The seven agreements signed between Sri Lanka and India during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the country will be made public once the Indian Government grants its consent, Ceylon Today learns from highly placed government sources.

A clause within these agreements requires mutual consent from both countries before any third-party disclosure can be made, which has been cited as the reason for the current lack of transparency. As a result, even individuals who attempted to obtain these documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016, have been denied access, a government spokesperson said.

Ceylon Today’s sister paper, Mawbima, also made an inquiry through the Right to Information Act to the Presidential Secretariat via the RTI Unit of the Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI), requesting copies of these agreements. However, the response received stated that the relevant agreements are not available at the Presidential Secretariat. The response, sent under the signature of Senior Additional Secretary to the President, G.G.S.C. Roshan, stated that the reason for this is that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake had not signed those agreements.

The exchange of the seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) took place at the Presidential Secretariat on 5 April, in the presence of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The MoUs cover a range of sectors including Energy, Digitalisation, Defence, Health, and Development Assistance.

According to a press release from the President’s Media Division (PMD), the agreements involve collaboration on establishing a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electricity interconnection for power trade, exchanging grassroots-level digital solutions to support digital transformation, cooperation in developing Trincomalee as an energy hub, strengthening defence ties, and improving pharmaceutical and medical services. They also include joint efforts on a multi-sectoral development support initiative in the Eastern Province.

Sri Lankan signatories to these MoUs included Secretary to the Ministry of Power and Energy Prof. K.T.M. Udayanga Hemapala, Secretary to the Ministry of Digital Economy Varuna Sri Dhanapala, Defence Secretary (Retired) Air Vice Marshal H.S. Sampath Thuyacontha, and Health and Media Ministry Secretary Specialist Dr. Anil Jasinghe. Representing India were Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Santosh Jha, and UAE Ambassador to Sri Lanka Khaled Nasser Al Ameri.

Following the signing, several political parties and civil society organisations called on the Government to make the contents of the agreements public. Criticism has emerged over the lack of Cabinet or Attorney General’s review prior to the signing. Opposition MPs have urged the Government to table the agreements in Parliament. In response, Foreign Affairs Minister Vijitha Herath stated that under the 2016 RTI Act, anyone could request these documents.

Despite this, media outlets, including BBC Sinhala and other entities that submitted formal requests to public authorities, have yet to receive the requested information. In some cases, officials redirected requests to the respective line ministries, but none have responded within the RTI-mandated timeframe.

Meanwhile, a former Secretary to the President and Defence Secretary, Austin Fernando, commented that Minister Vijitha Herath’s claim — that the agreements can be obtained under the RTI Act — was being used as a tactic to delay public disclosure. He added that Section 5 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act permits public authorities to deny access to information related to national security, State security, and international agreements, which may be the legal basis for the refusals.

Fernando, speaking to the media, pointed out the historical context, noting that in previous instances — such as when President J.R. Jayewardene signed the Indo-Lanka Accord and when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe signed a ceasefire agreement — the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) had criticised the lack of public disclosure, arguing it posed a threat to national security and territorial integrity. He suggested the current delays may be viewed similarly.

Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa has also confirmed that bilateral consent is required for the publication of these agreements.

According to the same Government sources, Sri Lanka has now formally requested India’s consent to release the agreements, and once approval is granted, the documents will be tabled in Parliament.

Source:Ceylon Today

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, is expected to visit Sri Lanka later this month. This will be an important visit as he will be seeking to assess the progress that the new government has made in implementing resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Commission which his office facilitates. The last such visit was by former High Commissioner Al Hussein in February 2016, during the period of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. At that time the relations between the Sri Lankan government and the UN Human Rights High Commissioner’s office were mutually supportive as the Sri Lankan government had co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1 which specifically included international participation in the transitional justice process.

The UN Human Rights High Commissioner’s visit on this occasion comes at a critical time, as the NPP government faces ongoing international pressure to address long-standing human rights concerns. Particularly controversial has been the Sri Lanka Accountability Project of the High Commissioner’s office (OHCHR), which has established an external mechanism for gathering evidence related to alleged human rights violations. The three successive governments that have had to face this issue have all strongly registered their opposition to it. As of 5 July 2024, the OHCHR repository established under this initiative contained 96,215 individual items that can be used for accountability processes gathered from over 470 sources, including international and multilateral organisations.

In the present international context, ethnic cleansing and war crimes are taking place in the public gaze of the world in a manner that is anathema to the international human rights community. There are governments in many countries and international organisations that continue to believe in the ideal of a Rules-based International Order. They would wish to show the world that they continue to stand by those values which have contributed to make the world a more just and less brutal place. Sri Lanka depends on international trade and development aid. These benefits are often conditional on demonstrating adherence to international human rights norms. By addressing the UNHRC recommendations the government will not only improve its international relations but also foster internal healing and stability.

Ethnic Partnership

Meeting the challenge of High Commissioner Türk’s visit will, however, not be an easy one for the NPP government. So far the government appears to have done little in its first six months in office to address the outstanding issues in the presently operating UNHRC resolution. The most recent UNHRC resolution concerning Sri Lanka is Resolution 51/1, adopted on October 6, 2022, which focuses on “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka”. This resolution builds upon previous ones which brought up issues of missing persons, long term prisoners held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), continued militarisation of the north and east after the end of the war and the military occupation of civilian lands. While there has been some progress in the return of land there has been no significant movement on many of the other matters.

The government also finds itself in the position of having to explain the non-implementation of its own manifesto in relation to the ethnic conflict and national reconciliation. The NPP manifesto which was published before the presidential election has several commendable pledges which, if implemented without delay, would contribute in great measure to the national reconciliation process. These include “Abolition of all oppressive laws including the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and ensuring civil rights of people in all parts of the country” and “Releasing of all political prisoners and ensuring their free socialisation”. The failure to move forward these pledges makes the government vulnerable to the criticism, which is now being made by Tamil political parties, that it is no different to previous governments which also failed to deliver on their promises.

The most important of the NPP pledges is to be found in Section 4.9 titled “A Sri Lankan Nation- The Universal Citizen”, where the manifesto puts forward as its first principle the concept of “Political partnership of all ethnicities.” In practice this is not working out. Recently, the Tamil media reported that the Palmyrah Development Board which is based in Jaffna had experienced a serious rupture with three independent board members from Jaffna resigning in protest, two of them being professors from Jaffna University. They felt that their views were disregarded and no translation facilities were provided for them when they met the minister in Colombo. Working in partnership with those from different parts of the country, with different ethnicity and language, requires sensitivity and engaging in dialogue and deciding together if it is to be a reality.

Need Partnership

Another example of lack of consultation and absence of partnership was the recently cancelled gazette notification regarding the vesting of vacant land in the north in the state unless the owners claimed it in three months. It is likely that this land takeover law contributed to the diminution of NPP votes at the local government election. Gazette No. 2430, issued on 28 March 2025, gave landowners in the north three months to assert ownership claims before their lands were declared state property. This was said to be under a colonial law enacted by the British to dispossess people lacking formal title. This gave rise to concerns that its enforcement now signaled a broader effort to legitimise taking land from the people in Tamil-majority areas, including Mullivaikkal where the last battles of the war were fought, threatening further displacement, undermining resettlement, and blocking memorialisation.

What is noteworthy however, is that despite these actions the government still for all obtained more votes in the north and east than any previous government. This is because the ethnic minorities, in the same way as the ethnic majority, want a system change in the way they are governed so that the country may develop and all people may prosper. The fact that politicians at the highest level are now being found guilty of corruption by the courts of law and that there is an enabling environment for independence of the judiciary is a major plus point. This is a unique strength the NPP government has and which it needs to use to the full to win and consolidate the support of the ethnic minorities.

Facing the challenge of the UN Human Rights system also requires the support of the representatives of the ethnic (and religious) minorities. If they are opposed to the government or take up positions contrary to it, Sri Lanka will continue to remain under international pressure. The next renewal or extension of the UNHRC resolution is expected to occur in September or October 2025. The trend line so far is that the resolutions get harder and harder. In Canada, a second genocide memorial is being planned, and this one will be in Canada’s largest city of Toronto. The Sri Lankan government cannot overcome these challenges by itself, but it can fare better if it has the ethnic minorities on its side in a “political partnership of all ethnicities” as promised in the NPP manifesto.