Photo courtesy of salam-dhr

I was feeling extremely lucky to be part of the Sri Lankan NGO delegation representing Women’s Action Network (WAN) at the 9th periodic review of the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). After restless weeks of drafting our shadow report and memorising CEDAW committee members’ names to brief and lobby them to help them review the government’s progress, which is our responsibility as civil society in the CEDAW review, I was not ready for the lack of prepardness on the part of the government.

Whatever hopes I had boarded the plane with towards a constructive dialogue were met with the harsh reality of what happened. We have placed a lot of trust on our newly elected representatives to care about our rights but they don’t care to show up for us. It left me questioning the path we are on and the kind of future that lies ahead for our country with the NPP government, which claimed its victory on policies for women, children and the vulnerable.

This was the current government’s first engagement with a UN treaty body reporting process. Sri Lanka’s obligations under the CEDAW is reviewed by a committee made up of 23 independent experts on women’s rights representing different parts of the world. Since Sri Lanka ratified the treaty in 1981, the CEDAW reporting process allows for the committee to apply checks and balances to question and evaluate whether the government has implemented and kept its promises in protecting women from discrimination. This was Sri Lanka’s 9th periodic reporting to the CEDAW Committee, which was delayed due to COVID-19 after its last review in 2017.

Minister of Women and Child Affairs, Saroja Savithri Paulraj, set the stage for the CEDAW committee to present the government’s commitment to women’s rights. Her introductory speech was excellent – a working class woman from an ethnic minority, a mother, social activist, trade unionist and a Tamil parliamentarian winning a seat from the South for the first time. It was also the first time the government had sent the subject minister to present the country report. The committee members were impressed. She built the walls and the roof but it did not take long for the house to crumble.

The minister was pragmatic, saying, “We have a long way to go and there are challenges.” She did not bluff but others in her delegation had no problem in doing so. The Attorney General’s Department representative spoke slowly and mostly recited the Penal Code. The CEDAW state review is limited to the five hours required to discuss the articles in the convention. The first few hours were spent on government’s answers on only Articles 1 and 2 that discuss definitions on discrimination and the duty of states to end all forms of discrimination. If it wasn’t a strategy, then it was just bad faith. When I met committee members after the session, they said, “We could have asked more follow up questions but your government did not seem interested in direct answers.”

The rapporteur questioned the government on the death penalty and how it continued to sentence women who lacked legal understanding and resources to death. The government’s response was that Sri Lanka has been abolitinist in practice since 1976, therefore in effect the death penalty was abolished in practical terms although it was still given as a sentence.

What the government failed to answer was that the courts have sentenced eight women to death since 2019. The shadow report by the Advocates for Human Rights said that in 2023 the courts sentenced 101 persons to death, including two women. Officials have disclosed that as of January 2024, 1,187 people were on death row. The state’s answers ignored the realities of the women – what was their status while they remained on death row with the constant fear of being hanged?

When the rapporteur questioned the status of amending laws concerning the personal status of Muslims and other minority groups, the Secretary to the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs only discussed reforms to the Kandyan law. There was no mention of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) until the rapporteur followed up.

The rapporteur asked about reforms to the MMDA, stating that it was changed in 2022. However, the MMDA was not reformed in 2022. In fact, it has rarely been subject to reforms. It is understandable that a Spanish rapporteur could get a country specific issue wrong. However, the government did not correct it. Women’s groups have been advocating for the MMDA reforms for over 40 years while the draft MMDA Amendment Bill is gathering dust in parliament.

The government responded that the MMDA has had a lot of consultation and discussion for a period of time to ensure that those who are governed by the law are “comfortable” with the proposed laws because it involved cultural rights. The government said it was constantly striving to find the “perfect balance” to ensure that people did not feel the law had been foisted on them.

Are we comfortable with state allowed child marriage that has resulted in teenage pregnancies and girls dropping out of school or forced marriages because women cannot sign their own marriage contracts? Unchecked powers for men on polygamy have left Muslim women and children destitute. Is the government imposing a minimum age of marriage on a community or passing laws to protect children? The government’s response was that it is having discussions on proposing a minimum age of marriage for all communities. So will the government cede on these issues if communities do not feel comfortable with new laws? Will it pass reforms to the MMDA or instead settle on piecemeal efforts on only amending the minimum age of marriage?

Even when the delegation was questioned about the lack of protection for Muslim girls on statutory rape in the constitution, the government could not give a direct answer until the final ten minutes of the review and after constant follow up questions. The law on statutory rape is not applicable to Muslim girls under 16 who are legally married under the MMDA and engage in sexual intercourse with their husband while not legally separated. This also creates a loophole where victims are married to their rapists due to community pressure and their perpetrators evade accountability.

The Attorney General’s representative kept reiterating that reforms were under consideration but that there were challenges to it. It was embarrassing for government representatives to talk about the comfort of a community and justify an unequal law couched in culture and religion.

The Chair of the Committee Ms. Nahla Haidar El Addal – a Muslim woman – broke her silence and said, “Because of the experience of my country (Lebanon), the pluralistic nature of my community, many progressive thinking of Islamic scholars who are writing on this matter and many good practices coming from Muslim countries – it is worthwhile to look at this while remaining respectful of the freedom of belief, to not allow some women in the country to not be treated on equal levels to other women, let alone men.”

The Nepalese committee member asked about the treatment of Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD) by the government, especially on funding restrictions and Ministry of Defense clearances required for compulsory NGO registration. Women activists in conflict areas experience heavy surveillance and intimidation by state officials. The committee member’s question was on the measures taken by the government to protect WHRD. The Attorney General’s representative responded that the window for bills to be challenged prior to enactment has been extended from 7 to 14 days to facilitate this and that this is a mechanism that is robustly followed by NGOs and civil society. The Foreign Ministry delegate added that Sri Lanka has a vibrant civil society and the NGO Secretariat helps to streamline its processes as they are concerned about terrorism financing and money laundering. Calling women’s rights activists who work on the frontlines with vulnerable communities potential terrorists is not a great response at an international forum.

The government did not have a meeting with the NGO delegation before leaving for Geneva. Previous government delegates have had at least some consultations with civil sociey and groups that submitted shadow reports. Women’s groups that submitted shadow reports and have been briefing CEDAW committee members met the state delegation for the first time in the hallways of Palais des Nations in Geneva. This type of unpreparedness confused everyone because the NPP government boasts about inclusivity and grassroots consultation. So are civil society and women’s rights activists not included in this equation, especially when it is they who fill in the gaps where the government cannot perform?

Many of the government representatives’ answers during the review rested on a yet to exist mechanism – the National Women’s Commission that will be established through the Women’s Empowerment Act passed by the previous government. This has still not come into fruition and requires a lot of support by civil society to see it through. If the government really wants to be at the forefront of women’s and children’s rights, it has a duty to listen to others outside its own bubble. It has a duty to work together with civil society members who are offering their services and support. The CEDAW session demostrated that the NPP lacked consultation with others and has led me to wonder whether they were resistant to alternative voices.