{"id":154831,"date":"2026-02-21T06:32:03","date_gmt":"2026-02-21T13:32:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=154831"},"modified":"2026-02-22T17:25:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-23T00:25:09","slug":"the-eelam-war-is-civil-war-pt-1b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2026\/02\/21\/the-eelam-war-is-civil-war-pt-1b\/","title":{"rendered":"THE \u201cEELAM WAR\u201d\u00a0 IS\u00a0 CIVIL WAR\u00a0\u00a0 PT 1B"},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Revised 22.2.26<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1976<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 1995<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then  Singarasa went to  the UN Human Rights Committee<\/a> (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<\/a> regarding  violations of the Covenant by a State Party. Therefore he was eligible.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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 \u2018not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt\u2019.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 30 July 2004  UNHRC held in favor of the petitioner and recommended that the Sri Lankan state should provide Singarasa with \u2018an effective and appropriate remedy, including release or retrial and compensation\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Armed with this ruling, Singarasa\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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.<\/em> We should never have signed  Optional Protocol, concluded Sarath Silva .[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2013<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2013 Five organizations, namely  Patriotic National Movement, Patriotic Buddhist  Forum, Swarna Hansa Foundation, Buddhist  Way Organization and Jaffna Buddhist Association[4]<\/a> 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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a> There must be shared sovereignty . Ven Bengamuwe Nalaka  and Gunadasa Amarasekera were associated with this petition.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a>The manifesto spoke of   the  \u2018Tamil speaking North-East\u2019 ,  and the need for a  merged north east province based on a federal structure. [10]<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2014a<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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]<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong> ITAK in reply said that they are not trying to set up a separate state in Sri Lanka. [12]<\/a>They want a federal state. [13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a>  These parties did not support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka,\u201d they said.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/em>The petitioner    had focused on a section of the party\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2008 the word \u2018federal\u2019 was replaced with \u2018confederation,\u2019 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\u201d with the pure Tamil inaippadchi.\u201d  The Official Languages Commission agreed with  this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018people,\u2019 inside the country,\u201d the judges said. The judges dismissed Chandrasoma\u2019s petition .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tamil Separatist Movement called this a landmark judgment. The court had no necessity to go  so far in this particular case,\u201d they said. But they did[16]<\/a> . 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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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,\u201d said  M.A.Sumanthiran.[18]<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u201d form of government, rather than a confederation.\u201d    We need to be careful,\u201d  he said.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 2014b<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioner said that on  17th<\/sup> 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 \u2018genocide\u2019 and \u2018colonization\u2019 by the Sinhalese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said that The 3rd <\/sup>\u2013 35th<\/sup> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the said letter the 3rd<\/sup> \u2013 35th<\/sup> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong> requesting a court to issue  a Writ of Mandamus to compel action by the Sri Lankan authorities on this matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A fuller account of the complaint and the argument challenging the  letter  to Geneva can be found at https:\/\/island.lk\/ontarios-bill-104-tamil-genocide-education-or-miseducation-week\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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..[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 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 \u2018genocide\u2019 and \u2018colonization\u2019 the rest of the world will  believe these  lies. We must congratulate and commend Ravindra Nirosha for his brave action,  said Shenali Waduge.[24]<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2016<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2019we 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  . [25]<\/a> ( continued)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/sangam.org\/g-g-ponnambalam-1902-1977-his-power-and-plight-as-a-tamil-leader\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Interview with Sarath Silva. Sunday Island .11.10.15 p 11  https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=43453<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>  CA Chandraprema island  13.9.16 p  8   https:\/\/srilankatwo.wordpress.com\/2016\/09\/17\/basls-attempt-to-undermine-the-supreme-court-and-parliament\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Island 18.9.13 p 1  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Daily News 22.11.16  p 11 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Daily News 5.9.13 p 1  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Island 11.12. 13 p 1 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Island 22.9.12 p 1  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Daily News 22.11.16  p 11  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Daily News 19.2.16 p 2  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Island 19.2.16 p 3 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Daily News 22.11.16  p 11  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Daily News 19.2.16 p 2  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Neville Ladduwahetty Island 25.8.17 p 10  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Daily News 20.9.17 p 4  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Nirmala Chandrahasan Island 28.9.17 p 9  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Daily News 20.9.17 p 4  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Daily News 20.9.17 p 4 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Rajan Philips Sunday Island 20.8.17 p 10<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Neville Ladduwahetty Island 25.8.17 p 10 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> darshan Weerasekera  9.12.21 https:\/\/island.lk\/ontarios-bill-104-tamil-genocide-education-or-miseducation-week\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> darshan Weerasekera  9.12.21 https:\/\/island.lk\/ontarios-bill-104-tamil-genocide-education-or-miseducation-week\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a>   https:\/\/www.onlanka.com\/news\/sri-lanka-public-litigation-case-filed-against-tna-for-genocide-colonization-claim.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Daily News 22.11.16  p 11  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS Revised 22.2.26 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kamalika-pieris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154831"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154831\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":154855,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154831\/revisions\/154855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}