What Is Wrong in Demanding Implementation of the 13th Amendment? Asks Suresh
26-Apr-2026.
Suresh Premachandran, spokesperson of the Democratic Tamil National Alliance, has strongly criticised accusations made by Gajendrakumar that the Alliance is continuously campaigning for early Provincial Council elections.
He questioned, “When we are discussing a political solution for Tamils that is expected to be included in a new Constitution without any guarantee it will even be enacted, what is wrong in demanding the implementation of what is already in the Constitution?”
He noted that two meetings organised by the Tamil Lawyers Forum in Colombo on 2 March and 9 April aimed to unite Tamil nationalist political parties on the ethnic issue and constitutional reform, and common agreements were reached.
However, the Tamil National Council, following a meeting on 15 February, decided to appoint a 28-member steering committee under the “Eelam Tamil Constitution Drafting People’s Assembly” to prepare a draft proposal and lead related activities. A statement regarding this was issued on 17 April by coordinator Dr. T. Vigneswaran.
Gajendrakumar had alleged that despite an agreement reached during the Lawyers Forum meetings to focus on a federal-based solution, Suresh Premachandran and others continued campaigning in the North for early Provincial Council elections.
Responding, Premachandran said several documents already exist regarding Tamil political solutions, and therefore drafting a proposal for inclusion in a new Constitution is not an overly difficult task.
He stated that during the first Lawyers Forum meeting, Gajendrakumar had agreed to complete such a task, and his party representatives also participated in the second meeting. He added that if they now choose to operate separately, they must decide whether they wish to remain part of the collective Lawyers Forum process.
He further emphasised that the 13th Amendment is already part of the Constitution, while there is no guarantee that a new Constitution will be introduced. Therefore, he questioned the logic of criticising calls to implement an existing constitutional provision while debating an uncertain future framework.
