The PEC counted six victims in India, five in Ecuador and five in Pakistan. Four were killed in Bangladesh, four in Iran, targeted by an Israeli attack in Tehran, and four in the Philippines. In Peru, three journalists were murdered. There were also three victims in Syria. Next came Afghanistan, Colombia, Honduras, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the United States, with 2 killed in each country. One death was recorded in each of the following countries: Brazil, Guatemala, Haiti, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tanzania, Turkey and Zimbabwe.
Among the PEC’s main concerns, impunity remains a major problem. In the absence of independent investigations and prosecutions, these crimes are on the rise. The PEC supports the recommendation issued by the conference on the protection of journalists in armed conflicts, which met in Doha of Qatar, on 8 and 9 October, calling for the creation of an international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the UN pending the adoption of an international convention on the protection of journalists in conflict zones with the creation of an internationally recognised press emblem. The PEC is also very concerned about the increase in the number of individual requests for support it has received from persecuted journalists seeking safe asylum. Journalists from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Syria, Turkey and Sudan have requested assistance from the PEC.
Unfortunately, democratic governments are increasingly closed to such requests and persecuted journalists face almost systematic rejection of their asylum application. This is distressing,” said the PEC chief, clarifying that unlike other organisations, the PEC includes all journalists killed in its statistics, regardless of whether their death was related to their professional activity. It is difficult to prove that a crime was committed in connection with a journalist’s work without a thorough and independent investigation, which is often lacking.
PEC’s south and southeast Asia representative Nava Thakuria informed that India lost six media professionals to assailants this year, compared to four in 2024, including Mukesh Chandrakar (stringer to NDTV from Bastar, Chhattisgarh), Raghavendra Vajpayee (Dainik Jagaran from Imalia Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh), Sahadev Dey (Republic Andaman, from Diglipur, Andaman islands), Dharmendra Singh Chauhan (Fast News India, Gurugram, Haryana), Naresh Kumar (Times Odia, Bhubaneswar, Odisha) and Rajeev Pratap Singh (Delhi Uttarakhand Live, Joshiyara, Uttarakhand) till date. On the other hand, Pakistan that witnessed murder of 12 media persons last year, recorded the killing of AD Shar (Hum News, Khairpur, Sindh), Abdul Latif (Daily Intekhab/Aaj News, Awaran, Balochistan), Syed Mohammed Shah (Ab-Tak TV, Jacobabad, Sindh), Imtiaz Mir (Metro One News, Karachi, Sindh) and Tufail Rind (Royal News, Ghotki, Sindh) this year.
Bangladesh, which reported the murder of seven media workers last year, recorded the killing of Assaduzzaman Tuhin (Dainik Pratidiner Kagoj, Gazipur), Bibhuranjan Sarkar (Ajker Patrika, Munshiganj), Wahed-uz-Zaman Bulu (Dainik Ajker Kagoj, Dhaka) and Khandahar Shah Alam (Dainik Matrijagat, Dhaka) in 2025. Philippines with only one casualty last year also lost four journalists namely Juan Johny Dayang (Philippine Graphic Magazine, Aklan), Erwin Labitad Segovia (Radio WOW FM, Bislig City), Noel Bellen Samar (DWTZ, Guinabatan) and Gerry Campos (Barangay Sta. Cruz, Surigao del Sur) this year. Afghanistan lost two scribes namely Abdul Ghafoor Abid (Paktia National Radio Television, Khost) and Abdul Zahir Safi (State run media outlet, Kabul) this year, even though it had no journo-casualty in 2024. Nepal, which recorded one journo-murder last year, repeated with the killing of Suresh Rajak (Avenues TV, Kathmandu) in 2025. Myanmar, which lost three scribes last year, Cambodia (lost 1) and Indonesia (1) evaded any media casualty this time.
Ministry officials have submitted their estimates for the recent disaster’s infrastructure damage, immediately raising questions over the total national cost.
The Road Development Authority informed the Parliamentary Oversight Committee that it incurred a Rs. 75 billion loss.
The damage includes 316 roads and 40 bridges, with approximately Rs. 190 billion required for complete restoration and repair.
Separately, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board reported estimated losses of Rs. 5.6 billion, and the Ceylon Electricity Board incurred a loss of about Rs. 20 billion.
These figures come to light amid great uncertainty regarding the total quantification of national damage.
While some financial experts estimate the total damage at just over $1 billion, the government’s figure is seven times that amount.
First Capital Research, in their analysis of the situation, estimates the total damage incurred by the disaster to be no more than $1.1 billion, while prominent economist, Dr Kenneth de Zilwa’s estimation is around Rs. 320 billion, which translates to little over $1 billion.
United National Party (UNP) Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe has stated that he is prepared to step down from the party leadership if his position acts as an obstacle to the unification of the United National Party and the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB).
He made these remarks while attending the Working Committee meeting held yesterday at the party headquarters.
The Working Committee met to engage in lengthy discussions regarding several key matters concerning the UNP’s future political trajectory.
Significant focus was placed on the formation of an alliance between the UNP and the SJB.
Ranil Wickremesinghe emphasised that an agreement regarding the alliance must be reached quickly and he explicitly offered to vacate the leadership if it facilitates the merger.
It was revealed during the meeting that a formal response regarding the proposed alliance has not yet been received from SJB Leader and Opposition Leader, Sajith Premadasa.
Representatives from both parties have held several rounds of discussions previously regarding this potential alliance, but a final consensus remains pending.
3 Reasons why the Bondi beach attack may have been inevtiable: An exclusive analysis with Prof. Rohan Gunaratna
The horrific terrorist attack that struck a Jewish Festival of Lights celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, December 14, 2025, has been definitively identified as an operation executed by a father and son with proven ties to the Islamic State (IS). The attack on the iconic Australian beach resulted in a tragic toll of 16 fatalities and at least 40 injuries.
Terrorism expert Professor Rohan Gunaratna from the Nanyang Techological Campus in Singapore, provided a detailed analysis, confirming the identities of the perpetrators and outlining the complex factors that fueled their radicalisation and subsequent violence.
Professor Gunaratna confirmed that the cell was comprised of 50-year-old Sajid Akram and his 24-year-old son, Naveed Akram. Naveed was reportedly radicalised into the Islamic State six years prior and subsequently indoctrinated his father.
According to the Professor’s findings, both individuals had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State caliph and were found to be in possession of two IS flags, leaving no doubt as to the affiliation and motivation behind the strike on the Jewish community celebration.
The analysis detailed three critical, interconnected factors that drove the perpetrators towards this violent act, highlighting deep-seated issues that extend beyond the immediate incident:
1. Global Conflict and Radicalisation: Professor Gunaratna pointed to the ongoing developments in Gaza as a major catalyst for radicalisation globally. Following the Hamas-led attack in October 2023 and the subsequent conflict, worldwide protests have intensified the radicalisation of certain Muslim segments, turning religious extremism into an increasingly global phenomenon.
2. Failure of Integration: While acknowledging the inherent kindness of Australians towards migrants, the Professor noted that significant portions of the Muslim migrant community had failed to integrate properly. These groups often reside in ethnic and religious enclaves, effectively importing problems from their home countries into Australia. He stressed that a robust integration strategy is desperately needed.
3. Lack of Inter-Religious Harmony: The analysis concluded that the absence of sufficient inter-religious harmony—specifically between Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews—is a crucial factor. Gunaratna cautioned strongly against allowing religious hatred to take root between these communities.
Professor Gunaratna emphasized the critical responsibility of Muslim leadership in mitigating future threats. He urged leaders to proactively counsel their communities against conducting attacks “in the name of Allah” and to reject the influence of conspiracy theories.
Crucially, the Professor called for “extraordinary effort” to build bridges and foster relationships between Muslims and all othe religious communities, stating that failure to do so guarantees the rise of extremists across the religious spectrum. For the current generation to live in peace, Professor Gunaratna concluded, the principle must be understood that there is no hierarchy in religion; instead, all faiths must universally promote moderation, toleration, and coexistence.
The Sydney attack, therefore, serves as a powerful signal for governments worldwide to strengthen strategies for integrating diverse groups and promoting inter-religious dialogue before global conflicts can be imported and weaponised locally. HIRU NEWS
Strategic Proposal
The Government should immediately invite Expressions of Interest (EOIs) from global investors and operators to develop Trincomalee as a:
If Sri Lanka delays, competing ports in India, Vietnam, Oman, and Turkey will capture this investment permanently.
Government must act fast.
This is not a future vision—it is an urgent necessity. Trincomalee can become Sri Lanka’s industrial and energy gateway, but only if decisive action is taken now.
Regards
Dr Sarath Obeysekera
Response: AI Overview
To make Christmas cruelty-free in Sri Lanka, animal lovers can promote a
meat-free Christmas inspired by Vesak‘s compassion, practice Abhaya-dana (giving freedom/protection to animals like saving them from slaughter), feed strays, advocate for humane wildlife management, and focus on eco-friendly, non-violent celebrations, aligning with core Buddhist values of ahimsa (non-violence) to reflect the ‘Prince of Peace’ message.
Actions for Animal Lovers:
In Sri Lanka
, where the Vesak tradition legally enforces the closure of slaughterhouses and liquor shops, animal lovers can adopt similar “Ahimsa” (non-violence) principles to celebrate a cruelty-free Christmas.
1. Adopt a Meat-Free Christmas Feast
The most direct way to emulate the Vesak spirit is by removing animal products from the holiday table.
2. Give Compassionate Gifts
Avoid products made from leather, fur, wool, silk, or down. Instead, choose:
Aluth Pola
, which supports animal welfare.
3. Support Local Animal Welfare Initiatives
Participate in community-driven events that directly benefit homeless and rescued animals in Sri Lanka.
(late November/December) to support street dog and cat rescues.
4. Practice “Conscious Christmas” Decorating
Celebrate the season without harming local ecosystems or using animal-derived decorations.
Senaka Weeraratna
( AI assisted)
Colombo, Dec 17 (Daily Mirror) – Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Dongming, stated that China would extend its full support to the Government of Sri Lanka’s efforts to rebuild the lives of the Sri Lankan people and overcome the challenges posed by Cyclone Ditwah, expressing confidence that Sri Lanka will recover rapidly under the leadership of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
Mr. Wang made these remarks when he, along with a delegation of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, met President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the Presidential Secretariat this morning (17) during his official visit to Sri Lanka.
Expressing deep concern over the severe disaster faced by Sri Lanka, the Vice Chairman noted that both the Chinese Government and the Chinese people were deeply saddened by the situation and emphasized that China acted promptly from the outset to provide relief assistance to the affected Sri Lankan people.
He further stated that the purpose of the visit was to further strengthen the long-standing economic, cultural and diplomatic relations between Sri Lanka and China.
President Dissanayake expressed his sincere appreciation to the Vice Chairman and the accompanying delegation for visiting Sri Lanka during this difficult period and gratefully acknowledged the heartfelt support extended by China, including both material and financial assistance provided to the people affected by the disaster.
The President also conveyed Sri Lanka’s request to the Chinese Government and President Xi Jinping, for the provision of technical assistance to restore and reconstruct the severely damaged railway network.
In addition, President Dissanayake briefed the Chinese delegation on the disaster situation faced by Sri Lanka and the ongoing recovery and reconstruction programme being implemented by the Government.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that the Government’s immediate priority was the rescue of people affected by the disaster, followed by relocating them to safe locations and ensuring the provision of essential facilities such as food and healthcare. The President further noted that the Government is now implementing a well-planned programme to restore the livelihoods of the affected communities and return their daily lives to normalcy.
The meeting was attended by Lu Xinshe, Chairman of the Environmental Protection and Resources Conservation Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, Wang Ke, Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Deputy Head of the China–Sri Lanka Friendship Group of the National People’s Congress, Tan TianXing, Vice Chairman of the Social Development Affairs Committee, Tang Jian, Deputy Director-General of the Foreign Affairs Bureau of the General Office of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Yang Yin, Counsellor of the Asian Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sha Long, Third Secretary of the Asian Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Qi Zhenhong, Ambassador of China to Sri Lanka, along with other officials.
Representing the Government of Sri Lanka were Minister of Labour and Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning, Dr. Anil Jayantha Fernando, Secretary to the President, Dr. Nandika Sanath Kumanayake and Senior Additional Secretary to the President, Roshan Gamage.
The Faculty of Law, University of Colombo
Undue concern about a lawless situation, typified by unbridled executive power, is not realistic.
Emergency legislation has rightly been characterised as extra-legislative legislation”
Only a simple majority of Parliament is required to approve a State of Emergency
Supreme Court held that an Acting President of the Republic had violated the fundamental rights of the People, enshrined in the Constitution, by the declaration of a State of Emergency. The circumstances against the backdrop of which this historic ruling was made, are well known. A serious depletion of foreign reserves resulted in a severe shortage of basic amenities like fuel, cooking gas, electricity, staple food items, and medicine
The legal acumen of the Roman Republic did not recoil from conferment of even dictatorial powers on its principal executive officials—the two consuls—during periods of breakdown. They wielded life and death powers over Roman citizens, but the right balance was struck. Extraordinary authority was limited to the brief span of six months, and the appointing official could not select himself
The Supreme Court of India has determined that there is no warrant for judicial intervention unless it is clear from the material on record that there is absolutely no justification” for the Proclamation (Bhagvati J in Minerva Mills). Stringency of the test for availability of judicial review is laid bare by the example given by Bhagwati J—the Chief Minister of the state in question being below five feet in height (State of Rajasthan v. Union of India)
The following is a keynote address delivered by Prof. G. L. Peiris at the International Research Conference of the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo held on December 12, 2025.
1. The Policy Dilemma
 Prof. G. L. Peiris delivered the keynote address at the International Research Conference of the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo held on December 12, 2025 |
One of the great challenges of modern public law is to reconcile traditional principles relating to the rule of law and the separation of powers with the exigencies of crises which threaten the destruction of society itself. To what extent must protective mechanisms developed by systems of law over the ages give way to the need for physical survival in the throes of life-threatening crises? What is the right balance to be struck, as a matter of public policy?
The classic statement is by John Locke, who insisted that, in emergencies, the government should have legally unfettered power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it” (Second Treatise of Government). This is an ancient idea which goes back to Roman times, when Cicero, in his famous oration, Pro Milone, declared: Inter arma silent leges” (Amid the clash of arms, the laws are silent”).
This received expression in the present century in the work of Carl Schmitt, who insisted that The sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception” (Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty). According to him, not only is the sovereign’s authority untrammelled during emergency, but the declaration of emergency is his right alone, dependent solely on the exercise of his subjective judgment. This unqualified power springs from the supreme law of nature—-the safety of the people.
Judicial pronouncements across the world explicitly reflect this point of view. Justice Story, on behalf of the Supreme Court of the United States, famously declared: The question arises, by whom is the exigency to be judged and decided? We are all of opinion that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons” (Martin v. Mott).In Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, Subba Rao CJ, speaking for the Supreme Court of India, observed: The question whether there is grave emergency is left to the satisfaction of the Executive, for it is obviously in the best position to judge the situation”.
There is, however, equally emphatic opinion to the contrary. Khanna J, in a celebrated dissent, was scathing in his denunciation of the opposite approach: The position would be that, so far as executive officers are concerned, in matters relating to life and personal liberty of citizens, they would not be governed by any law, they would not be answerable to any court, and they would be wielding more or less despotic powers” (Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla).
These competing postulates have been articulated with equal passion.
II. A Landmark Pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka had recently to deal with this issue frontally (Ambika Satkunanathan v. Attorney General). This is a watershed decision because, for the first time in our legal history, the Supreme Court held that an Acting President of the Republic had violated the fundamental rights of the People, enshrined in the Constitution, by the declaration of a State of Emergency.
The circumstances against the backdrop of which this historic ruling was made, are well known. A serious depletion of foreign reserves resulted in a severe shortage of basic amenities like fuel, cooking gas, electricity, staple food items, and medicine. In the context of an unprecedented default in the repayment of foreign loans and significant depreciation of the rupee, extended power cuts and galloping inflation led to acute economic hardship. These circumstances culminated in unrest on a scale never seen before on the Island.
Violence included the brutal murder of a Member of Parliament, the torching of residences of the Prime Minister and more than 70 other political personalities, forcible occupation of the Presidential Secretariat, the President’s official residence and the Office of the Prime Minister, with almost a million people gathered in Colombo demanding the resignation of the President. The elected President had fled the country, and a date had been set for an urgent meeting of Parliament to elect the President in accordance with procedure spelt out in the Constitution. An unruly mob had encircled Parliament, threatening to prevent this meeting from taking place. This was the situation in which Acting President Ranil Wickemesinghe declared a State of Emergency.
He did so in terms of provision in the Public Security Ordinance, which empowered him to take this action, if he was of opinion that this was expedient in the interests of public security and the preservation of public order, or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community”(section 2).
The decision was that of a divided Supreme Court. The majority consisted of Murdu Fernando CJ and Yasantha Kodagoda J, while there was a vigorous dissent by Arjuna Obeyesekere J. The minority held that the circumstances warranted the opinion entertained by the Acting President, while the plurality declared themselves prepared to make this assumption. This, then, was common ground. The difference of opinion pertained to another vital issue.
Once the Acting President (hereinafter referred to as the President), had reached this conclusion, he had four optional courses of action available to him:
(i) He could have recourse to the routine law, principally the provisions of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to deal with the situation;
(ii) He could invoke Part III of the Public Security Ordinance, which would enable him to take particular actions such as calling out the Armed Forces to supplement the Police, prevent public gatherings on highways and in the vicinity of bridges and other specified locations, and declare curfew.
These measures could be taken, short of proclamation of a State of Emergency;
(iii) He could take the drastic step”, under Part II of the Public Security Ordinance, to bring into force the provisions contained within that section, in terms of which an Emergency could be declared, applicable to the whole Island;
(iv) While declaring an Emergency under Part II, he could confine its operation to particular parts of the Island.
This is where the difference of opinion between the plurality and the minority of the court manifested itself. The majority was of opinion that the President’s satisfaction relating to the existence of objective conditions justifying declaration of Emergency did not automatically entitle him to go the full length of bringing into being a nationwide Emergency under Part II, but obligated him further to consider whether measures of a more limited nature, contemplated by Part III, would be sufficient to deal effectively with the situation.Failure to do so, according to their ruling, would involve a breach of the Constitution.
By contrast, the minority was convinced that Once the President has come to the conclusion that a state of public emergency exists, there is no purpose in mandating a consideration of other options”, and that Requiring the President to embark on whether the ordinary laws or other various provisions or options would be adequate to deal with a public or national emergency, would be unreasonable and an unprecedented step”. On this basis, the minority held that the President’s actions were entirely within the Constitution, and entailed no liability for contravention of fundamental rights.
A great deal hinged, in practical terms, on the divergence between these points of view.
III. Categories of Emergency: Uniform or Disparate Rules?
Contemporary trends in the law acknowledge marked differences in scale, intensity, and duration among types of emergency which precipitate varying degrees of government paralysis.
South African law incorporates one comprehensive definition of a State of Emergency, capable of invocation when the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster, or other public emergency” (Constitution, Article 37(1)(a)).Preferable, by far, is the position under the Emergencies Act of Canada, which recognises four different kinds of emergencies— natural disasters, threats to public order, international emergencies, and states of war (Section 18(2)).
This enables different degrees of Parliamentary scrutiny and control.
The Constitution of India provides another example of this approach. Article 352 envisages a threat to the security of India or any part of the country by reason of war, external aggression or armed rebellion, while Article 356 contemplates a failure of constitutional government in any Indian state, and the context of Article 360 is jeopardy to the financial stability or credit of India.
In the spectrum of gravity, peril to the very existence of the state, in the degree present in the Sri Lankan situation, attracts the highest concern. In circumstances of potential government breakdown, facile distrust” is not the recommended counsel. The courts of India have cautioned that When there is a crisis situation, it is necessary to trust the government with extraordinary powers in order to enable it to overcome such crisis” (Bhagvati J. in Shivakant Shukla).
Undue concern about a lawless situation, typified by unbridled executive power, is not realistic.
Emergency legislation has rightly been characterised as extra-legislative legislation”. Far from there being a legal vacuum, systems of law have furnished practical safeguards, while enabling public order to be maintained.
One of these is the imaginative super-majority escalator” technique, characteristic of South African law.
Only a simple majority of Parliament is required to approve a State of Emergency operative for a maximum period of 21 days, and to extend it up to 3 months. Beyond that, a 60% majority is compulsory for further extensions (Article 37). Here, then, is a successful reconciliation of competing objectives.
Article 16 of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic in France empowers the President to determine not only the sufficiency of conditions warranting the declaration of a State of Emergency, but also its appropriate duration. Restraints on Presidential power in France are weak because the President, although required to consult the Counsel Constitutionel (Constitutional Court), is not bound by its advisory opinion, in the event of contrary advice.
Relative amplitude of Presidential power in emergency situations in France has been justified by a prominent French jurist, François Saint-Bonnet, on the basis that the curtailment of emergency powers at the disposal of the Executive carries the risk of deprivation of the very tools which the government finds indispensable to combat the threat.
Germany’s Basic Law, although wary of emergency powers because of the harrowing experience of Article 48(2) of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic, which paved the way for the rise of Hitler, nevertheless does not balk at recognising internal emergencies” which enable intervention by the Executive, albeit subject to control by the Federal Parliament.
Constitutional provisions in different jurisdictions, irrespective of the approach selected, envisage substantial executive power in times of emergency, curtailed by surveillance on the part of the elected.
Legislature.
IV. Restraints on Judicial Intervention
The decided cases in many countries are replete with examples of indicia which concede to the Executive great latitude in these contexts. The recurring feature is the urging of restraint in the exercise of judicial review in keeping with a suitably benign construction, consistent with constitutional standards.
This is reflected in unimpeachable academic authority, as well.
It has been insisted that executive decisions should be taken seriously as a bona fide attempt to solve whatever social problem they set out to tackle”(Aileen Kavanagh).The caution has been administered that judges should exercise great caution before concluding that the government has violated constitutional rights (Prof. T. R. S. Allan) and,in public emergencies threatening the life of the nation, elected officials should be permitted to err, if at all, on the side of safety”(Lord Bingham).The courts should resist the temptation to substitute their own preferred solutions to questions of public policy”(Allan).
This is so, for a number of reasons. One of them is that the public authority is entitled to latitude because it has a kind of responsibility to advance the public interest that a court does not have”(Brooke L.J.).This is reinforced by other considerations. For instance, possession of special expertise by the executive authority is an important factor.
The nature of the subject matter, for this very reason, has a vital bearing on the issue. Judges have been conscious that the more political the question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution, and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision”(Lord Bingham).
A responsible and representative system of democratic governance brings into sharp focus the degree of democratic accountability of the original decision maker, and the extent to which other mechanisms of accountability may be available”(Murray Hunt).Basic values of constitutionalism identify Parliamentary controls as infinitely preferable, in this regard, to judicial intervention.
This has to do with the nature and legitimate confines of the judicial function. Mirza Beg J, speaking for the Supreme Court of India, has candidly conceded that the judicial process suffers from inherent limitations”(Shivakant Shukla).This is essentially because a court can neither have full and truthful information, nor the means to such information”(Chandrachud J in Shivakant Shukla), especially in respect of classified information.
An absolute imperative is that the distinction between judicial review and substitution of judgment must be scrupulously observed. Admittedly contextual, this principle is of overriding significance because it is wrong to expect executive bodies to replicate the style of analysis adopted by courts in determining allegations of violation of rights”(T. R. S. Allan).
It is crucial for the rule of law that the dividing line between these two distinct functions should not become inadvertently blurred. It is not necessary for the public authority to address itself to the same legal arguments as the court (Court of Appeal of England in the Begum case), the judicial function being restricted by the consideration that the court is usually concerned with whether the decision maker reached his decision in the right way, rather than whether he got what the court might think to be the right answer”(Lord Hoffmann).
The raison d’etre underpinning executive intervention in these extraordinary situations should be constantly borne in mind. The reality is the absence of a practical substitute. Neither the legislature nor the judiciary is capable of swift, energetic action, which leaves the executive by default as the authoritative body”(David Dyzenhaus).For this inescapable reason, there has been constant emphasis that executive actors should not be deterred from engaging in the very activity needed, and contemplated, to deal with the crisis”.
The overarching object of policy is the preservation of public confidence. The faster and more effective the response, the smaller the overall damage to society, as a whole. The best way for government to respond to these fears is to do something large and dramatic to reassure the populace”(Bruce Ackerman).
The weight attaching to these elements of public policy is self-evident.
V. Usage Down the Ages Empirical evidence during all epochs of history, and in a vast array of legal cultures, establishes without doubt the need for far-reaching executive powers during times of crisis.
The legal acumen of the Roman Republic did not recoil from conferment of even dictatorial powers on its principal executive officials—the two consuls—during periods of breakdown. They wielded life and death powers over Roman citizens, but the right balance was struck. Extraordinary authority was limited to the brief span of six months, and the appointing official could not select himself. Checks and balances assured success of the system: although 90 dictators were appointed under the Roman Republic during a period of 300 years, not one dictator attempted to perpetuate the system at the end of his tenure.
The English common law is certainly no exception to this tradition. The essence of the English doctrine is that the Executive has an inherent constitutional authority to proclaim martial law when it deems there to be a public emergency, a proclamation that entitles the Executive to act as it sees fit to respond to the emergency” (Dyzenhaus). This power has been applied by the United Kingdom to her colonies, including Ceylon, where Governor Sir Robert Chalmers, for example, made ruthless use of it during the Sinhala-Muslim riots under the cloud of World War I.
In the United States, Congress has passed no fewer than 470 statutes granting authority to the President to use extraordinary powers during a declared state of national emergency. An egregious instance is Executive Order 9066 issued by President Roosevelt just two months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. This resulted in the mass incarceration of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans from the western United States, over 70,000 of whom were American citizens (Amanda Tyler).
In the aftermath of 9/11, one of the gravest global emergencies in our time, American and British courts, for compelling reasons, showed marked solicitude for executive authority. A plurality of the Supreme
Court of the United States held that the Congressional Resolution, Authorization for Use of Military Force, permitted the detention of enemy combatants, such power being recognized as fundamental” and a necessary and appropriate use of force”(Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).In the United Kingdom, in the first decision after 9/11, the House of Lords, grounding its decision in the separation of powers, held that it is for the Executive to decide what is in the interest of national security (The Belmarsh case). In doing so, the House of Lords had no hesitation in overruling the decision to the contrary by an administrative tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
VI. Imaginative Features of the Evolving Law
The limits of judicial review in this setting emerge clearly from impeccable precedents across the world.
Legitimacy of the Proclamation of Emergency issued in Sri Lanka by the Acting President on 17 July 2022, assessed in light of these precedents, admits of no doubt.
The dominant test is that based on proportionality. The salient requirement is that the impugned measure should clearly realize or advance its underlying purpose, that the use of such means would rationally lead to realization of the law’s purpose”(A. Barak).In terms of a comparative assessment of the harm inflicted on constitutional rights and the benefit accruing to the public interest, intervention by the Executive should come down heavily on the side of the latter, as opposed to the former (A.P. Brady).
The basis of justification is that the risk of harm sought to be averted should be very high, an overriding public interest being placed at stake in a situation where the outcome is perilously uncertain (J.Zander). Gravity of the risk and the extent of impending harm are the governing factors.
Evaluated against these criteria, the Sri Lankan Emergency Proclamation of 17 July 2022 passes the test with ease. In the backdrop of the nerve centres of the Executive Administration having fallen to the control of a violent mob, and the attempted extension of their initiative to the precincts of Parliament, where a crucial vote was scheduled within a matter of days for the election of the President of the Republic, in keeping with constitutional procedure, the Proclamation clearly served the purpose of ensuring unimpeded access to Parliament for legislators to perform their constitutional duty. Prevention of this by unlawful force would have presaged nothing less than the collapse of constitutionalism and the descent of the country into anarchy.
While recourse to the proportionality test would inevitably yield this result, it is worth noting a further refinement in the developing law. This has taken the form of modifying the criterion of proportionality by the application of a precautionary principle” in suitable contexts. The effect of this principle, now fortified by reliable antecedents, is to favour the governmental objective (to mitigate or avert a crisis) over fundamental rights”(Ondrejek and Horak).This approach, militating against the postulate, in dubio pro libertate, has been described as a rational and prudent response in the face of uncertainty”(Renn).
The precautionary principle, as a feature of contemporary jurisprudence, has its origin in international environmental law. Its substance is captured in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,1992, which states: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. Lack of epistemic certainty, then, must not forestall preventive action against grave damage. This principle has currently received acceptance outside the domain of environmental law as the anchor of a pragmatic mediating technique, of particular value in our time.
Applied to the Sri Lankan situation, it should conclusively govern the outcome, in that pre-emptive action in the face of impending disruption of a crucial meeting of Parliament is obviously a measure of prudence.
VII. A Realistic Assessment
The ratio decidendi of the majority decision of the Supreme Court is that, even after the President had reached a proper conclusion about the existence of a state of public emergency, he is still compulsorily required to consider whether other options are available to deal adequately with the crisis. This finding is demonstrably at variance with established authority.
The view has been persuasively taken that There is usually more than one decision compatible with the complainant’s rights, and it is for the public body rather than the court to choose between them (T.R.S.Allen).Thus,” when there is scope for different answers or approaches, it is right that the court accept the solution favoured by the public authority”.Sir Thomas Bingham (as he then was) has referred in this context to the range of options open to a reasonable decision maker”(R v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith).Accordingly, there should not be too narrow a space for the discretion of the primary decision maker”(Ondrejek and Horak).
The Supreme Court of the United States has declared: It is no part of the function of a court to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public”(Jacobson v. Massachusetts).The Court spelt out the rationale for its ruling: the contrary decision could well lead to disorder and anarchy”.
In a well-known ruling in 2018, in a case involving a travel ban imposed by President Trump, the Supreme Court observed: Whether the President’s chosen method of addressing perceived risks is justified from a policy perspective, is irrelevant”(Trump v. Hawaii).The Court therefore refused the plaintiffs’ request for a searching inquiry” on the ground of the deference traditionally accorded to the President in the sphere of national security”.
This approach has cogency, for at least four compelling reasons.
First, the need for expeditious intervention is paramount. This is tied to the essential reassurance function” of the Executive. The government must act visibly and decisively to demonstrate to its terrorised citizens that the breach was only temporary, and that it is taking aggressive action to contain the crisis”(Ackerman).Speedy action on the spur of the moment, in an atmosphere far removed from one conducive to meticulous weighing of alternatives ex post facto, in a relaxed and unhurried setting, is the critical need.
Second, the consequences of delay should be evaluated against the prudence of prompt action. The reflection by Obeyesekere J. carries conviction: In the event the Acting President did not take decisive steps, and further elected representatives were murdered, or Parliament was stormed, this Court may have had to consider whether there was a dereliction of duty in failing to act on the advice of pivotal officers responsible for maintaining law and order”. This was a situation in which the Minister of Public Security, the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, and the Inspector General of Police had all recommended to the Acting President the declaration of a State of Emergency.
Third, in this instance, the effect of Presidential intervention was required only for a strikingly brief duration—until Parliament met within two days. Professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale University has offered the sapient comment: The Executive should be given the power to act unilaterally only for the briefest period—long enough for the Legislature to convene and consider the matter, but no longer”.
Fourth, the rigidly circumscribed scope of judicial review in this setting is indicated by the narrow window for application of the Wednesbury test of reasonableness. In the evolving law, the impugned action is no longer required to be suitable”, as a matter of judicial proof. All that is required is that it should not be manifestly unsuitable”. This involves, from a practical standpoint, shifting of the burden of proof from the decision maker to those assailing the decision; and the threshold of proof is dauntingly exacting. The preferred principle in modern law is that the courts should not quash or declare illegal any emergency measure or decision unless it is very likely (based on the already available data and evidence) that it cannot contribute to the legitimate aim in any way”(Ondrejek and Horak).
The Supreme Court of India has determined that there is no warrant for judicial intervention unless it is clear from the material on record that there is absolutely no justification” for the Proclamation (Bhagvati J in Minerva Mills). Stringency of the test for availability of judicial review is laid bare by the example given by Bhagwati J—the Chief Minister of the state in question being below five feet in height(State of Rajasthan v. Union of India).This bears comparison with the famous illustration of the red-headed schoolteacher in the Wednesbury case. The trend, then, is unmistakably hostile to expansion of judicial review on this ground.
In our own country, this predisposition is reinforced by a firmly entrenched constitutional norm. A foundational principle of our public law is the vesting of judicial power, not in the courts but in Parliament, which exercises judicial power through the instrument of the courts.This is made explicit by Article 4(c) of the Constitution which provides: The judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law”.
VIII. Conclusion
One of the most influential academic contributions to this subject in our time is the paper recently published in the University of Queensland Journal by Richard Ekins, Associate Professor of Law in the University of Oxford, and Graham Gee, Professor of Public Law in the University of Sheffield. The view is there articulated with exceptional force that there is reason to entertain deep suspicion regarding a vague freewheeling judicial power”, which is seen at bottom as antithetical to the rule of law”. This has been trenchantly denounced as a lawless grab for power, unrooted in our constitutional tradition”.
The overarching problem is one of legitimacy. It should certainly give us pause that this dangerous stretch of legal technique” carries with it the risk of displacing the proper exercise of political accountability and, in doing so, compromising basic constitutional principle.
This kind of judicial overreach has many undesirable consequences beyond the crisp question of the legality of the declaration of a state of emergency in 2022, including:
a) Traducing constitutional tradition;
b) Subverting the specific model of separation of powers reflected in our Constitution;
c) Undermining the established rule of interpretation that the courts construe the law from the face of the statutory and/or constitutional text, including due respect for ouster clauses;
d) Eroding established principles of public law in respect of the legality of executive or administrative actions; and
e) Inappropriately invoking doctrines such as those relating to ‘public trust’ and ‘just and equitable’ remedies to justify judicial overreach when those doctrines are there to ensure the common good and institutional role morality.
(The writer is a Rhodes Scholar,Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London; Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo)
Colombo, Dec. 11 (Daily Mirror) – Cyclone Ditwah left Sri Lanka facing a national disaster of extraordinary scale.
In a matter of days, the storm triggered lethal landslides, unprecedented flooding and the collapse of critical infrastructure that millions rely on.
Entire districts were cut off, thousands were displaced and the economic impact continues to grow.
The numbers tell the story of a country confronting one of its most severe crises in recent memory.
639* people confirmed dead
The storm left a devastating human toll. The Disaster Management Centre confirmed that 639 Sri Lankans had lost their lives.
Most deaths were recorded in the Kandy, Badulla, Nuwara Eliya and Matale Districts where landslides and flash floods struck without warning.
Up to 203 people reported missing
Many families are still searching for loved ones who disappeared during the flooding and landslides. Several remote areas remain inaccessible.
More than 2.3 million people affected
Every district in the country has been impacted. According to UNDP, over 2 million Sri Lankans experienced flooding, displacement, property loss, loss of livelihoods or severe disruption to daily life.
More than 275,000 children affected
UNICEF reports that hundreds of thousands of children are dealing with damaged schools, destroyed homes, traumatising experiences and rising risks of post-flood disease.
5,000 houses completely destroyed
These families now depend entirely on shelters, emergency centres and government support.
More than 86,882 houses partially damaged
Many homes are unstable or unsafe, leaving thousands displaced.
764 religious sites damaged
Cyclone Ditwah damaged or destroyed sacred sites including
379 Buddhist Temples, 165 Hindu Kovils, 63 Churches and 157 Mosques.
159 schools damaged in Central Province
A total of 115 of these schools had to be converted into temporary camps for displaced families.
Floodwaters reached nearly 720,000 buildings (UNDP, 2025)
According to UNDP, one in every twelve buildings in Sri Lanka was exposed to floodwater.
Almost 20% of Sri Lanka – 1.1 Million Hectares
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows floodwaters from the cyclone inundated more than 1.1 million hectares – almost 20 percent of the country’s land area
247 kilometres of roads damaged
Road networks across the island collapsed under landslides, floodwater and soil erosion. Over 16,000 kilometres of roads and 278 kilometres of railways exposed to flooding (UNDP, 2025)
UNDP notes that the length of roads exposed to flooding could wrap Sri Lanka’s coastline more than twelve times.
More than 40 bridges affected
This includes the collapse of the Nayaru bridge in Mullaitivu and severe structural damage to the Yakkala bridge.
Highway damage estimated at 190 billion rupees
This figure alone shows how deeply Cyclone Ditwah has disrupted transport and commerce.
Only 30 percent of the railway network operational
Out of 1,593 kilometres of track, just 478 kilometres remained usable. Thirty nine power sets are stranded across the country.
Power outages hit 3.9 million consumers
The Ceylon Electricity Board restored most connections later, but nearly the entire country experienced blackouts at the height of the storm.
More than 150 water supply systems disrupted
Major water treatment plants in Kandy, Ambatale and several other areas were submerged or forced to shut down.
Tanks, Dams & Canals
1,777 tanks, 483 dams, 1,936 canals and 328 agricultural roads under the Department of Agricultural Services have been damaged.
More than 600,000 acres of crops destroyed
From vegetables to paddy lands, Sri Lanka’s food supply took a major hit. Vegetable prices have already increased significantly.
3 million hens lost
The bakery industry warns of a nationwide egg shortage.
More than 600 prawn farms destroyed in Puttalam
Coastal livelihoods have been wiped out in several communities.
Sri Lanka faces a projected GDP loss of 0.5 to 0.7 percent
Economic analysts warn that Cyclone Ditwah will significantly slow down the country’s recovery trajectory.
Total economic loss estimated between 6 and 7 billion US dollars
This includes damage to agriculture, energy, public infrastructure, irrigation systems, homes and the transport network.
Spill gates opened in seven major reservoirs
Kala Wewa, Rajanganaya and several others had to release large volumes of water to prevent dangerous pressure buildup.
Historic rise in Kelani River flood levels
The water level at the Nagalagam Street gauge exceeded 8.45 feet and forced mass evacuations across Colombo suburbs including Kelaniya, Biyagama and Kolonnawa.
Several regions recorded more than 300 millimetres of rainfall
Rugam in Batticaloa and parts of Mullaitivu and Vavuniya reported some of the highest rainfall ever measured in a single period.
Heart attack risk increased by almost 40 percent
Cardiologists warn that disaster-induced stress is pushing vulnerable individuals into medical emergencies.
Rise in waterborne and vector-borne diseases
Health authorities report increasing cases of leptospirosis, diarrhea, chikungunya, dengue and skin infections.
Pink eye warnings issued for flood shelters
Crowded conditions in safety centres have raised the risk of conjunctivitis outbreaks.
Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund surpasses 697 million rupees
The Rebuilding Sri Lanka Fund has now surpassed 697 million rupees, driven by a surge of national and corporate solidarity.
Sri Lanka Cricket contributed 300 million rupees, Port City Colombo provided both funds and heavy machinery, the Bandaranaike Foundation donated 250 million rupees, and Lanka Ashok Leyland added vehicles valued at more than 65 million rupees.
These are only a few of the major contributions, with many more organizations, businesses and individuals continuing to step forward to support the country’s recovery.
Government compensation of 5 million rupees for fully destroyed houses
Families who lost land to landslides will receive alternate land allocations.
Government allocates 1.2 billion rupees for emergency relief
This is the initial allocation and more funds are expected as assessments continue.
878 Safe Centres for displaced families
878 safe centres have been set up to shelter 86,040 individuals from 27,145 displaced families.
More than 70+ countries have pledged help for Sri Lanka.
India deployed C-17 and C-130 aircraft, Bailey bridge units and specialist search and rescue teams.
The UAE established a continuous air bridge with multiple relief flights carrying emergency supplies.
China provided 85 tonnes of humanitarian aid, while the United States committed 2 million US dollars in life-saving support.
The Maldives delivered 25,000 cases of canned tuna in 14 containers and 50,000 US dollars, with Japan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar, Korea and Israel also supplying medical teams, food stocks and essential relief materials.
Many more countries have extended their support, contributing to one of the largest global relief responses Sri Lanka has received in recent years
These numbers reveal the true scale of the disaster, but they also hint at something else. Sri Lankans continue to show extraordinary resilience. The record blood donations, the volunteer rescue missions and the rapid global response show that Sri Lanka is not facing this disaster alone.
Communities have come together: volunteers distributing water, food and hygiene kits; neighbours sheltering neighbours; youth, NGOs, and citizen-groups mobilizing to clean water sources and rebuild; and everyday Sri Lankans rallying to help each other in cities, towns and remote villages.
Even as the nation counts losses, these efforts offer a glimmer of hope: that out of devastation, a renewed, united resolve to rebuild and rebuild better might emerge.
This data is as of 10th December, 4.00 PM.
11 Dec 2025
Understanding the flood aftermath: What Sri Lankans should be aware of now
08 Dec 2025
Civil society groups and activists are echoing a call from various segments of Sri Lankan society to renegotiate the agreement with the International Monetary Fund in light of the damage caused by climate change. The focus is on the Extended Fund Facility programme whose austerity measures are a further obstacle to economic revival. The demand is to put people first in restructuring the economy. Meanwhile, the number of people killed and affected by the cyclone continues to rise.
Colombo (AsiaNews) – Faced with the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah, the Law and Social Trust (LST) is urging the renegotiation of the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on debt and climate, echoing a call from a broad spectrum of Sri Lankan society.
Amid a major emergency caused by Cyclone Ditwah, at least 38 non-governmental organisations and social movements working for the victims, along with 75 prominent environmentalists and activists, have signed a public plea to the Washington-based institution.
Meanwhile, the death toll stood at 644 on 15 December, with 183 still missing, and 1,344,898 people affected in various ways, for a total of 385,093 households.
The devastation wrecked by Ditwah reflects the impact of climate change on tropical countries like Sri Lanka, exacerbating the effects of the country’s economic crisis, characterised by a sovereign debt default of approximately US$ 35 billion in 2022.
While most Sri Lankans are grappling with severe austerity measures, including tax increases, benefit cuts, and reduced social security measures, the government is captive to the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility programme.
The IMF’s control of public spending not only limits the government’s ability to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis, but also severely hinders investment in infrastructure, reviving livelihoods, and further adapting to climate change.
Ditwah underscores systemic climate injustice. Sri Lanka contributes less than 0.08% to global fossil carbon emissions yet suffers intensifying climate impacts, including floods, droughts, and landslides,” reads the LST statement.
Unsustainable development projects and industrial monoculture crops have caused deforestation, soil degradation, and ecosystem destruction.
Decisions that led to the current situation, the group laments, have favoured big capital and global markets over local communities and indigenous peoples’ rights and are also responsible for Sri Lanka’s disproportionate debt burden.”
Debt-financed mega-infrastructure projects such as the highways, deep-sea ports, & energy parks have bypassed environmental safeguards, displaced people, destroyed their livelihoods, heightened vulnerabilities, and fueled human-elephant conflicts, leaving marginalised groups, especially peasant farmers, small-scale fishers, plantation workers and pastoralists trapped in cycles of economic and ecological harm,” the LST plea highlights.
More climate finance as grants, not loans, alongside reparations from high-emitting nations are also needed,” it adds. IMF conditions perpetuate a debt-climate trap, hindering building resilience and eroding social protections amid 6.3 million facing food insecurity.”
From a debt and climate justice perspective, civil society groups, including social movements, trade unions, and rights groups, are calling for an independent, multi-level assessment of losses and damages (with representatives of affected communities and civil society).
In this regard, the statement emphasises, quantifying the impacts of Cyclone Ditwah is essential for compensation purposes.
Economic losses include housing, agriculture, other livelihoods, and infrastructure, while non-economic losses include disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) resulting from deaths/injuries, biodiversity degradation in Ramsar wetlands, and cultural/heritage erosion of marginalised communities.
The assessment uses ecosystem services, Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) metrics, and peer-reviewed standards, linking totals to debt relief compensation.
Civil society groups are also calling for immediate action on the debt crisis triggered by the 2022 default on US$ 35 billion in external obligations, including US$ 14.7 billion in high-interest international sovereign bonds.
The austerity measures under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility – which require a 2.3 per cent primary surplus by 2025 and gross financing requirements below 13 per cent of GDP from 2027 – have required the elimination of subsidies, privatisation, and restrictions on public spending.
Given the emergency, the initiative’s promoters finally put forward several demands, including:
and finally,
Matale, December 17 (Daily Mirror) – A youth who confronted Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser and MP Namal Rajapaksa during his visit to disaster-affected residents in Matale yesterday later surrendered after explaining his concerns.
The incident occurred during a media briefing, when the youth raised his voice and claimed that land inspections in the area had been carried out by an individual known as ‘Dinesh aiya.’ He alleged that all identified plots of safe land had been selected by this individual, while shouting the phrase, Apita ape eka innawa.”
Following the confrontation, MP Rajapaksa called the youth aside and inquired whether he was willing to relocate to a new house and whether he had any objections to doing so. He advised the youth on the importance of listening to others and said he was aware of the hardships faced by residents in the aftermath of the disaster.
Supporters surrounding MP Rajapaksa attempted to chase the youth away, citing what they described as his indecent behaviour. However, the MP intervened and prevented the situation from escalating, emphasising the need to work collectively to ensure a better future for displaced families.
You look after your Dinesh aiya, I will do my politics. But we cannot keep these people in displaced camps for months. We need to find a solution,” MP Rajapaksa said.
He further stated that any shortcomings of the President or the government should be raised in Parliament and that there was no need to argue at the site. He told the youth that a selection committee should be appointed to determine responsibility, noting that no conclusions could be reached until such a process was completed.
My politics is different, and I do not put blame on anyone. If I want to blame, there are many people to be mentioned. This is not the place to argue. First, we must send these people back to their homes. After that, we can engage in politics from two sides,” he said.
The youth later agreed with MP Rajapaksa’s remarks, after which the two embraced, bringing the incident to a close.
Transnational corporations control essential resources.
Unelected global bodies control the rules, access, legitimacy, and penalties.
Together, they constrain sovereign choice.
Elected leaders and governments operate within this system as pawns – they must subscribe to above or face elimination (assassination, economic, financial, diplomatic, reputational punishments)
Every budget, subsidy removal, privatization, digital rollout, education reform, or emergency law passed in your country is either first recommended or passed by this global control layer — or it will be blocked, punished, or reversed.
This does not mean all leaders are weak or corrupt — it means the system limits how far even well-intentioned leaders can act. The fate of those who don’t comply is understood by plenty of examples.
This is not about secret rule — it is about a system deliberately designed to preserve power for a concentrated global elite.
As public resistance grows, new governance layers are introduced to retain control — the newest measures are Digital ID systems, cashless economies, algorithmic governance, and smart city” infrastructure, presented as progress, efficiency, and inevitability.
1. The Division of Power
A. Who Controls the Resources (Holds Economic Power)
These entities own or dominate the systems that modern societies depend on:
· Food systems
· Water utilities and natural resources
· Energy supply chains (fossil, renewable, grid infrastructure)
· Pharmaceuticals and medical supply chains, medical journals, think tanks
· Data and digital infrastructure, cloud infrastructure
· Capital flows and global finance
· Media/Communications
· Arms / Weapons / Intel services
· Education – curriculum design, school-university-models
They are:
· Transnational
· Profit-driven
· Shareholder-governed
· Largely protected from democratic accountability
· Ideological oriented
They control what societies need to survive — but do not own, govern or control directly.
B. Who Controls the Rules (Unelected Global Bodies hold Governance & Power)
These entities:
· Do not own resources
· Do not pass national laws
· Do not face voters
· Do not bear responsibility for social consequences (which they create)
But they:
· Set global frameworks
· Define compliance and best practice”
· Control access to finance, markets and dictate legitimacy
· Trigger punishment – economic or reputational
They function as the operating system through which corporate power is protected and expanded globally.
2. Degree of Control Over Essential Systems
Unelected global bodies exert influence because key resources are already concentrated in the hands of a few transnational corporations. These corporations are profit-driven, transnational, largely untaxed locally, and control systems critical to national survival.
2.1 Food Systems (What People Eat)
· ~70–90% of global grain trade controlled by ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus (ABCD group)
· ~60%+ of global commercial seeds controlled by Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva, Syngenta, Limagrain
· ~70%+ of agrochemicals/pesticides controlled by Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva, BASF
Result:
Food prices, farmer survival, and national food security respond to corporate trading strategies — not local needs.
Impact: Prices, farmer survival, and national food security respond to corporate trading decisions. Profits are held in low-tax jurisdictions.
2.2 Water & Natural Resources
· Urban and industrial water utilities increasingly operated through Veolia, Suez, American Water, private equity funds, and PPPs
· Key natural resources (minerals, forests, rare earths) dominated by BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, Vale
Impact: Pricing, access, and land use shaped by financial and contractual leverage not public mandate.
2.3 Energy
· Oil, gas, and electricity supply dominated by ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, Chevron
· Renewable energy supply chains increasingly controlled by large industrial players: Vestas, Siemens Gamesa, First Solar
Impact: Energy Pricing, subsidy removal, and energy transition tied to global capital and ESG compliance.
2.4 Pharmaceuticals & Health
· ~70–75% of global pharmaceutical profits captured by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Novartis, Merck, GSK, Sanofi, AbbVie, Bayer, AstraZeneca
· Intellectual property (IP) and pricing power are highly centralized
· Medical journals and research platforms often owned by Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley
Impact: WHO standards and emergency frameworks favor patent holders structurally over national affordability or production.
2.5 Finance & Capital Flows
· Global capital flows dominated by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs
· Hedge funds and private equity such as Bridgewater, Carlyle, KKR exert additional influence
Impact: IMF programs, credit ratings, and capital flight enforce policy compliance.
2.6 Digital Infrastructure & Data
· Big Tech companies controlling global data: Google, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, Apple, Alibaba, Tencent
Impact: Digital dependence reduces regulatory and narrative sovereignty – governance becomes algorithmic and externally influenced.
2.7 Media / Communications
Global news and entertainment concentrated in Disney, Comcast, Warner Bros Discovery, News Corp, ViacomCBS, Bertelsmann
Media plays a key role in dictating the narrative & spreading it globally.
Media enables the controllers to align people to their goals.
2.8 Arms / Weapons / Intel services
· Major arms manufacturers: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Thales, Rheinmetall
· Private intelligence and security contractors: G4S, Academi (formerly Blackwater), DynCorp, Control Risks
2.9 Education & Curriculum Influence
· UNEP, UNESCO, and UN-affiliated education frameworks attempt to standardize curricula globally
· Western-centric, liberal education models increasingly promoted, often ignoring local or Eastern civilizational values
· Standardized programs influence ideological framing, social values, and policy outlook in future generations
Impact:
Education becomes a tool for shaping societal norms aligned with global frameworks rather than local cultural, civilizational, or societal needs.
We are seeing how the UN is attempting to influence national curriculum through packaged one-size fitting educational syllabus that are western centric and ignores the eastern civilizational cultural upbringing. These models of liberal thinking ideologically influence entire world.
When essential systems are concentrated in the hands of a few, unelected global bodies translate that concentration into frameworks, standards, and conditionality — creating compliance pressure without elections.
Transnational corporations cannot legally or openly force sovereign governments to change laws or policies.
That would constitute direct political interference.
Instead, these outcomes are achieved through unelected global bodies that apply conditionality, standards, access control, and legitimacy pressure — presented as neutral, technical, or unavoidable.
3. Corporations + Unelected Global Bodies (The Indirect Control Mechanism)
Transnational corporations cannot legally or openly force sovereign governments to change laws or policies.
That would constitute direct political interference.
Instead, these outcomes are achieved through unelected global bodies that apply conditionality, standards, access control, and legitimacy pressure — presented as neutral, technical, or unavoidable.
3.1 Privatization of Water & Public Utilities
Corporate interest:
· Private ownership and long-term concession control of water, electricity, transport
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· World Bank / IFC – promotes Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs)
· Regional Development Banks – infrastructure loans tied to privatization models
· Climate finance mechanisms – link funding to efficiency” and cost recovery”
Result:
Governments privatize utilities as a loan or funding condition, not as a voter mandate.
3.2 Removal of Subsidies (Food, Fuel, Electricity)
Corporate interest:
· Market pricing
· Profit protection
· Removal of state competition
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· IMF – structural adjustment & fiscal consolidation programs
· World Bank – subsidy reform conditions
· Credit rating agencies – downgrade risk if deficits remain
Result:
Subsidies are removed under macroeconomic necessity,” even when electorates oppose it.
3.3 Changes to Land Laws & Resource Access
Corporate interest:
· Land acquisition
· Resource extraction
· Secure long-term contracts with tax concessions & investor” incentive to take back profits without being questioned
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· World Bank land reform frameworks
· Investment treaty regimes (ISDS)
· Climate & conservation financing models
Result:
Land becomes commodified; traditional or communal ownership is weakened.
3.4 Alteration of Labour Laws & Social Protections
Corporate interest:
· Flexible labour – hire & fire / almost zero accountability for foreign investors
· Lower wage floors
· Reduced union power
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· IMF / World Bank – labour market flexibility” reforms
· OECD benchmarks – competitiveness indicators
· Trade agreements – labour harmonization clauses
Result:
Labour protections are reframed as rigidities” that must be reformed.
3.5 Protection of Intellectual Property (IP)
Corporate interest:
· Patent monopolies
· Long-term revenue extraction
· Market exclusivity
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· WTO (TRIPS Agreement) – enforces IP protection globally
· WHO frameworks – procurement and treatment standards
· Trade agreements – extended patent protections
Result:
National manufacturing and affordability are subordinated to global patent regimes.
3.6 Opening of Markets to Foreign Capital
Corporate interest:
· Market access
· Capital mobility
· Profit repatriation
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· WTO – trade liberalization rules
· IMF – capital account liberalization
· Credit rating agencies – punish protectionist policies
Result:
Local industries are exposed to global competition before they are resilient.
3.7 Digital ID, Cashless Systems & Data Governance
Corporate interest:
· Data extraction
· Platform dependence
· Surveillance-compatible infrastructure (to keep locals in check & controlled)
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· WEF – digital governance models
· World Bank / UNDP – digital ID funding
· OECD – data interoperability standards
Result:
Digital systems become mandatory gateways to services and economic participation.
3.8 ESG, Climate & Environmental Compliance
Corporate interest:
· Control of energy transition
· Carbon markets
· Green finance dominance
Indirect leverage via unelected bodies:
· UNFCCC / COP frameworks
· ESG standards bodies
· Multilateral development banks
Result:
Financing is conditional on ESG alignment, regardless of national development stage.
· Corporations define economic needs.
· Unelected global bodies translate those needs into technical rules, standards, and conditions.
· Governments comply to retain access, capital, legitimacy, and stability — not because citizens voted for it.
Corporations hold the assets.
Unelected global bodies hold the levers.
Governments face the pressure.
Citizens absorb the consequences
4. Key Unelected Entities & Their Functional Role
IMF / World Bank / Regional Development Banks
Role: Economic Enforcers
Named entities:
· International Monetary Fund (IMF)
· World Bank Group
o International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
o International Development Association (IDA)
o International Finance Corporation (IFC)
· Regional Development Banks
o Asian Development Bank (ADB)
o African Development Bank (AfDB)
o Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
o European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
Functions:
· Attach conditions to loans often unrelated to the loan purpose
(loans repaid with interest in foreign currency; conditions are irreversible)
· Mandate:
o Privatization of state assets
o Market pricing of essentials
o Subsidy removal
o Legal and regulatory reforms
· Restructure economies to be:
o Investor-friendly
o Open to foreign capital
Result:
Sectors dominated by transnational corporations become legally protected, financially entrenched, and politically difficult to reverse, regardless of electoral change.
WTO / Global Trade Frameworks
Role: Market Access Controllers
Named entities & agreements:
· World Trade Organization (WTO)
· TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
· GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)
· Bilateral & Multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)
Functions:
· Enforce trade liberalization
· Protect corporate intellectual property
· Restrict domestic subsidies and protections
· Penalize trade barriers” through dispute mechanisms
Result:
Local food production, medicine manufacturing, and domestic industries are displaced by global suppliers with scale and capital advantages.
WHO / Global Health Architecture
Role: Health Policy Standard-Setters
Named entities:
· World Health Organization (WHO)
· WHO Emergency Committees
· Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA)
· COVAX / Gavi / CEPI (public–private health alliances)
Functions:
· Define global health best practices”
· Influence national procurement standards
· Shape emergency and pandemic responses
· Promote centralized global health frameworks
· Frequently overlook:
o Indigenous medicine
o Traditional health systems
o Cultural and heritage-based health alternatives
Result:
Pharmaceutical supply chains and patent holders gain structural advantage over national affordability, sovereignty, and local medical traditions.
WEF / OECD / Global Policy Forums
Role: Policy Designers
Named entities:
· World Economic Forum (WEF)
· Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
· Global policy task forces & public–private councils
· Elite leadership training programs (Young Global Leaders, etc.)
Functions:
· Draft best practice” governance models
· Train technocrats, regulators, and policymakers
· Normalize:
o ESG frameworks
o Digital ID systems
o Cashless economies
o Climate and carbon reporting
· Shape elite consensus before national debate occurs
Result:
National policies converge toward pre-designed global frameworks aligned with capital mobility and corporate scalability.
WEF does not govern — it pre-aligns decision-makers to its agenda.
UN Bodies (UNHRC, OHCHR, Special Rapporteurs)
Role: Legitimacy & Pressure Mechanism
Named entities:
· UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)
· Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
· UN Special Rapporteurs
· UN Fact-Finding Missions / Panels of Experts
Functions:
· Issue reports and recommendations” that are formally non-binding
· Define:
o Compliance”
o Violation”
· Apply pressure through:
o Naming and shaming
o Selective scrutiny
o Diplomatic signaling
· Exploit weak points of national leadership via international exposure
Outputs are used by:
· Donor governments
· Sanctions regimes
· Aid agencies
· International media narratives
Result:
Governments resisting externally driven reforms face diplomatic isolation, legal exposure, economic pressure, and reputational damage.
Credit Rating Agencies & Global Indices
Role: Market Punishers
Named entities:
· Standard & Poor’s (S&P Global)
· Moody’s Investors Service
· Fitch Ratings
· Governance & perception indices:
o Transparency International
o World Governance Indicators
o Doing Business–style benchmarks
Functions:
· Downgrade sovereign credit ratings
· Increase borrowing costs
· Trigger capital flight and investor withdrawal
Result:
Governments comply rapidly to stabilize markets even when policies directly contradict public mandates or electoral promises.
These entities do not own resources and do not pass national laws, yet through conditional finance, trade rules, standards, ratings, legitimacy signaling, and narrative pressure, they function as unelected enforcement layers that discipline governments and protect concentrated corporate power globally.
5. The Pawn–Controller Relationship (How control operates in practice)
Unelected global bodies are not the ultimate owners of resources.
They are the gatekeepers of the global system.
They function as:
a) Rule-Setters
· Define best practice,” standards,” and compliance”
· Convert corporate requirements into technical frameworks
· Establish norms that later harden into expectations
b) Access-Granters
· Control access to:
o Loans
o Aid
o Trade markets
o Capital flows
o Global legitimacy
· Access is conditional, not automatic
c) Risk-Labelers
· Assign labels such as:
o High risk”
o Non-compliant”
o Unstable”
· These labels determine:
o Investor behavior
o Insurance costs
o Trade confidence
d) Legitimacy Distributors
· Confer or withdraw international credibility
· Influence:
o Diplomatic standing
o Aid eligibility
o Media framing
· Governments are judged externally, not by their electorate
e) Punishment Signalers
· Signal when a country is to be:
o Downgraded
o Isolated
o Sanctioned
o Pressured
o Regime changed/ousted
· Enforcement follows through markets, not armies
This structure allows:
· Corporate resource holders to operate across borders under protected legal and financial conditions
· Investors to extract profits with minimal political or sovereign risk
· Governments to be disciplined through:
o Financial pressure
o Narrative pressure
o Legal exposure
without coups, invasions, or overt coercion
Power today is exercised not through ownership or elections, but through control of access, standards, legitimacy, and risk perception.
Elected leaders remain in office only as long as they remain compliant.
Deviation triggers pressure until alignment is restored.
6. Direct Connection to Resource Control
| Resource | Corporate Control | Global Entity Enablement |
| Food | ABCD traders, seed giants | WTO rules, IMF subsidy removal |
| Water | Utilities, infrastructure funds | World Bank PPPs, climate finance |
| Energy | Multinationals, traders | IMF pricing reforms, ESG rules |
| Pharma | Patent holders | WHO standards, IP protection |
| Finance | Asset managers, banks | IMF programs, ratings agencies |
| Data | Big Tech | Global digital governance norms |
The unelected bodies do not own the assets — they ensure the system protects those who do.
7. Why this is not Democratic Governance
· No elections
· No public consent
· No national accountability
· No appeal mechanisms
· No liability for social consequences
Yet:
· Decisions affect food prices, water access, health policy, employment, currency stability, social unrest
Global governance today operates through a dual structure:
· Concentrated corporate ownership of essential resources
· Unelected international bodies that standardize, legitimize, and enforce policy environments favorable to that ownership
While neither formally rules states, together they exercise decisive influence over national policy space — without electoral mandate or democratic accountability.
How the Link Actually Operates
Step 1: Corporate Requirements
Transnational corporations require:
· Market access
· Price liberalization
· IP protection
· Resource privatization
· Legal predictability
· Profit repatriation
They cannot demand these directly from sovereign states.
Step 2: Translation into Global Frameworks
Unelected bodies convert these needs into:
· IMF structural reforms”
· World Bank project conditions
· WTO trade obligations
· WHO health standards
· OECD governance benchmarks
· ESG and climate compliance frameworks
Presented as: technical, best practice, neutral, inevitable.
Step 3: Enforcement through Access Control
Compliance enforced via access:
· Loans, aid, markets, capital, legitimacy
Non-compliance triggers:
· Loan suspension
· Downgrades
· Narrative pressure
· Investor withdrawal
· Sanctions groundwork
· Regime change/ousting
Step 4: Corporate Benefit
Once reforms implemented:
· Assets become purchasable
· Prices float
· IP is protected
· Contracts enforceable
· Profits repatriated
· Tax exposure minimized
| Corporate Interest | Global Body Mechanism | National Outcome |
| Cheap food sourcing | IMF subsidy removal | Farmer exposure |
| Water access | World Bank PPPs | Utility privatization |
| Drug pricing | WHO standards | Patent protection |
| Market access | WTO rules | Local industry loss |
| Capital mobility | Ratings agencies | Policy discipline |
| Data extraction | Global digital norms | Weak data sovereignty |
Unelected global bodies do not act on behalf of corporations by mandate, but their frameworks, conditions, and enforcement mechanisms consistently restructure national systems in ways that align with concentrated corporate interests — making resistance economically and diplomatically costly.
WHAT CITIZENS MUST UNDERSTAND — AND WHAT THEY MUST DEMAND OF THEIR NATIONAL LEADERS
This document exposes a structural reality, not a theory and not a temporary condition.
Modern governance no longer operates primarily through elections or visible authority.
It operates through control of access.
Whoever controls access to:
· Food
· Energy
· Finance
· Health systems
· Data
· Markets
· International legitimacy
controls the choices governments can make — regardless of who is elected.
Elections still occur, but policy space is increasingly pre-conditioned before leaders take office.
What Citizens MUST NOW Understand
· Governments today operate inside externally enforced constraints.
· Many reforms” are not voter-driven but condition-driven.
· Economic crises, austerity, privatization, subsidy removal, digital surveillance systems, and loss of sovereignty are designed outcomes, not isolated failures.
· Unelected global entities do not need to govern countries when they can discipline them through access, ratings, funding, and legitimacy.
This system does not announce itself.
It operates quietly, legally, and continuously.
What Citizens Must Expect — and Demand — From Aspiring Leaders
Citizens must stop voting on personalities, slogans, or promises detached from global reality.
Instead, every aspiring leader must be pressed to answer clearly:
· What external commitments bind the country?
· What IMF, World Bank, WTO, WHO, UN, ESG, or digital governance obligations will they accept or reject?
· What assets, resources, and policy areas are non-negotiable?
· Where will they comply — and where will they resist?
· What pressures are they prepared to withstand to protect sovereignty?
Silence is not neutrality. Silence is consent.
Leaders who refuse to disclose constraints are not protecting citizens — they are protecting the system that keeps them in power so long as they comply.
What Citizens Must Actively Demand
Citizens must demand:
1. Full transparency on all international agreements, loans, and conditionalities
2. Parliamentary and public oversight of global commitments
3. Non-negotiable protection of food, water, health, land, education, and data
4. Accountability for social harm caused by externally imposed reforms
5. Clear red lines that cannot be crossed for access or approval
A leader who willingly surrenders control over essentials via secret agreements is not representing the people, regardless of how popular they appear.
The Central Wake-Up Call
The greatest danger today is not dictatorship.
It is managed and staged democracy — where citizens vote, but do not decide.
A system where:
· Ownership is private (already the WEF is promoting notion own nothing & be happy” while they own everything)
· Rules are global (already private sector are stating water is not a human right)
· Accountability is absent
· Consequences are national
Unless citizens understand this structure, political change will remain cosmetic.
The Final Takeaway
Control today does not operate through ownership or elections — it operates through conditional access.
Whoever controls access controls policy.
Whoever accepts those conditions governs on behalf of the system — not the people.
This is why every Govt trying to nationalize” ends up facing ragime change.
Sovereignty survives only where:
· Citizens understand the ground reality
· Leaders are forced to disclose constraints
· And nations refuse to surrender control quietly
Awareness is the first act of resistance.
Demand is the second.
Copyright © 2026 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress