Confusion deepens over Sri Lanka Rugby’s alleged ‘illegal’ AGM today

By a special correspondent

With the closing of nominations for the Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR) elections and Annual General Meeting (AGM) today, widespread concerns have emerged among the rugby fraternity. 

Many stakeholders have formally expressed doubts in writing to the Working Task Force (WTF), citing procedural irregularities, lack of governance transparency, and questionable eligibility of candidates.

Disputed constitution and governance

The root of the controversy lies in what is now widely referred to as the “illegal constitution.” While the Working Task Force maintains that amendments were made under proper governance frameworks, many stakeholders argue that due process was ignored. According to the original SLR Constitution, only an elected Council can propose amendments, which must then be approved at a Special General Meeting (SGM) with a two-thirds majority from the eight provincial unions. Instead, constitutional changes were made and later endorsed without this process, leaving the fraternity in confusion and mistrust.

Candidate eligibility and legal risks

Serious concerns are also being raised about the eligibility of certain candidates. Observers warn that disputed nominations could spark legal battles among contestants, further destabilising the already fragile process. It is therefore the responsibility of the appointed Election Committee to thoroughly vet candidates — albeit under the framework of the illegally adopted constitution introduced by the Working Task Force.

Unresolved financial mismanagement

Stakeholders also demand clarity on long-standing financial issues before any new leadership can be accepted. Among the unresolved matters are:

• A historic scandal involving foreign players obtaining Sri Lankan passports, which led to international sanctions and fines
• Outstanding debt of over Rs. 55 million carried forward from past administrations
• A deficit of Rs. 61 million linked to sponsorship deals from a recent international tournament
• These unresolved financial burdens raise serious questions about transparency and accountability

Stakeholders demand transparency in elections

Observers stress that all voting members, especially clubs with voting rights, must carefully scrutinise the manifestos of presidential candidates and their teams. The rugby fraternity expects candidates to outline:

• Strategic plans for the next four years
• Funding mechanisms and high-performance development
• Measures for financial accountability
• Grassroots and provincial development programs
• Clear strategies for regaining international competitiveness

International oversight called for

Many stakeholders now urge independent oversight from global and regional bodies such as World Rugby, Asia Rugby, the Asian Olympic Council, and the International Olympic Committee. These bodies, it is argued, should at minimum observe and provide clarity on how the AGM process and constitution amendments were conducted. It was alleged that to date, no legitimate documentation of the constitutional adoption has been shared with provincial unions, clubs, or the referees’ society.

Preserving the spirit of rugby

Governance experts warn that casting a vote in a process widely regarded as unlawful may carry future legal consequences. The spirit of rugby, they argue, must be safeguarded through lawful, transparent governance, not through arbitrary rule changes or politically motivated actions.