Another demand to disclose about MOU with India

Another demand has been raised by nationalist about the government failure on disclosure of the so called MOU signed with India.

The following is the full text of the letter.

LETTER OF DEMAND NO. 7

Date: 6 June 2025

To:
*Mr. Parinda Ranasinghe Jr., PC
Attorney General of Sri Lanka
Attorney General’s Department
Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12

Subject: Final Constitutional Demand for Disclosure and Legal Accountability Regarding Your Failure to Review or Restrain Seven Unconstitutional MoUs Between Sri Lanka and India (2025)

Dear Mr. Ranasinghe,

*This letter is not procedural. It is constitutional.*

I am writing to you not as an individual citizen alone, but as a Petitioner invoking the sovereign will of the People, which your Office was duty-bound to protect but allowed to be bypassed.

In the first half of 2025, seven MoUs were signed between Sri Lanka and India covering:

1. Defence cooperation
2. HVDC power grid interconnection
3. Trincomalee energy hub development
4. Digital transformation and e-governance
5. Multi-sectoral Indian grant projects in the Eastern Province
6. Public health and medicine
7. Pharmacopoeial cooperation

Each of these agreements touches core national security domains. Each bypassed public scrutiny. Each risks long-term sovereignty. Yet none were publicly cleared by your office. And that silence is the basis for this letter.

I. Your Office Was the Last Line of Constitutional Defence

You are the final legal authority under the Constitution empowered to:
• Scrutinise international agreements for compliance with Articles 3, 4, and 33
• Advise the Executive on constitutional boundaries and state sovereignty
• Prevent ultra vires actions by ministries acting beyond mandate
• Ensure procedural compliance under the rule of law
• Defend the legal integrity of the Republic—not its circumvention

Your failure to intervene, review, publish, or caution on these MoUs-especially the Defence, Power Grid, and Trincomalee Energy Hub agreements-represents an institutional abdication of your constitutional guardianship.

This was not silence. It was complicity.

*II. Constitutional Breaches Caused by Your Inaction*

Your failure to review and disclose legal positions on these agreements has facilitated violations of:

• Article 3: Sovereignty rests with the People. These MoUs surrendered jurisdictional, infrastructural, and territorial control without national mandate.

• Article 4(d): You, as a public officer, are bound to act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. You permitted constitutional evasion through bureaucratic channels.

• Article 33(f): The President’s international engagements must operate within lawful bounds. Your office is the legal filter to prevent overreach. You did not activate it.

• Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016: Your Department is obligated to issue legal clarity where public interest is directly impacted. You remained silent.

III. Direct Consequences of Your Legal Abdication

Because your office did not provide visible or enforceable legal scrutiny:

• Strategic infrastructure (e.g. grid control, Trincomalee ports) was exposed to foreign leverage

• Defence policy is now ambiguously entangled with an external power

• Regulatory and data jurisdictions were ceded without national review

• Subordinate secretaries signed agreements well outside their legal competence

• Cabinet responsibility was fragmented and converted into a rubber stamp

In every respect, this was the collapse of legal statehood by omission.

You were the firewall. It was not activated.

*IV. My Constitutional Demand to You*

You are now formally required to provide, within seven (7) working days:

1. Certified documentation proving that your Department reviewed and cleared each of the seven MoUs;

2. A written statement confirming which MoUs (if any) were signed without your review;

3. Legal justification for why such MoUs were allowed to proceed without your intervention;

4. A public legal opinion on whether these MoUs are binding, non-binding, or ultra vires.

*This demand is not speculative. It is based on the doctrine of sovereignty in the people and your binding duty as constitutional safeguard under Sri Lankan public law*.

V. Purpose and Intention of This Letter Demand :

This letter is issued in good faith to reclaim the constitutional balance of the Republic.

You may argue that your office was bypassed. That would be an even more serious institutional admission. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, your inaction has triggered what may be an irreversible breach of national sovereignty, across multiple sectors.

*Should you fail to respond, I will proceed to file action before the Supreme Court under Article 126 and seek relief against your office under Article 140, naming you as a Respondent for:*

• Constitutional breach by omission;
• Enabling unconstitutional international engagement;
• And violating the fundamental rights of the People under Articles 3 and 12.

I am not acting out of malice. I am compelled to act because the legal system, in your hands, failed to act.

This is your final opportunity to discharge your duty-on the record.

Yours faithfully,
Jihan Hameed
Petitioner and Public Interest Litigant
Colombo
Sri Lanka

6 Viewers