Category: News

The leftist “collective” National People’s Power (NPP) must encourage diversity within its ranks but its objective of capturing state power must remain intact and unwavering, according to K D Lal Kantha, who also said he was prepared to join an armed struggle if the need were ever to arise.

Lal Kantha is former parliamentarian who currently serves as a politburo member of the formerly revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist Janatha Vimukthi Peruman (JVP), the NPP’s controlling and largest constituent.

“There is nothing I love more than diversity. We have diversity here, but let’s maintain one objective. In order to achieve our objective, we must obtain state power. We cannot do it otherwise. The objective is that we want to build a good country and for that we need state power,” Lal Kantha said addressing a crowd of NPP supporters.

The former MP said that, since 1931, Sri Lankans have been changing governments through universal franchise.

“More than in any other country in Asia, the people in this country have a habit of using their power to vote. Besides that, there have been various attempts at armed struggle. I too have been part of armed struggles. If needed, I’m also ready to join one anytime. But that’s a separate discussion,” he said.

With the long overdue local government elections already postponed, said Lal Kantha, voters are now looking forward to presidential elections next year. They are excited to put an end to a “75-year curse” of successive governments led by the political mainstream and vote for the NPP, he said.

Former minister and now independent MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara, a veteran leftist and staunch ally of the Rajapaksa family, has said the JVP must lead the fight against the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-backed policies of the incumbent government, Lal Kantha claimed.

“He must note however that it is not the JVP. It is the NPP.”

Recognising what he called the ever-increasing diversity within the ranks of the NPP, Lal Kantha said the party’s objective must remain.

“Don’t send anyone away. The NPP is not one to reject but to include,” he said.

The former MP also intimated that the JVP, with its reputation for being a highly disciplined party that is noted for cleaning up after its rallies, must move on from that image in order to win, becoming a home for a wide assortment of people, even those who have a propensity to drunkenly litter at a rally.

“That’s when we will win,” he said.

Lal Kantha also called for sacrifice from the party membership.

“We must have unrelenting determination. There is a class of oppressors, enabling this 75-year curse. There must be some sacrifice. We can’t do this without sacrifice, without energy, without heroism.”

“We must have love for our oppressed class,” he said.

Parliamentarian Ali Sabry Raheem has been expelled from the All Ceylon Makkal Congress Party (ACMC), led by Rishad Bathiudeen, following a comprehensive inquiry initiated by the party’s Disciplinary Committee.

The decision to oust MP Ali Sabry Raheem from the party membership was made based on findings that his actions, involving gold and mobile phone smuggling, had brought disrepute to the ACMC. This conduct was deemed contrary to the expected behavior of an ACMC Member of Parliament and constituted a serious breach of party discipline.

Mr. M.S.S. Ameer Ali, Chairman of the ACMC, made this announcement, highlighting that Raheem’s actions had led to his expulsion from the party, and the notification of his expulsion was also sent to Mr. Naeemullah, Secretary General of the Muslim National Alliance (MNA). During the previous General Elections, MP Raheem contested under the MNA’s symbol as per the Electoral Agreement between the ACMC and MNA. The Chairman of the ACMC expressed hope that the Secretary General of MNA would promptly address this matter, as promised by him.

The JVP yesterday (06) strongly defended its right to address Sri Lankans and Americans of Sri Lankan origin living in the US.

Gampaha District Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) MP Vijitha Herath dismissed criticism directed at the party by various interested parties, both in and out of Parliament, over the visit undertaken by party leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The JVP-led JJB is represented by three MPs in Parliament.

“We maintain relationships with all countries. There cannot be any justification in questioning our right to meet US Ambassador in Colombo Julie Chung. We have had meetings with Ambassador Chung before President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster and after,” lawmaker Herath said.

MP Herath added that the party leader addressed meetings at Los Angeles, Houston, Boston, Norfolk, Washington and New York where he had an opportunity to interact with Sri Lankans. MP Dissanayake is expected to be back in Colombo this week.

Responding to The Island queries, those who had been trying to deceive the masses that there was a clandestine understanding between the JVP/JJB and the US Embassy here conveniently turned a blind eye to the growing relationship between the Parliament and the US.

Heads of Sectoral Oversight Committees of Parliament and a group of House officials recently visited the US on the invitation of the USAID, the JVPer said. Pointing out that there were number of other projects implemented by Parliament with the USAID funding, MP Herath questioned the rationale in attacking the JVP/JJB over maintaining cordial relations with the US.

MP Herath said that bankrupt political activists had sought to mislead the public by highlighting the display of US flag at meetings addressed by the JVP leader. The MP said that the American law prohibited the display of a national flag of any country on its soil unless the US flag, too, was displayed.

MP Herath said that the JVP/JJB received quite a significant response to MP Dissanayake’s appeal for the support of those living in the US.

Addressing his final meeting in New York on Nov. 06 at the Hilton Garden Inn, lawmaker Dissanayake emphasized that Sri Lanka now experienced an environment conducive for a political change. The continuing crisis has compelled the Rajapaksa camp to team up with UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as both camps struggled to contain the emerging popularity of the JJB, MP Dissanayake said.

The social crisis caused by the continuing political and economic upheaval had created a perfect environment for a much desired political changes, the JVP leader said, alleging that the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government would do everything in its power to thwart the JJB.

Acknowledging the immense power wielded by the government, the JJB, as the real Opposition, had to depend entirely on the people’s power to resist the government. MP Dissanayake said that though President Wickremesinghe made Local Government and Provincial Council polls to disappear, the presidential election couldn’t be put off under any circumstances. The JVP leader said that in terms of the Constitution, the presidential election has to be held before Oct. 17 next year and in case an attempt was made to put it off the people would come to the streets.

In spite of allegations by the Opposition parties about the government’s repeated efforts to amend the election laws including the appointment of a ten-member commission by President Ranil Wickremesinghe last month, indeed there is a genuine need for electoral reforms.

What is lacking in the government’s efforts is consistency which provokes suspicion among the people.
The need for electoral reforms arises out of provisions in laws including in the Constitution about elections – national as well as local – which have been proven to lead to corruption and situations against a level playing field during elections.

All remedial measures that have been taken to address the flaws in laws thus far have created new sets of flaws, primarily owing to chicanery and lack of political will to eradicate corruption in politics, on the part of the leaders of the governments of the day.

For instance, the Constitution states “President may, at any time after the expiration of four years from the commencement of his first term of office, by Proclamation, declare his intention of appealing to the people for a mandate to hold office, by election, for a further term.”
The very provision was brought in by former President J.R. Jayewardene through the 3rd Amendment to the Second Republican Constitution in August 1982 in order for him to contest the Presidential election in the absence of his main rival, Ms Sirima Bandaranaike, who had then been stripped of her civic rights for seven years by him.

This provision was then used by several other Presidents as well – even those who opposed that Amendment – to hold Presidential elections at a time when they thought favourable to them. Thus Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa called Presidential elections in 1999 and 2010 respectively. We do not have strictly fixed time frames for elections.

Provincial Councils could be dissolved by the government in power, through the respective governors to hold elections for them at a time they wish.

Thus, seven Provincial Councils outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces were dissolved by the governors in 1993 before them standing dissolved after their terms ended, as the then United National Party (UNP) government under President D.B. Wijetunge wanted to hold elections for them early.

Local Government elections can also be postponed at any time as the current government did last year, despite the law stipulating a term for them with a specific time frame. And the current stalemate concerning LG polls points to how toothless the Election Commission is before the powers of the Executive.

The government refused to provide funds for the Commission to hold elections on March 9 as it had declared, despite the Supreme Court having ordered not to withhold funds. Now those elections are out of sight.

President Wickremesinghe during the convention of his party, the UNP on October 21 announced that the Presidential and Parliamentary elections would be held next year followed by the Provincial elections in early 2025. The next Presidential election as per the Constitution has to be conducted between September 18 and October 18 next year, since President Gotabaya Rajapaksa assumed office on November 18, 2019.

However, the Elections Commission is empowered to conduct the General Election, unless the President prematurely dissolves the Parliament, only between June and July 2025. And the dissolution of the House could only be done four years and six months after the first session of the current Parliament, meaning only in February 2025. Parliament could be dissolved by a resolution passed by itself, but that too with two-thirds of majority votes being cast in favour of the resolution.

Therefore, it is not clear how the President predicted the General Election also being held next year. The government can do so only by amending the Constitution, but again with a special majority vote. We see throughout recent history governments in power, instead of the Elections Commission, deciding the time for elections, despite the law providing for the Commission to hold elections at specific intervals spelt out by the law.

This is unfair, unethical and against democracy. We need strictly fixed time frames for elections like those in the US which cannot be overridden by the Executive or the government.

Plaintiff Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd., (HRB) has recently filed a ‘Memorandum of Law in Response to the Statement of Interest and AMICUS Brief’ opposing the cross-motion to stay the defendant Government of Sri Lanka requested from US District Court, Southern District of New York.

In its Memorandum of Law, the HRB requests that the court deny the cross-motion to stay Sri Lanka wants, whereas, for decades, courts in the respective District have denied stay orders to defaulting sovereign debtors. The amicus brief of two other creditors, the Republic of France and the United Kingdom, filed in support of Sri Lanka, helps a stay request on the basis that entering judgment now could impede Sri Lanka’s voluntary debt restructuring with other creditors. But disagreeing with the amicus brief and stay request, the plaintiff held “the arguments remain wholly speculative, and fail to make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”

“First, both submissions ignore that a stay is unnecessary because this litigation is not impeding Sri Lanka’s restructuring in any way. Sri Lanka’s own State Minister of Finance stated on 11 August 2023, that its restructuring will be completed ‘without major concern’ from this litigation. Recently, Sri Lanka’s largest creditor, China, agreed to restructure $ 4.2 billion in debt, and the Ad Hoc Bondholders Group made its own restructuring proposal to Sri Lanka. The restructuring process is thus proceeding apace. And the Ad Hoc Bondholders Group’s restructuring proposal is structured as an exchange offer, meaning participation is purely voluntary; like other private creditors, Plaintiff is free not to participate and to seek full repayment on its Bonds. For these reasons, no stay is necessary,” held the Counsel for Plaintiff, Jenner & Block LLP in its Memorandum of Law.

The memorandum further argued that a stay is also unwarranted because the remaining challenges are complex geopolitical issues unrelated to this litigation and outside Plaintiff’s control. Highlighting two recent developments illustrating the complexity, the Counsel held in the memorandum, “In September 2023, the IMF denied Sri Lanka its second tranche of funding because it failed to meet its economic reform commitments, while concluding that Sri Lanka has ‘systematic and severe governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities across state functions.’ The fact that Sri Lanka failed to secure IMF funding for reasons entirely unrelated to this lawsuit counsels against a stay supposedly necessary to protect such funding.”

“Recent reports also demonstrate that China, not Hamilton or any other private bondholders, has been a major roadblock to Sri Lanka’s restructuring. China is Sri Lanka’s largest creditor with $ 7.3 billion in loans and reportedly would not negotiate with other creditors, such as India, to maximise its leverage. The Economist reported on 28 September that IMF ‘officials flew back from Colombo without releasing a dollar,’ and ‘the problem was two-fold: Sri Lanka’s tiny tax take and China, which is the country’s biggest creditor’. By refusing to take a haircut on its debts, China is holding up Sri Lanka’s restructuring, as it is in other indebted countries, too. There was no mention of Hamilton. China’s position is due in part to its strategic competition with India for influence in Asia. And as Sri Lankan President Wickremesinghe stated, we are caught in a geopolitical rivalry. While recent reports that China has agreed to restructure $ 4.2 billion in debt indicate progress, Plaintiff’s legal ‘rights cannot be put on hold pending geopolitical developments that may or may not come to pass, and which courts are ill-equipped to assess,” it added.

As the second and the third arguments, it is held that no actual holder of Sri Lanka’s International Sovereign Bonds has supported a stay or taken issue with this case. “If Hamilton truly were a cog in the wheel, other ISB holders would have supported a stay. And the other holders include sophisticated parties (such as Fidelity and BlackRock) who surely are aware of this lawsuit and know how to make their voices heard. By contrast, France and the United Kingdom are official creditors who do not hold ISBs and speak only for themselves. Far from being aligned with private creditors, these official creditors simply seek to delay this litigation and cannot deny that, as a competing class of creditors, it is in their economic self-interest to do so. The United States’ support for a stay breaks with four decades of precedent without any factual support, and thus should be accorded the lowest level of deference.”

For decades, the Second Circuit has cautioned courts against granting stays to foreign sovereign litigants based on indeterminate debt restructuring proceedings in the face of clear United States policy allowing creditors to recover on foreign debts. Although the United States advocates negotiations to effect debt reduction and continued lending to defaulting foreign sovereigns, it has long been the law that creditor participation must be on a strictly voluntary basis and debts must remain enforceable throughout the negotiations.

“There is no factual basis to depart from this precedent. The United States simply asserts in

conclusory fashion that a ‘stay would facilitate an orderly and consensual sovereign debt restructuring’, but offers no showing that Plaintiff has impeded Sri Lanka’s restructuring in any way or that entering judgment would do so. Nor does the United States show that any general interest in supporting a restructuring should outweigh Plaintiff’s specific, material interest in timely enforcing its Bonds. Because the United States’ position is based on the ‘identical, erroneous premise’ advanced by Sri Lanka, that a judgment could complicate a restructuring, despite no evidence that it will ‘considerably less deference is owed.’ Indeed, this Court has rejected similarly evidence-lacking arguments where, as here, the United States did not ‘contend that the lawsuit is frustrating or will frustrate United States foreign policy,” the Plaintiff’s Counsel asserted.

Further, in the past, the United States has argued that respecting private creditors’ contractual rights is critical to support future growth of indebted nations, and it does not explain how this time is different. As it cautioned in 1984, for the courts to try to dictate the terms of contractual agreements between debtors and private creditors would jeopardise the cooperation of private creditors in the future, which is critical to the economic growth of debtor countries. “Sri Lanka will surely need new financing to grow. But when Sri Lanka seeks to re-enter the international capital markets, what investor would lend to Sri Lanka if its debt cannot be timely enforced? Delaying the enforcement of Plaintiff’s contractual rights will simply increase Sri Lanka’s cost of capital and undermine New York’s status as a global financial centre,” the memorandum added.

Sri Lanka was sued in the United States by a bondholder after the government defaulted on its debt for the first time in history while struggling to stop an economic meltdown where HRB, owns over $ 250 million in principal amount of $ 1 billion worth of Sri Lanka’s 5.86% International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) issued in 2012, filed the lawsuit in June last year in a New York federal court seeking full payment of principal and interest. The Bonds matured on 25 July 2022. Hamilton alleged that due to Sri Lanka’s default, it is owed $ 250.19 million in principle and $ 7.35 million in accrued interest (before accounting for pre-and post-judgement interest). Sri Lanka in mid-April announced a moratorium on foreign debt repayments, including the Bonds and since then has made no payments on the Bonds. The government of Sri Lanka filed a motion in September 2022 to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks contractual standing.