THE “EELAM WAR” IS CIVIL WAR PT 1B
Posted on February 21st, 2026
KAMALIKA PIERIS
Anti Eelamists have tried sporadically to crush the Tamil Separatist Movement by taking the Tamil Separatist Movement to court. The first recorded instance is in 1976.
1976
On May 21, 1976 ITAK leader A. Amirthalingam, along with Federal Party MPs V.N.Navaratnam, K.P.Ratnam, K.Thurairatnam were delivering leaflets in Jaffna , regarding a political event, when they were arrested by the Jaffna police on the charge of possessing and distributing seditious literature. Sivasithamparam was released but the others were taken to Colombo to be tried for sedition.
When the case came up on December 10, 1976, Attorney General Siva Pasupati said that the Government will not be proceeding with the case against the four FP leaders relating to the possession and distribution of seditious literature. After retirement, Pasupati moved to Australia and served as a legal advisor for the LTTE .[1]
1995
The Nallaratnam Singarasa v. The Attorney General case, popularly known as the Singarasa case. In 1995 Nallaratnam Singarasa was convicted by the High Court on five charges that he, between 1 May 1990 and 31 December 1991 together with LTTE leaders like Sornam and Pottu Amman, conspired to overthrow the lawfully elected government by attacking Army camps in Jaffna Fort, Palaly and Kankesanturai. Five Supreme Court judges heard the case. Singarasa was sentenced to 50 years rigorous imprisonment.
Singarasa appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his case ,but they reduced his sentence to 35 years rigorous imprisonment. Singarasa then sought special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal .Supreme Court refused leave to appeal .
Then Singarasa went to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in Geneva. Sri Lanka had acceded to Optional Protocol 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which permits individuals to submit communications to the UNHRC regarding violations of the Covenant by a State Party. Therefore he was eligible.
Singarasa claimed that Article 14(1) of the ICCPR which guarantees the right of persons facing criminal charges to a fair hearing had been infringed because he had been convicted on the sole basis of his alleged confession, which had not been made voluntarily. Singarasa also argued that reliance on his confession, amounts to a violation of his rights under Article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR which said that accused must ‘not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt’.
On 30 July 2004 UNHRC held in favor of the petitioner and recommended that the Sri Lankan state should provide Singarasa with ‘an effective and appropriate remedy, including release or retrial and compensation’.
Armed with this ruling, Singarasa’s lawyers filed an application in the Supreme Court on 16 August 2005 for revision of the SC judgment of 28 January 2000 ,to dismiss the conviction and sentence imposed on him.
The case was heard in 2006 before a five-member bench consisting of Chief Justice Sarath N Silva , Justices Nihal Jayasinghe, N.K. Udalagama, N.E. Dissanayake and Gamini Amaratunga. The case was thrown out on the grounds that the laws of Sri Lanka did not recognize the authority of the UNHRC and also that the signing of the Optional Protocol was illegal.
Supreme Court said international treaties entered into by the Government of Sri Lanka, had to be passed into law by the Sri Lanka Parliament before they could come into effect. There is no automatic incorporation of UN declarations.
Court added that Article 2(2) of the ICCPR recognizes this and calls on the states joining the Covenant to pass laws in its legislature, to give effect to the rights recognized in the ICCPR. Sri Lanka has not passed such a law therefore rulings of the UNHRC have no legal standing in Sri Lanka.
Supreme Court observed that though President Chandrika Kumaratunga had signed the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR in 1997 , the President did not have the power to do so. That power was vested in Parliament and the people at a referendum.
When Sri Lanka signed the ICCPR in 1980, the government deliberately refrained from signing Optional Protocol No 1, said Sarath Silva. But President Chandrika signed the Optional Protocol in 1997 on the advice of a Human Rights Group. The Attorney General was not consulted. We should never have signed Optional Protocol, concluded Sarath Silva .[2]
The media reported In 2016 that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) planned to file papers in the Supreme Court, seeking a revision of the judgment in Singarasa case. C.A. Chandraprema commented on this move. it is not possible to overturn the judgment delivered on 15 September 2006 in the Singarasa case without very serious and far reaching constitutional implications, he said.
Any attempt on the part of the BASL to move the Supreme Court to accept the ruling of the UNHRC will undermine the legislative authority of Parliament and also the authority of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land.
Instead of asking the government to pass the necessary laws to give legal effect to the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR , why is the BASL trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment given in the Singarasa case, he asked. [3]
2013
In 2013 Five organizations, namely Patriotic National Movement, Patriotic Buddhist Forum, Swarna Hansa Foundation, Buddhist Way Organization and Jaffna Buddhist Association[4] went to court against Illankai Thamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) and Tamil National Alliance (TNA) election manifestos for the Northern Provincial Council election of 2013. [5]
The Patriotic National Movement filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking the annulment of the TNA manifesto. The manifesto said the Tamils were a distinct people who had been in Sri Lanka since time immemorial. They needed control over land, police and fiscal matters. The North and East must be merged.[6] There must be shared sovereignty . Ven Bengamuwe Nalaka and Gunadasa Amarasekera were associated with this petition.[7]
Swarnahansa padanama petitioned Supreme Court that the TNA, TULF, TELO and EPRF were all aimed at establishing a separate state within the territory of Sri Lanka. This is against the sovereignty of Sri Lanka.[8]
Petitioners said that during the NPC elections the ITAK and TNA distributed election manifestos among voters that said that ITAK and TNA are planning to form a separate state in Sri Lanka.[9]The manifesto spoke of the ‘Tamil speaking North-East’ , and the need for a merged north east province based on a federal structure. [10]
2014a
In 2014, Hikkadu Koralalage Don Chandrasoma, a resident of Kelaniya, filed a petition in the Supreme Court claiming that the “aims” and “objects” of ITAK was to establish a separate state. Hikkadu Koralalage Don Chandrasoma vs. Mawai S. Senathirajah (SC no. 03/2014)
The petitioners said that in the absence of an explicit statement in the ITAK constitution that it did not have the goal of carving out a separate state, it could be inferred that ITAK wanted a separate state. Supreme Court was asked to confirm this.[11] ITAK in reply said that they are not trying to set up a separate state in Sri Lanka. [12]They want a federal state. [13]
The three-Judge Bench, including Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, said in their determination that advocating for a federal form of government by devolving more powers to the provinces within the framework of a unitary state could not be seen as advocating separatism”. [14] These parties did not support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka,” they said.[15]
The petitioner had focused on a section of the party’s constitution to build up his case. The petitioner pointed out that the English translation of the ITAK constitution reads: The objective of this party is to establish political, economic and cultural liberation among the Tamil speaking people by way of forming an autonomous Tamil Government as part of the united federal Sri Lanka in accordance with the principles of self – determination.”
In 2008 the word ‘federal’ was replaced with ‘confederation,’ which means an alliance between separate and sovereign states. ITAK said that the petitioner had misunderstood the Tamil word in question. In 2008, the Party had replace the Sanskritized samashdi” with the pure Tamil inaippadchi.” The Official Languages Commission agreed with this.
The petitioner acknowledged that the Tamil word did not meant confederation but stated that that the very act of advocating for self-determination in itself involved attaining an independent state.
The court sided with ITAK. It is clear that the right to self-determination has had an internal dimension, in that, it could be exercised within the country to the benefit of a ‘people,’ inside the country,” the judges said. The judges dismissed Chandrasoma’s petition .
Tamil Separatist Movement called this a landmark judgment. The court had no necessity to go so far in this particular case,” they said. But they did[16] . This landmark judgment has removed the suspicion that the very word federal seemed to evoke .It is, therefore, a fortuitous and welcome decision said Nirmala Chandrahasan .[17]
The significance of the judgement is that it says it is not illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional to claim to have a system of government based on a federal form, based on the principle of right to self-determination and shared sovereignty,” said M.A.Sumanthiran.[18]
Professor K. Guruparan, head of the Department of Law at the University of Jaffna, thought otherwise. He thought it is was humiliating for a political party to have to go to Supreme Court and say they are not advocating secession, instead of proudly asserting their right to self determination.Further Court had taken great pains to make sure the ITAK was promoting a federal” form of government, rather than a confederation.” We need to be careful,” he said.[19]
Rajan Philips observed that Appeal Court has reversed judgments of original court decisions . They did so in the case of citizenship of the Tamils of Indian origin (the Kodakan Pillai case of the early 1950s), and the linguistic status of Tamil public servants ( Kodeswaran case of the 1960s). There is also the dissenting Supreme Court judges in the 13th Amendment constitutional case, and the decision in the North-East merger case .[20]
Neville Ladduwahetty said that this judgment , should be scrutinized otherwise it may be used as a precedent. He observed that the section of the manifesto cited in the judgment does not contain the term “federal” to start with. Article 2 of the Sri Lankan Constitution states that Sri Lanka is a unitary state and Article 3 states that sovereignty is inalienable, If so, how could sovereignty be shared. Therefore it is a contradiction to speak of a federal form of government existing within a unitary state .[21]
2014b
In 2014, P G Ravindra Nirosha of Nugegoda went to courts regarding a letter sent by the Tamil Separatist Movement to Geneva. He filed a case in the Court of Appeal in September 2014, Polwatta Gallage Niroshan v. Inspector General of Police, Members of the Northern Provincial Council and others, CA/writ/332/2014.
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General to take action against members of the then Northern Provincial Council who had signed a letter, forwarded to the UN Human Rights High Commissioner, alleging genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka.[22]
Petitioner said that on 17th August 2014 28 Members of the Northern Provincial Council and 5 members of the Eastern Provincial Council had sent a letter to Navaneethan Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights alleging ‘genocide’ and ‘colonization’ by the Sinhalese.[23]
He said that The 3rd – 35th Respondents, 28 of whom are members of the Northern Provincial Council and five are members of the Eastern Provincial Council, are signatories to a letter sent to the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navinetham Pillay, titled, Joint letter by members of the Northern Provincial Council and Eastern Provincial Council, 17 August 2014.” .[24]
In the said letter the 3rd – 35th Respondents request the former UN Human Rights High Commissioner to acquaint her successor, as well as the investigating panel presently investigating Sri Lanka, with the matters contained in the letter.[25]
The letter saidThe Tamil people strongly believe that they have been, and continue to be subject to Genocide by Sri Lanka. The Tamils were massacred in groups, their temples and churches were bombed. Systematic Sinhalese settlements and demographic changes with the intent to destroy the Tamil Nation are taking place. We request the OHCHR investigative team to look into the pattern of all the atrocities against the Tamil people and to determine if Genocide has taken place”.
Ravindra Nirosh has complained to Court of Appeal regarding this letter. He says that the IGP and the Attorney General have failed to enforce the provisions of the Penal Code against this group. He has filed a petition requesting a court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel action by the Sri Lankan authorities on this matter.
The Court declined to take up the case on technical grounds, namely, that the petitioner had failed to file a police complaint. The petitioner, a humble three-wheeler driver, did not have the financial wherewithal to pursue the matter further, observed Darshan Weerasekera who was the counsel in the case..[26]
P G Ravindra Nirosha has come forward to bravely ask questions that the public want to ask but the media and international propagandists have made them to feel they are in the wrong. When the authorities do not take action on these false accusations of ‘genocide’ and ‘colonization’ the rest of the world will believe these lies. We must congratulate and commend Ravindra Nirosha for his brave action, said Shenali Waduge.[27]
2016
In 2016 five petitions were made to Supreme Court challenging the legality of the 2013 election manifesto present by ITAK and TNA during the previous North Provincial Councils elections. Petitioners also said that during the NPC elections the ITAK and TNA distributed election manifestos among voters indicating that ITAK and TNA are in the process of planning to form a separate state in Sri Lanka
ITAK and TNA have in reply said that they are not trying to set up a separate state in Sri Lanka. Both parties have publicly said that they want federalism. TNA has stated in the manifesto ’we as a people would thus be concerned about our historical habitats, our option to determine what is best for us to ensure self government in the Tamil speaking north and east of Sri Lanka within a united Sri Lanka . [28] ( continued)
[1] https://sangam.org/g-g-ponnambalam-1902-1977-his-power-and-plight-as-a-tamil-leader/
[2] Interview with Sarath Silva. Sunday Island .11.10.15 p 11 https://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/?p=43453
[3] CA Chandraprema island 13.9.16 p 8 https://srilankatwo.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/basls-attempt-to-undermine-the-supreme-court-and-parliament/
[4] Island 18.9.13 p 1
[5] Daily News 22.11.16 p 11 .
[6] Daily News 5.9.13 p 1 .
[7] Island 11.12. 13 p 1 .
[8] Island 22.9.12 p 1 .
[9] Daily News 22.11.16 p 11 .
[10] Daily News 19.2.16 p 2 .
[11] Island 19.2.16 p 3 .
[12] Daily News 22.11.16 p 11 .
[13] Daily News 19.2.16 p 2 .
[14] Neville Ladduwahetty Island 25.8.17 p 10 .
[15] Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .
[16] Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .
[17] Nirmala Chandrahasan Island 28.9.17 p 9 .
[18] Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .
[19] Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .
[20] Rajan Philips Sunday Island 20.8.17 p 10
[21] Neville Ladduwahetty Island 25.8.17 p 10 .
[22] darshan Weerasekera island 9.12.21 p 6 modern used no 28
[23] Shenali Waduge https://www.onlanka.com/news/sri-lanka-public-litigation-case-filed-against-tna-for-genocide-colonization-claim.html
[24] darshan Weerasekera island 9.12.21 p 6 modern used no 28
[25] darshan Weerasekera island 9.12.21 p 6 modern used no 28
[26] Darshan Weerasekera island 9.12.21 p 6
[27] https://www.onlanka.com/news/sri-lanka-public-litigation-case-filed-against-tna-for-genocide-colonization-claim.html
[28] Daily News 22.11.16 p 11 .