Sri Lanka’s university system has entered a phase of profound uncertainty where, after a period of over 4 decades, the National People’s Power (NPP) government advances a series of amendments to the Universities Act Number 16 of 1978.
These changes, presented with unusual speed and minimal public discussion, have caused alarm among academics, administrators, and members of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA).
The government asserts that these amendments aim to modernise higher education governance and establish merit-based leadership structures. Those within the academic community view these as direct threats to university autonomy. This creates a dangerous precedent for political interference.
The amendments specifically related to the revision of the appointment and removal processes for Deans of Faculties and Heads of Departments (HoDs) have raised significant concerns among intellectual circles. These parties fear that the proposed law signals an authoritarian shift rather than recommended progressive reform.
At the helm of the controversies are proposed revisions to Sections 49(1) and 51(1) of the Universities Act. These revisions expand the pool of academics who would be eligible to contest for the position of Dean. Under the existing structure, deans must be elected by the Faculty Board from among the current heads of departments for the former dean.
Such a procedure ensures that only individuals with administrative experience and recognition within their faculty are capable of standing for the position. The new amendment broadens eligibility to include senior professors, associate professors, and even Grade 1 senior lecturers.
On the surface, the amendment appears to broaden opportunities and permit greater openness besides transparency. However, academics argue that it in fact destabilises long-standing governance structures and exposes the selection process to political influence.
Expanding eligibility without strengthening administrative criteria and leadership experience needs or safeguarding against external interference may tend to create an environment where politically backed individuals could easily bypass traditional academic merit.
The expansion of eligibility may not be the most contested element. Academics across Sri Lanka are shocked by the new provision, which empowers university councils to remove deans without any formal inquiry, disciplinary process, or due procedure. The Council includes several members directly appointed by the Minister of Education, who now would move with the authority to remove a democratically elected Dean purely based on their internal vote.
The lack of improvement in governance concerns many academics. However, it may consolidate political authority over universities. Sri Lanka has a long history of political meddling in higher education, particularly in the appointment of university vice chancellors. Recent events at some public universities witnessed the University Grants Commission (UGC) abruptly cancel nominations for the vice chancellor without transparent justification. These have been cited as a clear example of the politicisation already occurring under the present administration. An independent regulatory body, along with the UGC, acts in ways that reflect political pressures. Academics have reason to fear that granting councils unchecked power to remove deans will worsen the trend. The arbitrary removal of a dean may become a tool for political control. Those found to be expressing dissent, resisting political directives or supporting student movements may be dismissed. This is simply because those found to be resisting do not align with the prevailing political agenda.
