The government showed up mediocre at the UN in Geneva for CEDAW

Minister Saroja Savithri Paulraj leads Sri Lanka’s all-women delegation at the 9th periodic CEDAW review in Geneva, where the government’s commitment to women’s rights reforms faced significant scrutiny from international experts.

The government’s responses at CEDAW review reflect a concerning reluctance to commit to meaningful reforms of discriminatory personal laws affecting Muslim women and girls

Sri Lanka’s 9th periodic CEDAW review marked the first time the subject Minister for Women and Child Affairs personally presented the country’s report to the UN committee

Despite claiming victory on policies for women and children, the NPP government did not schedule a single consultation meeting with NGO delegates or civil society groups before the Geneva review

I was excited to join the Sri Lankan NGO delegation representing Women’s Action Network (WAN) at the 9th periodic Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) review. After restless weeks of drafting our shadow report and preparing to brief and lobby CEDAW Committee Members to help them review the government’s progress—which is our responsibility as civil society at the review—I was not ready for the lack of preparedness in which the government presented themselves at the session.

The few hopes I boarded the flight with towards this constructive dialogue was met with the harsh reality that we have placed a lot of trust in our newly elected representatives to care about our rights, but in turn, they care very little to show up for us. It left me questioning our path and the kind of future that lies ahead for our country with the current NPP government that claimed its victory on policies for women, children and the vulnerable.

The current government’s first engagement with a UN treaty body reporting process was for CEDAW. Sri Lanka’s obligations under the CEDAW was reviewed by a committee made up of 23 independent experts on women’s rights from different parts of the world. Since Sri Lanka ratified the treaty in 1981, the CEDAW review allowed the Committee 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 Saroja Savithri Paulraj and her all-women delegation set the stage for the CEDAW Committee to view this 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, first-time Tamil parliamentarian winning a seat from the South. It was also the first time the government has ever sent the subject Minister for Women and Child Affairs to present the Sri Lankan report. The Committee Members were impressed. She built the walls and the roof, but it did not take long for the house to crumble.

It was refreshing to hear the new Minister. She individually held diverse intersectionalities which contrasted with the rest of the delegation, which made the state delegation dependent on her profile to sound progressive at the session. 

The Attorney General’s Department representative spoke very slowly and mostly recited off the Penal Code. The CEDAW state review is limited to the five hours required to discuss the Articles in the Convention. The first hour was spent and dragged by the AG’s answers on only Articles 1 and 2, which discuss definitions and the duty of states to end discrimination. Everybody whispered it was an (unfortunate) strategy by the government. If it wasn’t a strategy, then it was just bad faith. When I met with Committee Members after the session, they all said the same thing: we could have asked more follow-up questions, but your government did not seem interested in direct answers.

The Rapporteur questioned the status of reforms to personal laws of Muslims and other minority groups, and the Secretary to the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs only discussed reforms to the Kandyan Law. There was no response to the status of MMDA reforms until the Rapporteur followed up.

The Rapporteur’s follow-up question has been published without fact-checking in many local newspapers, signaling conversation about MMDA reforms: 

Rapporteur:The MMDA was amended in 2022, but there are many requests regarding content regarding marriage, divorce, and inheritance affecting women. Do you have a new amendment planned or a new edition of that law?

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 MMDA reforms for over 40 years, and the recent Draft MMDA Amendment Bill is gathering dust in Parliament.

The government responded that MMDA has had extensive consultation for a period of time to ensure that those who are governed by the law are “comfortable” within the proposed laws because it involves cultural rights. They were constantly striving to find the “perfect balance” and ensure persons governed feel this is a law they have moved towards rather than foisted upon them.

Are we comfortable with state-allowed child marriage, which has resulted in teenage pregnancies and girls dropping out from schools? Or forced marriages because women cannot sign their own marriage contracts? Unchecked powers for men on polygamy which 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 also that they are having discussions on proposing a minimum age of marriage for all communities. So will the state cede on these issues if communities do not feel comfortable with new laws? Will they pass reforms to the MMDA or instead settle on piecemeal efforts on only amending the minimum age of marriage?

We can expect this response from any government, but why the NPP—a government with empowered women that came into power on its promise of empowering women and protecting children? We cannot be comfortable with their response. Even when the delegation was questioned about the lack of protection for Muslim girls on statutory rape in the Constitution, the state could not give a direct answer until the final ten minutes of the review after constant follow up. The law on statutory rape is not applicable to Muslim girls under 16 years of age 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 rapist due to community pressure and their perpetrators evade accountability.

The AG’s Department representative kept reiterating that there were challenges to reforms. It was utterly embarrassing for the government representatives who talk about the comfort of a community and justify an unequal law couched in culture and religion when the Chair of the Committee, Nahla Haidar El Addal—a Muslim woman herself—broke her silence and concluded her last words at the review: 

Chair:…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 state’s treatment of women human rights defenders (WHRD), especially on compulsory NGO registration requiring Ministry of Defense clearances. WHRD in the periphery areas, particularly in conflict areas, experience heavy surveillance and intimidation by state officials. The question was on the measures taken by the government to protect them. The government responded that the window for bills to be challenged before enactment has been extended from 7 to 14 days to facilitate this. There was a collective sigh of horror among the NGO delegation at the session. 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. Calling women’s rights activists who work at the frontlines with vulnerable communities potential terrorists was not a great response at an international forum.

The government did not schedule a single meeting with the NGO delegation before leaving for Geneva. Previous government delegates, in fact, have had at least some last-minute consultation with civil society and groups that submitted shadow reports. Women’s groups that submitted shadow reports and have been briefing the 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 state cannot perform?

The state representatives’ answers at the review rested mostly on the yet-to-exist mechanism—the National Women’s Commission, which will be established through the Women’s Empowerment Act passed by the previous government. This has still not come to fruition and requires a lot of support by civil society. If this government really wants to be at the forefront of women’s and children’s rights, they have a duty to listen to others outside its own bubble. It has a duty to work together with civil society who are offering their services and support. The recently concluded CEDAW session amply demonstrated that NPP lacks consultation with others and has led me to wonder whether they are resistant to alternative voices.

The writer is expressing a viewpoint as an NGO participant of Sri Lanka’s review at the 90th CEDAW session held from 10 - 13 Feb. 2025.