The repeated declaration made by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and other leaders of the National People’s Power (NPP) Government – that their policy is to treat all communities equally and that they will never again allow racism and religious extremism to rear their heads – has now faced a real test in the form of the controversy involving Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera.

In southern Sri Lankan politics, the Gnanasara issue is not merely a legal action concerning an individual Buddhist monk; rather, it has turned into a crucial testing ground that will determine Sri Lanka’s democratic future and the rule of law.

The controversy erupted following an incident where, in accordance with the regulations of the Prisons Department that had been in practice until now, Gnanasara Thera’s saffron robe was removed and he was brought to court from prison dressed in ordinary clothes.

It is said that the authority to disrobe a monk or strip them of their monkhood rests solely with the monk himself, if he chooses to do so of his own free will, or, according to Buddhist codes of conduct, with the Sanga Sabha comprising the Mahanayaka Theras – the heads of the highest Buddhist chapters.

Accusing the prison officials of disrespecting the Buddhasasana by removing Gnanasara Thera’s saffron robe, members of the Maha Sangha demanded that he be allowed to wear the robe whenever he is brought out of prison to court.

Objecting to the manner in which Gnanasara Thera was treated, the Mahanayaka Theras of all four main Buddhist chapters collectively wrote a letter to the Commissioner General of Prisons. Following this, President Dissanayake, along with the Ministers of Buddhasasana and Justice, met and held talks with senior clergy from the three nikayas at his secretariat on 8 October.

During that meeting, the President firmly stated that he would not issue unlawful orders for the sake of a single individual or under pressure from any organisation, and that his personal preferences could not become the law of the country.

While President Dissanayake’s declaration before a delegation of the Maha Sangha – stating that not even the Executive President had the authority to break the law, which is equal to all – was widely praised, his announcement that a committee would be appointed within two weeks to review the existing prison laws and regulations regarding Buddhist monks simultaneously sparked criticism that he had succumbed to pressure from the Maha Sangha.

A welcome stance

It is necessary to analyse both these perspectives impartially against the historical backdrop of Sri Lankan heads of State traditionally acting in alignment with the wishes and preferences of the Maha Sangha.

If the President had issued an arbitrary order violating the law currently in force, it could have been described as blatant capitulation. However, attempting to legally amend the colonial-era Prisons Ordinance in line with modern requirements, without harming the traditions of the Buddhasasana, cannot be viewed as submission.

Why should President Dissanayake’s remarks to the Maha Sangha delegation not be seen as a courageous first step towards changing the long-standing culture of bending the law through political or religious influence? His statement that new amendments and regulations should neither target nor grant special privileges to any specific monk, and that they would be created as general rules for the entire prison system, is a welcome stance rejecting concessions for individual political gain.

Following the President’s announcement that a committee would be appointed within two weeks, a committee tasked with reviewing the laws and regulations governing prisons submitted its interim report to the President’s Secretary in less than a week, on 14 October.

Subsequently, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara announced that the Government was considering altering regulations governing the treatment of imprisoned monks, including their right to wear saffron robes when taken outside prison.

The monks’ challenge

There is little doubt that President Dissanayake’s explanation of the principle that ‘everyone is equal before the law,’ given during the meeting at the Presidential Secretariat, would have angered many monks.

Their actions lead one to suspect whether a considerable section of Buddhist monks have misunderstood the Constitution, which accords Buddhism the foremost place and states that it is the duty of the Sri Lankan State to protect and foster the Buddhasasana, to mean that they are above the law and that governments must do whatever they dictate.

A section of Buddhist monks, whose duty is to follow and teach the public the doctrine of the Buddha – the very epitome of peace – behave outrageously in public spaces. Such conduct on their part was again on display during the protest held a few days ago in front of the Presidential Secretariat at Galle Face, Colombo.

The protest, which initially began against prison officials who disrobed Gnanasara Thera and brought him to court in civilian clothes, eventually turned into a movement demanding his immediate release. The Justice for the Robe – Freedom March, launched by a group of monks near the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy on 10 October, reached the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo on its sixth day.

The objective of these monks was to bend the Government to their will in the Gnanasara affair. Some even issued a deadline to the President’s Secretary, demanding a response from the President within 10 minutes on whether Gnanasara Thera would be granted a pardon and released.

However, the Government stood firm without ceding to their demands, maintaining that action could only be taken according to the law. At the end of a three-day siege in front of the Presidential Secretariat, the monks and their supporters were compelled to dismantle their tents and disperse after a court injunction was issued. Later, a section of them staged a satyagraha protest at Viharamahadevi Park.

Govt. holds firm

Since Gnanasara Thera was re-arrested only after the presidential pardon granted to him by former President Maithripala Sirisena was annulled by the court, the Government’s position remains that legal procedures will be strictly followed. While President Dissanayake reiterated that he could not act outside the law or overstep his boundaries, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya stated that only the court could handle the Gnanasara matter.

Minister K.D. Lalkantha stated that neither the President nor the Government would make a decision to release Gnanasara Thera. Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa emphasised that the law would be implemented equally for everyone regardless of political power or social status, and that the Government was not prepared to amend or bend the law to grant privileges to any individual. The Government remains firm in its position.

Setting up tents in front of the Presidential Secretariat and staging a siege does not automatically turn every demonstration into an Aragalaya (people’s struggle). The underlying causes behind protests are what determine the public’s support for them.

Repeating a dangerous game

Meanwhile, the Gnanasara issue has exposed that Opposition parties in southern Sri Lanka are relying primarily on racism and religious extremism to mobilise forces against the NPP.

To the question of whether religious leaders are above civil law, the answer in any democratic system in the world is ‘no’. The fundamental constitutional right that ‘all are equal before the law’ applies equally to a monk or priest as it does to a common citizen.

Southern politicians showed a keen interest in turning the Gnanasara issue into a weapon for narrow political gain. Inciting communalism and religious extremism to seize power has long been a well-worn tactic of politicians in Sri Lanka’s history. The country ultimately reaped the harvest of racism in the form of a brutal three-decade-long civil war.

Southern Opposition parties and extremist organisations have once again taken up a similar dangerous game today. As legal actions against corruption and irregularities intensify – unmasking several political figures from the past – they are using religious sentiments as a shield to protect themselves and regain public support.

Attempting to create a false narrative that ‘religion is in danger’ based on the robes of a convicted religious leader and trying to incite unrest among the public pose a grave threat to the country’s peace. Sri Lankan society must not forget the lessons learnt from the bitter experiences of the past. People must understand the selfish political motives behind the politicians who urge them to take to the streets in the name of religion and nationalism.

Upholding justice and strengthening the rule of law are the hallmarks of a civilised society. People must act with restraint and awareness, without giving space to forces seeking to reignite the fires of racism and religious extremism for short-term political benefits. Instead of resorting to emotional criticisms, supporting actions that reinforce the rule of law is what will pave the way for sustainable peace in the country.

Those concerned with ensuring that racism and religious extremism do not rise again must certainly express their solidarity with President Dissanayake’s stance on the controversy created by the Gnanasara issue.

However, in this matter, the President and the Government – who claim to be striving to protect the rule of law and the principle that all are equal before the law – must summon the political courage to take a similarly firm stance on the numerous issues affecting minority communities as a necessity of the times.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)

Source:The Morning.LK

The Sri Lankan government’s proposed new counterterrorism legislation allows wide scope for abuse and poses serious threats to human rights, Amnesty International has said in a legal analysis.

Despite some improvements on the previous white paper of the law issued in late 2025, the Protection of the State from Terrorism bill, which will replace the repressive and long-standing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), retains an overly broad and ambiguous definition of terrorism that leaves room for arbitrary interpretation and the potential criminalization of dissent, protest, and the activities of civil society organisations.

The bill, which was tabled on 6 October, is now before the Supreme Court to check its compatibility with Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Depending on the Supreme Court’s determination, the law is set to be debated by Sri Lanka’s parliament in the coming weeks.

“Any attempt to revise a counterterror law which has time and time again been weaponised by the authorities against dissent, government critics, and minorities must be given the utmost scrutiny. The new bill must break with this legacy of abuse, not give the authorities new tools to silence dissent,” said Smriti Singh, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

“Sri Lanka’s history of abusing such legislation makes robust, enforceable safeguards essential, and these remain inadequately addressed in the bill, sparking serious human rights concerns.”

In addition to the overbroad definition of terrorism, the bill permits detention for up to one year without charge, alongside the possibility of up to one year of pretrial detention – a cumulation of two years in detention even before the start of a trial. This breaches the right to be free from arbitrary detention, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

“Allowing a person to be detained for up to a year before being charged, with the prospect of a further year in pretrial detention, raises grave concerns about arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. No one should have to spend years in detention while the state delays bringing a case to trial,” said Smriti Singh.

“We urge Sri Lanka’s parliament to withdraw this bill and reform the law in line with international human rights law and standards. Until this is done, the PTA should not be misused further.”

Amnesty International is calling on Sri Lanka’s authorities to reform the law using key benchmarks provided to Sri Lanka by UN special rapporteurs to enable substantive reform of the PTA.

The bill’s definition of terrorism is narrower compared with the bill’s earlier draft and incorporates additional safeguards. For example, the initial draft criminalized certain acts done with the purpose of “infringing on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka”, without a clear definition of what would constitute such intent. This has been removed in the updated bill, which is welcome.

However, Amnesty International is concerned that the offence of terrorism, as drafted in the bill, remains too broad and falls below the standards required under international law.

Firstly, section 3(4) of the bill does not expressly exclude protests, advocacy, dissent, industrial action, or humanitarian and medical assistance from the scope of terrorism offences. Instead, it merely states that such conduct is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the required elements of an offence. This caveat falls short of a clear safeguard as it leaves room for broad interpretation. The law should clearly state that protected activities, such as protests and advocacy, cannot be treated as terrorism offences.

Secondly, Amnesty International does not consider that offences only causing a “likelihood” of “substantial economic loss”, as laid down in the new bill, meet the high hurt threshold required for an offence to constitute terrorism.

The tabled bill introduces various new safeguards compared to the 2025 white paper. These include judicial oversight of any attempt by the Executive to proscribe an organization and the establishment of a review committee to examine the legality of detention orders. However, the committee’s members will be appointed by the Minister of Defence, a member of the cabinet, raising serious questions about its independence.

“A review committee appointed by a minister cannot provide the necessary assurance of independent scrutiny of detention orders. It is the criminal justice system, with the safeguards of a fair criminal trial, that should determine whether a person is guilty of a crime and should be sentenced,” said Smriti Singh.

Other human rights concerns around the bill raised previously by Amnesty International remain. These include the extension of police powers to armed forces and coast guards; as well as provisions permitting the Attorney General, with High Court approval, to defer prosecutions or suspend trials for up to 20 years in certain cases. Rather than proceeding to trial, suspects may agree to conditions such as apologies or reparations, while remaining exposed to the prospect of prosecution for decades. This raises concerns regarding accountability, victims’ right to justice, and the right of accused persons to legal certainty and a timely determination of criminal charges.

Acting on a Defence Ministry directive, the military has handed over 6.97 acres of land at Keppapilavu, Mullaitivu District, to Divisional Secretary of Maritimepattu.

The Defence Ministry said that the handover was in line with the government’s policy of releasing lands used by security forces, except those required for essential national security purposes, and returning them to their rightful owners and for public use.

The long-standing friendship between Sri Lanka and China could soon enter an exciting new chapter, with fresh discussions focusing on everything from Buddhist education and cinema to literature and cultural heritage preservation.

A special meeting between Wei Huaxiang, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Sri Lanka, and Dr. Hiniduma Sunil Senevi, Minister of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, was held at the ministry premises yesterday, where both sides explored new avenues to strengthen religious and cultural cooperation between the two countries.

Against the backdrop of centuries-old historical and cultural links, the talks centered on expanding exchanges that could bring tangible benefits to students, artists, academics and cultural institutions in both nations.

Among the key proposals discussed were the introduction of film exchange programmes between Sri Lanka and China, creating opportunities for audiences in both countries to experience each other’s cinematic achievements while expanding cultural understanding through the arts.

The discussions also focused on providing scholarships for Sri Lankan students to pursue Buddhist studies in China, a move that could further strengthen educational and spiritual ties between the two nations while creating new academic pathways for local scholars.

Officials additionally exchanged views on the translation and exchange of literary works, opening the door for greater access to the rich literary traditions of both countries and helping cultural knowledge cross linguistic boundaries.