එල්ටීටීඊ තහනම ඉවත් කිරීම ජනාධිපතිවරණ දිනය හා පාප්තුමාගේ ගමන
After the cabinet spokesman hinted at the election date, Ivan examines the constitutional timetable and the clash with the Pope’s January visit, which the Catholic Church had asked to keep apart from politics, and the astrologer’s role. He then discusses a European court ruling of 16 October 2014 on the LTTE’s listing, arguing that bans cannot last forever, that the LTTE was defeated militarily but remains strong in the diaspora, and that only a political solution will end its appeal.
ජනාධිපතිවරණය, සුභ නැකත හා පාප්වහන්සේගේ සංචාරය
Ivan argues that the Eighteenth Amendment, poorly drafted, did not remove the two-term bar in a way that clearly lets the President stand again, and that a law-abiding leader would seek the Supreme Court’s opinion rather than rely on a friendly ruling. He criticises plans to time the election by an astrologer’s auspicious date despite the Pope’s planned visit in January 2015, and examines the history of presidential nominations and the Commissioner of Elections’ role.
සෝභිත හිමිගේ ප්රවේශය
Ivan assesses the campaign led by the Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha to abolish the executive presidency through a common candidate. He cites two indicators of institutional collapse, a former Chief Justice’s estimate and the substandard-cement case, and sets out six reservations: it seeks limited amendment rather than a full new constitution, ties everything to one election, and depends on a candidate. He then lists steps the opposition, especially the UNP, must take to correct course.
මේ මොහොතේ කළහැක්කේ කුමක්ද?
Contrasting the prosecution of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa with the removal of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, Ivan compares India, whose leaders built a nation and a democracy, with Sri Lanka, where independence brought ethnic, religious and caste conflict. With a presidential election near, he weighs the idea of a common candidate against Ranil Wickremesinghe’s own bid and his promise to abolish the presidency, and floats the idea of a third social movement for system change, inviting readers to write to a dedicated email address.
ඌවේ ඡන්ද ප්රතිඵල ගැන
Ivan analyses the Uva provincial council result of September 2014, comparing it with the 2004 and 2009 provincial polls and the 2005 and 2010 presidential results in Badulla and Monaragala. The ruling alliance’s share has fallen sharply in what was its strongest province, the UNP has recovered, and he argues that despite the war victory and Sinhala Buddhist support, Mahinda Rajapaksa is no longer certain to win a presidential election.
ලලිත් ප්රේමදාස ඝාතනය (II)
Part II recounts how an informant inside Sucharitha, Premadasa’s residence, telephoned Ivan at night; how the informant’s warnings proved true, including of a planned explosion at the UNP May Day rally that Ivan tried to expose in Ravaya; Mohideen’s revelations; the threats that followed; Bradman Weerakoon’s view of the Premadasa killing; the ‘Sudu Mahattaya’ of Wellampitiya; and why Hemantha Warnakulasuriya’s claims fail both legally and ethically.
ලලිත්-ප්රේමදාස ඝාතන
Replying to President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya, who told Mawbima and Ceylon Today that Ivan had hated Premadasa and set out to show that Premadasa, not the LTTE, killed Lalith Athulathmudali, Ivan recalls that Warnakulasuriya had defended Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake, whose rape case Ravaya exposed in August 1997. He restates his view of the 1993 killing of Lalith Athulathmudali, including a government news report three days earlier naming him as a suicide-bomber target, and his last conversation with Athulathmudali the night before.
ඌව ඡන්දය හා අශීලාචාර මැතිවරණ ක්රමය
With the Uva provincial election showing the government’s abuse of state resources, from Divi Neguma handouts to Samurdhi officers campaigning, Ivan compares campaign-finance rules in the United States, France and India with Sri Lanka, where spending limits vanished after 1978. He asks whether the Commissioner of Elections has the power to act, citing court rulings, and proposes nine reforms, including penalties for politicians who order officials to break the law, stronger powers for the Commissioner, control of party funds, and full asset declarations for candidates.
අශීලාචාර 18 පරාජය කිරීම
Following up the previous column, Ivan tests Sarath Silva’s argument against the constitution. Transitional provisions in Chapter XXI of the 1978 constitution, including Article 160, show how J.R. Jayewardene was specially made eligible, and the Eighteenth Amendment, rushed through on the wave of war victory, has a technical flaw that is not easily corrected. Seeking a favourable ruling from the Supreme Court would put the judges in a trap; opposing injustice is a human duty, and all who want change should unite to defeat the Eighteenth.
සරත් සිල්වාගේ කාල බෝම්බය
Ivan, no admirer of Sarath N. Silva, nevertheless takes seriously the former Chief Justice’s argument that Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot contest a third term. Silva’s thesis, set out in nine points, is that the Eighteenth Amendment, passed in 2010 after Rajapaksa had already been sworn in for his second term, cannot give him a right to a third term that he did not have when re-elected. Ivan compares term limits under presidential systems in France, Brazil and elsewhere and argues that what matters is honouring the people’s sovereignty.