Features
Nihal Jayawickrama discusses Alice in Wonderland reasoning, minority rights, and universal jurisdiction with the Anglo- American Lawyer magazine
The Editor-in-Chief of The Anglo-American Lawyer Magazine, Srinath Fernando continues his interview with Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, former Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. A leading authority on Constitutional Law of Sri Lanka, he is the author of The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law published by the Cambridge University Press.
The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, the Singarasa v Attorney General of Sri Lanka is a classic case which had been referred to by experts and academics all over the world on the human rights discourse. Why do you think the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka failed to respect the decision of the Human Rights Committee and refusal by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka to review the findings of the HRC in Geneva where there had been a patent injustice to the victim?
Dr. Jayawickrama: Singarasa was convicted by the High Court for terrorism-related offences and sentenced to a term of 50 years rigorous imprisonment. The only evidence against him was his own confession made to a police officer while he was under detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reduced the term of imprisonment to 35 years. It took the view that Singarasa had failed to prove that the confession had been made involuntarily, that being the requirement under the PTA. (Under normal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that a confession was made voluntarily).
Singarasa thereafter availed himself of the right to communicate with the Human Rights Committee (the Government having ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR in 1998 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be a victim of a violation by the State of any of the rights set forth in the ICCPR). The Committee found several violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 14) and of the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7). Accordingly, it advised release or retrial and compensation.
The Committee’s Views are communicated to the State party and to the petitioner. The State party is required to give the Views serious consideration in good faith. Accordingly, the Government should have either exercised the presidential power of pardon/remission of sentence, or requested the Attorney-General to consider whether a retrial was a viable option, and compensated the petitioner financially. Instead, the Government appears to have ill-advisedly informed the Human Rights Committee that it did not have the legal authority to execute the decision of the Committee to release the convict or grant retrial.
Singarasa’s legal advisers, in my view also ill-advisedly, applied to the Supreme Court to exercise its revisionary powers to give effect to the Views of the Human Rights Committee. That gave the opportunity for the Attorney-General to argue that the expression of Views by the Human Rights Committee amounted to “an interference with the judiciary” and “a violation of the sovereignty of the people”. Sir Nigel Rodley, the distinguished international jurist, described this submission as “Alice in Wonderland (or Alice Through the Looking Glass) reasoning”. In a critical study of this case published in a law journal, he added that “It took the powerful intellect of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka to come to the unlitigated conclusion that Sri Lanka’s very ratification of the Protocol was ultra vires and invalid”. Sir Nigel Rodley described that decision as “an example of judicial waywardness”.
Subsequent events demonstrate that neither the Sri Lankan Government, nor the Human Rights Committee, have taken seriously the outcome of that revision application to the Supreme Court. I filed a communication at or about that time on behalf of S.B. Dissanayake MP who was sentenced to serve a period of two years rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court imposed by the same Chief Justice, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Government raised any issue of jurisdiction. Nor did the Government argue powerlessness when it received the Views of the Human Rights Committee.
The AAL Magazine: Do you find similar scenarios where conflict of dualism and monism had clashed if you may quote an instance in other countries.
Dr. Jayawickrama: Let me give just one example. India is also described as a “dualist” state. However, there are several instances when the Indian Supreme Court has given effect to provisions in international human rights multilateral treaties which the government of India had ratified but had not taken steps to incorporate in domestic law. Indian judges have taken the view that any international convention that is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution must be read into those provisions to enlarge their meaning and content. Justice Michael Kirby also attempted to do so in the High Court of Australia, but I believe he did not receive much support from his brother judges.
The AAL Magazine: In the Constitution of Sri Lanka social and economic rights have not been expressly defined. Though there is a chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, its observance is complimentary to fundamental rights but there is also an ouster clause in the Constitution of Sri Lanka Article 29 which says ‘’the provisions of this Chapter do not confer or impose legal rights or obligations and are not enforceable in any court or tribunal. No question of inconsistency with such provisions shall be raised in any court of tribunal.’’ How would you comment on this exclusion of what is given by one hand and taken away by the other hand. Would you find this a grotesque way of drafting constitutions?
Dr. Jayawickrama: Sri Lanka has been singularly unfortunate in this regard. Sir Ivor Jennings refused to include a Bill of Rights in the Minister’s Draft Constitution which Mr. D.S. Senanayake submitted to the Soulbury Commission, arguing that the United Kingdom has no Bill of Rights “and we think that we do the job better than those countries which do have one”. Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike proposed to the Select Committee on the Revision of the Constitution which he initiated in 1958 that it recommends the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, and in fact had a draft prepared by Mr. J.A.L. Cooray and Justice T.S. Fernando, but his assassination brought that effort to an abrupt end.
In 1970. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was very reluctant to include an enforceable chapter on fundamental rights in the Republican Constitution, arguing that that would result in placing the Supreme Court above the National State Assembly, which was to be the “supreme instrument of state power”. When such a chapter was eventually included, it was to have no application to “existing law”; nor was any special mechanism established to enforce its provisions in respect of governmental action. The judicial review of laws was also not permitted. A chapter on “Directive Principles of State Policy” containing reference to certain social and economic rights, was not enforceable in any court.
The 1978 Constitution presented by Mr. J.R. Jayewardene selectively designated a few civil and political rights as fundamental rights and subjected even these to numerous restrictions. For example, the right to life is omitted. Others omitted include family rights, the right to privacy (a significant omission in the context of telephone tapping), the right to property, the freedom to leave the country, the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, the right to a fair hearing in respect of civil rights and obligations, and the rights of accused persons. “Birth or other status” is not a prohibited ground of discrimination, thereby enabling the perpetuation of the concept of illegitimate children. And, of course, none of the economic, social, or cultural rights are recognized. Finally, all existing law was declared to be valid and operative notwithstanding any inconsistency with the chapter on fundamental rights. That means that the entire body of law enacted over a period of 176 years, a veritable armoury of archaic powers and more recent intrusions into human dignity, remained in force notwithstanding any conflict with fundamental rights.
When the citizens agree to be governed, what they insist in return from the rulers is that their rights and freedoms be effectively guaranteed. The constitution should provide, as it does in many other countries, that an international treaty, when ratified, will have the force of law, superseding any inconsistent existing law. If the government is unwilling to do so, why ratify a treaty at all? Alternatively, it is imperative that, in a country in which, in recent decades, the human body has been brutalized and the human spirit degraded, at least the provisions of the two international human rights covenants should be incorporated in the constitution. The constitutional recognition of the universally accepted rights and freedoms of the individual is not only a matter of sound commonsense and prudent governance; it is also a solemn treaty obligation.
A minority is a group of individual human beings who share ethnic, linguistic, religious, or cultural bonds and possess a collective desire to live together. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is that many of our politicians still refuse to recognize the fact – the unalterable, immutable and enduring fact – that we are a multicultural country. In the contemporary multicultural state, minority communities have rights in common with, and no less than, everyone else. Indeed, because of the need to protect the distinctive character and identity of minority communities, which is what constitutes the cultural mosaic of the State, they even enjoy additional rights. For example, contemporary international law protects the physical existence of minority groups by criminalizing genocide, by recognizing the right to seek asylum, and by prohibiting discrimination.
International human rights law now provides guidance on the minimum acceptable standards for peaceful co-existence in a multicultural society. They include the right of minorities to use their own language, to profess and practice their own religion and the right to enjoy their own culture. International law also recognizes the right of a minority to determine its political status, and the right to participate effectively in decision-making, both at regional and national levels. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that if a minority is denied meaningful access to government, it has the right to decide to secede. The application of these principles is non-negotiable and cannot be made subject to the will of the electorate. They should form an integral part of a national constitution. We have so far failed to do so, and the consequent events, both tragic and destructive, are now a matter of history.
The AAL Magazine: Despite ouster clauses, can the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka still uphold the rights of people as fundamental rights trumps any other consideration.Dr. Jayawickrama: The Supreme Court of Ceylon of the 1960s, in the absence of any reference to fundamental rights in the Constitution, and indeed before the two international covenants came into force, asserted the Right to a Fair Trial, the Right to Liberty, and the Right to Freedom of Movement. That spirit of judicial activism has not been apparent thereafter.
The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, lastly what’s your view on the application of universal jurisdiction. Do you think not enough focus has been given to this area of prosecution? Do you know any known case where such prosecutions had been done successfully? Do you think prosecution under ‘universal jurisdiction’ is purely a political motivated exercise when it comes to international relations and diplomacy?
Dr. Jayawickrama: As early as 1980, the United States Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for torture committed by a national of a Central American State in his own country, but who happened to be visiting the United States. That court held that “official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations”. More recently, there were two instances of the exercise of universal jurisdiction in, I believe, Germany and France, when a person of Syrian nationality and another of Iranian nationality were tried and sentenced. International human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, do, I believe, possess relevant evidence that could be placed before any judicial tribunal in any part of the world. In Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council has now been authorized to collect and process credible evidence of “crimes against humanity” allegedly committed by Sri Lankan military personnel, for the purpose of providing such evidence to States willing to exercise universal jurisdiction.
In the contemporary world, with several multilateral treaties that are designed to protect human beings, whether they be children, women, or men, it is, in my view, quite legitimate that territorial boundaries do not stand in the way of ensuring that protection. If a person has committed an act that is recognized as a crime under international law, it ought to be possible to bring such person to trial in whichever country he may be, especially if his own country has failed, or is unable, to do so. However, there are several countries that are competent to exercise universal jurisdiction by reason of their accession to relevant international treaties, but which may choose not to undertake that responsibility for political and other reasons. Such countries may avoid that responsibility by ensuring that the alleged criminals do not enter their territories by refusing them visas to do so.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
