Page 1
FINAL REPORT
ON
ELECTION-RELATED VIOL
GENERAL ELECTION 20 5TH DECEMBER 2001

FINAL REPORT
ON
ION-RELATED VIOLENCE:
ERAL ELECTION 2001 - 5 DECEMBER 2001

Page 2
All rights reserved © Centre for Monitoring Election
(CMEV)
Material from this publication may be acknowledgement given to the
ISBN: 955-8037-32-X
For further information contact:
Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) 32/3, Flower Road Colombo 7
Tel: 565304 / 565306 / 074-714461 Fax: 074-714460 e-mail: cpa@sri.lanka.net Website: www.cpalanka.org
July 2002

All rights reserved e for Monitoring Election Violence
(CMEV)
this publication may be used with due wledgement given to the CMEV
ISBN: 955-8037-32-X
t:
(CPA)
4461

Page 3
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................
PART ONE: Election Campaign Violence .........................................................................
PART TWO: Election Day, December 5, 2001....................................................................
PART THREE: Post Election Violence ...............................................................................
PART FOUR: Gender and Election Violations.................................................................
Methodology..............................................................................................
Other Election Reports..............................................................................
Attacks on CMEV Monitors......................................................................
Validity of the Outcome of a Flawed Election..........................................
Recommendations .....................................................................................
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................

CONTENTS
........................................................................................................................... 1
........................................................................................................................... 1
........................................................................................................................... 33
........................................................................................................................... 75
........................................................................................................................... 91
........................................................................................................................... 91
........................................................................................................................... 93
........................................................................................................................... 94
........................................................................................................................... 94
........................................................................................................................... 96
........................................................................................................................... 97

Page 4
LIST OF FIGURES AND
Figure 1 All Incidents by Type (2735) Figure 2 All incidents by Party of Alleged Perpetrator (2735) Figure 3 Major Incidents by Type (1562) Figure 4 Major Incidents by Party (1562) Figure 5 Minor Incidents by Type (1173) Figure 6 Minor Incidents by Party of Alleged Perpetrator (1173) Figure 7 Profile of Alleged Violence by Party – Major Incidents Figure 8 Profile of Alleged PA Violence – Major Incidents (740)
Profile of Alleged UNP Violence – Major Incidents (432) Figure 9 Profile of Alleged PA Violence – Minor Incidents (544)
Profile of Alleged UNP Violence – Minor Incidents (319) Figure 10 Allegations against PA + UNP Taken Together – Major Incidents Figure 11 Allegations against PA + UNP Taken Together – Minor Incidents Figure 12 Complaints made by PA
Complaints made by UNP Figure 13 Complaints made by PA + UNP in Comparison to Other Parties Figure 14 Offences Report by Province Figure 15 Offences Report by District Figure 16 Comparison between 2000 and 2001 General Elections – Use of Fir Figure 17 Comparison between 2000 and 2001 General Elections – Total Num Figure 18 Comparison between 2000 and 2001 General Elections – Total Num Figure 19 Comparison between 2000 and 2001 General Elections – Total Num
Figure 20 All Incidents by Type (653) Figure 21 All incidents by Party of Alleged Perpetrator (653) Figure 22 Major Incidents by Type (381) Figure 23 Major Incidents by Party (381) Figure 24 Complaints made by PA
Complaints made by UNP Figure 25 Offences Report by Province Figure 26 Offences Report by District

T OF FIGURES AND TABLES
or (2735)
trator (1173) jor Incidents cidents (740) Incidents (432) cidents (544) Incidents (319) ther – Major Incidents ether – Minor Incidents
rison to Other Parties
ral Elections – Use of Firearms by Province ral Elections – Total Number of Incidents ral Elections – Total Number of Incidents by District ral Elections – Total Number of Incidents by Province
or (653)

Page 5
Table I Alleged Perpetrators of Violence (Cum. Figures) Table II Offences Report (Cum. Figures) Table III Category of Offences Carried Out by Each Party (Cum. Figures) Table IV Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetrators and Complainants ( Table V Description of Incidents Reported by Date
Table VI Alleged Perpetrators of Violence Table VII Geographic Spread of Offence – By Incidents Table VIII Geographic Spread of Offence – By Election Offences Table IX Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetrators and Complainants Table X Alleged Offences by Party Table XI Alleged Offences – Election Related Table XII Breakdown of Election Day Related Offences
Table XIII Description of Incidents Reported by Date Table XIV Alleged Perpetrators of Violence Table XV Offences Report Table XVI Category of Offences Carried Out by Each Party Table XVII Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetrators and Complainants

gures)
Party (Cum. Figures) rators and Complainants (Cum. Figures)
nts on Offences rators and Complainants
ces
Party rators and Complainants

Page 6
PRE-ELECTION VIOLEN

-ELECTION VIOLENCE

Page 7
2001 GENERAL ELECTION – FINAL REPORT
Executive Summary The 2001 General Election was, in comparative terms, the most violent election held in Sri Lanka since 1994. In addition, the frequency and magnitude of post-election violence in the aftermath of this election is unprecedented in the recent past, and harks back to the practice of nearly twenty years ago. Whereas the majority of incidents during the campaign and on election day were allegedly committed by supporters of the People’s Alliance (PA), the alleged perpetrators of post-election violations are supporters of the United National Party (UNP).
Police partisanship was again a negative factor in curbing violence, and the immediate volte face of the Police after the results were announced in favour of the UNP, which added to the intensity of the so-called retaliations, is a frightening index of the extent of the partiality and politicization of the police force, which needs to be addressed, together with the apathy and worse of many election-day officials, if any impact is to be made on reducing election-related violence in the country.
CMEV regrets that this time too the European Union (EU) Observer Mission saw fit to endorse the election on the basis of inadequate information, insufficient preparation and flawed methodology. This is all the more so since, for the first time, four of CMEV’s own international monitors (in addition to many local monitors) were subjected to threats and intimidation on election day in areas that have been endorsed by the EU.
Despite c prosecute good fait a high oppositio in to pow these pa electorate
Introduc The Cent on the 20 relates to 27, 2001 of electio section c CMEV’s related e Election.
The repo descriptiv explanato contained election introduct
PART O
By the Parliamen violence Violence

he most ion, the rmath of ck to the incidents itted by rators of al Party
violence, lts were ty of the t of the ds to be tion-day n-related
bserver adequate . This is ’s own rs) were hat have
Despite claims made by the authorities that election violators will be prosecuted expeditiously, CMEV has not seen sufficient proof of the good faith of the main parties to this end. Both the PA and UNP take a high moral stand vis-à-vis election violations while in the opposition, but do little to bring the culprits to book once they come in to power. Identified perpetrators still continue to hold high office in these party hierarchies. Unless this situation is remedied, the electorate will lose all faith in the democratic process in Sri Lanka.
Introduction The Centre for Monitoring Election Violence’s (CMEV) Final Report on the 2001 General Election comprises four distinct parts. The first relates to violence during the election campaign period from October 27, 2001 to December 4, 2001, the second is confined to an analysis of election day itself, and the third to post-election violence. The final section contains a gender analysis of the violence, and includes CMEV’s recommendations, the methodology followed and other related elements pertaining to the 2001 Parliamentary General Election.
The report presents data in graphic and tabular form, confining descriptive text to a minimum, since the information is self- explanatory, allowing the reader to examine the details and nuances contained therein. Basic assessments of the various aspects of the election are contained in the executive summary and in the introductions at the beginning of each section.
PART ONE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN VIOLENCE
By the end of the five-week campaign period of the 2001 Parliamentary General Election, 2735 incidents of election-related violence had been reported to the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV). Of these, 1562 (57.1%) have been classified as

Page 8
Major incidents which include Murder (48), Attempted Murder (82), Hurt (271), Grievous Hurt (52), Assault (469), Threat and Intimidation (405), Robbery (75), Arson (140), and 20 incidents involving the Misuse of State Resources [See Table II].
These statistics reflect a clear qualitative and quantitative increase in the incidence of violence over the General Election held in October 2000. During that election campaign period of 39 days a cumulative total of 2044 incidents was reported, with the number of incidents almost doubling between the third and fourth weeks and then again between the fourth and fifth weeks. Throughout the current campaign the incidence of violence was greater. For instance, at the end of the first three weeks the number of reports was nearly double that of the 2000 campaign. Overall, the 2001 campaign resulted in 33.7% more incidents of violence, which reflected a 39.3% increase in Major incidents.
In addition, whereas this year has seen the alleged use of firearms in 677 cases (or 24.7%), in 2000 this figure stood at 444 (21.7%). The number of Murders recorded was 48, as opposed to 66 during the last election campaign period, but over 40 of these were caused by alleged LTTE suicide attacks. The comparison between these two elections is detailed in Figures 1 – 4 which well demonstrates the fact that the 2001 General Election was irrevocably flawed even during the campaign stage. This adverse comparison with the 2000 General Election is itself a strong indictment of the 2001 General Election campaign since the former is considered to be among the most violent elections in Sri Lanka’s recent history, and clearly more so than the 1999 Presidential Election and the 1994 General Election. Therefore, if the 2001 General Election already demonstrated a greater level and intensity of violence than the 2000 General Election, even at the campaign stage, this did not bode well for the election itself.
The Peop incidents Offences classifica incidents Major O violence relation t of which allegedly respectiv persons o
Thus, if w have bee 92.9% of claim th responsib national merely f qualitativ they acco which the
Self-iden complain supporter (29.5%) c party com JVP has (51.1%). 544 incid 139 (05.1 such com

der (82), eat and incidents
rease in October mulative incidents en again ampaign d of the at of the % more n Major
earms in %). The the last alleged ctions is that the ring the General Election t violent than the herefore, evel and n at the
The People’s Alliance are the alleged perpetrators in 1284 (47%) incidents. 740 (57.6%) of the complaints against the PA allege Major Offences and 544 (42.4%) fall under the Minor Offences classification. The UNP is allegedly responsible for 751 (27.5%) incidents of violence of which 432 (57.5%) fall into the category of Major Offences. 69 (2.5%) complaints relating to incidents of violence have been made against the SLMC of which 40 (58%) are in relation to major offences. The EPDP stands accused in 27 incidents, of which 14 are major offences. The JVP, TULF, PLOTE are allegedly responsible for 09, 17 and 11 incidents of violence respectively, whilst 544 (19.9%) complaints have been made against persons of unknown political affiliation.
Thus, if we consider only the offences in which the alleged perpetrators have been identified, the PA and UNP taken together account for 92.9% of all campaign-related violations, reinforcing CMEV’s repeated claim that these two main contenders are almost exclusively responsible for the unacceptable levels of violence at this and other national elections. The contention these two parties are culpable not merely for the quantitative increase in violence but also for its qualitative heightening is established by the fact that taken together they account for 92.4% of all incidents involving the use of firearms in which the alleged perpetrators’ party affiliation has been identified.
Self-identified UNP supporters have lodged 1474 (53.9%) of the complaints reported, of which 1124 or 76.3% have been made against supporters of the PA and 26 against fellow party members. 806 (29.5%) complaints have been made by the PA, of which 23 are intra party complaints and 599 (74.3%) are against UNP supporters. The JVP has made 130 (4.8%) complaints, mainly against the UNP (51.1%). Persons of unknown party affiliation have been accused in 544 incidents, and persons of undeclared party affiliation have made 139 (05.1%) complaints, which is roughly equal to the percentage of such complaints during the 2000 general election.

Page 9
The use of firearms has been reported in 677 (24.8%) incidents, with the PA named as the alleged perpetrator in 321 (47.4%) incidents and persons of unidentified political affiliation in 173 (25.6%). The UNP has been identified as the alleged perpetrator in 144 (21.3%) incidents involving the use of firearms. As has been pointed out earlier in this report, the increase in firearm use by 3% during this election is not only a clear objective indicator of the exacerbated violence of this campaign, but also a warning of the violence to be expected on polling day and thereafter.
The highest number of incidents (503) has been reported from the North Western Province, which constitutes 18.4% of the total number reported to CMEV. Next in degree of violence is the Western Province recording 481 (17.6%) incidents. The Uva Province is the only one recording under 200 incidents, and at 90 reports is significantly less than half its nearest rival, Sabaragamuwa Province (235). In comparison with the previous election, the Southern Province has shown the greatest increase from 204 (in 2000) to 421 (in 2001). At the district level, Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, Puttalam and Gampaha are clearly the most quantitatively violent, reporting 267, 256, 247 and 247 respectively. It is significant that Gampaha and Kurunegala were the most violent even in the October 2000 election. In terms of the seriousness of the incidents recorded, Kurunegala District accounts for the highest number of Major Incidents (171),
followed The mos previous total of w of the Oc is alleged UNP, in approxim UNP and intolerabl two north districts i these bo incidents responsib
However increase i 2000 Gen Yet, stro number a

nts, with ents and he UNP incidents r in this n is not of this ected on
rom the l number Western e is the ports is Province Southern ) to 421 Puttalam reporting aha and ection. runegala ts (171),
followed by Puttalam (167), Gampaha (156) and Anuradhapura (153). The most significant change for the worse, in comparison with the previous election, was recorded from Hambantota (151 incidents in total of which 114 were Major), which was more than three times that of the October 2000 campaign. In the Anuradhapura District, the PA is allegedly responsible for over twice the number of violations of the UNP, in Hambantota and Gampaha this figure increases to approximately three and five times respectively. In Puttalam both the UNP and PA are allegedly responsible for a similar share of the intolerable level of violence experienced in the district. Outside the two northern districts, Kalutara, Badulla and Trincomalee are the only districts in which the UNP has more allegations than the PA, and of these both Badulla and Trincomalee have recorded under 35 incidents. In all of the 17 other districts the PA is allegedly responsible for more violations than the UNP.
However, in general, this election campaign has marked a clear increase in the UNP’s alleged perpetration of violence, vis-à-vis the 2000 General Election and others before it in the post-1994 period. Yet, strong disparities still exist, as outlined above, both in the number and seriousness of the incidents recorded.

Page 10
Election Campaign Violations
Alleged Perpetrators of Violence (Cumulative Figu
AREA/PARTY PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF SU CWC Western
Colombo 39 34 4 3 Gampaha 142 55 Kalutara 27 40 1 Sub Total(Western) 208 129 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 Central
Kandy 77 42 Matale 16 17 N ' Eliya 40 39 Sub Total(Central) 133 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Western
Kurunegala 137 83 Puttlam 118 110 Sub Total (Nor-West) 255 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Central
A 'pura 151 74 1 Polonnaruwa 51 36 Sub Total (N-Central) 202 110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern
Galle 68 13 1 Hambantota 75 15 Matara 51 38 1 Sub Total (Southern) 194 66 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uva
Badulla 12 16 Monaragala 29 24 Sub Total (Uva) 41 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 60 19 Kegalle 92 35 Sub Total (Sabara) 152 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern
Jaffna 15 Wanni 6 11 1 Sub Total (Nothern) 6 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Eastern
Batticaloa 18 1 2 Trincomalee 7 10 1 Digamadulla 68 24 1 Sub Total (Eastern) 93 35 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 1284 751 9 0 3 0 1 3 0

Table lence (Cumulative Figures) Date:04/12/01
I
PRLF SU CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC A - Z PNG TOTAL
3 1 1 2 52 136 1 49 247
30 98 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 131 481
1 22 142
7 40 16 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 45 277
2 34 256 19 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 53 503
41 267 4 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 358
29 111 61 151 69 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 421
1 2 31 1 5 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 90
9 88 20 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 235
9 18 1 1 11 55 1 3 1 5 1 1 13 42 1 0 0 12 19 5 2 0 2 24 97
5 38 17 81 1 2 21 5 6 2 30 3 32 171 0 0 0 5 7 5 2 68 3 51 273 1 3 0 17 27 11 10 69 6 544 2735

Page 11
Election Campaign Violations
Offences Report (Cumulative Figures)
Major Incidents
AREA / OFFENCE Murder Att. Hurt Griev. Assault Threat & Misuse of State Robbery Arson Western Murder Hurt Intimid. Resources
Colombo 8 3 2 2 30 8 3 1 9 Gampaha 3 9 25 8 58 44 4 5 Kalutara 1 10 3 19 9 1 1 2 Sub Total (Western) 11 13 37 13 107 61 4 6 16 Central
Kandy 12 14 24 28 2 3 Matale 1 1 5 1 5 5 N ' Eliya 1 14 17 9 2 1 Sub Total (Central) 2 13 33 1 46 42 0 4 4 North Western
Kurunegala 7 16 27 4 45 49 1 5 17 Puttlam 7 12 18 6 43 51 2 17 11 Sub Total (Nor-West) 14 28 45 10 88 100 3 22 28 North Central
Anuradhapura 3 5 38 5 41 42 7 12 Polonnaruwa 14 2 21 7 1 3 Sub Total (Nor-Cen.) 3 5 52 7 62 49 1 10 12 Southern
Galle 1 1 12 6 8 1 8 Hambantota 5 9 1 13 64 7 15 Matara 10 1 15 15 2 31 Sub Total (Southern) 1 6 31 2 34 87 10 54 Uva
Badulla 2 2 6 2 1 1 Monaragala 7 1 12 5 6 1 2 Sub Total (Uva) 0 0 9 3 18 7 7 1 3 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 6 6 18 3 18 7 1 3 Kegalle 1 10 4 26 13 4 6 9 Sub Total (Sabara) 6 7 28 7 44 20 5 6 12 Northern
Jaffna 2 1 4 1 11 5 3 Wanni 2 1 3 1 5 4 6 1 Sub Total (Nothern) 4 2 7 2 16 9 0 9 1 Eastern
Batticaloa 4 2 6 17 11 5 4 Trincomalee 1 5 1 3 1 1 Digamadulla 2 6 18 6 34 18 1 6 Sub Total (Eastern) 7 8 29 7 54 30 7 10
GRAND TOTAL 48 82 271 52 469 405 20 75 140 1

Table II
mulative Figures) Date:04/12/01
Minor incidents Total # of
Remarks
e Robbery Arson Major Mischief Threat Damage to Election Others Minor
Incidents Firearms Poll.. (Total) Property Offence (Total) Involved Related 1 9 66 27 26 1 10 6 70 136 13 1 4 5 156 42 36 7 4 2 91 247 78 6 1 2 46 27 16 3 4 2 52 98 12 6 16 268 96 78 11 18 10 213 481 103 7
2 3 83 28 23 6 2 59 142 42 2
18 9 8 4 1 22 40 8 2 1 44 26 20 1 2 2 51 95 10 4 4 145 63 51 11 2 5 132 277 60 2
5 17 171 44 31 4 6 85 256 73 1 17 11 167 27 41 7 5 80 247 92 22 28 338 71 72 11 0 11 165 503 165 1
7 12 153 69 37 7 1 114 267 67 1 3 48 23 17 1 2 43 91 11 10 12 201 92 54 8 0 3 157 358 78 1
1 8 37 66 5 3 74 111 14 7 15 114 20 12 3 2 37 151 87 2 2 31 74 64 15 2 2 2 85 159 20 10 54 225 150 32 8 4 2 196 421 121 2
1 14 5 9 1 2 17 31 3 2 1 2 34 12 9 2 2 25 59 8 1 3 48 17 18 3 4 0 42 90 11 2
3 62 16 4 4 2 26 88 30 6 9 73 29 41 1 3 74 147 22 2 6 12 135 45 45 4 1 5 100 235 52 2
3 27 5 12 4 7 28 55 13 5 6 1 23 5 11 1 2 19 42 11 5 9 1 50 10 23 0 5 9 47 97 24 10
5 4 49 9 15 6 2 32 81 17 1 12 4 1 2 2 9 21 5 1 1 6 91 39 21 7 7 6 80 171 41 2 7 10 152 52 37 13 9 10 121 273 63 3 75 140 1562 596 410 69 43 55 1173 2735 677 30

Page 12
Election Campaign Violations
Category of Offences Carried Out by Each Party (Cumulative F
Major Incidents Perpetrators Murder Att. Hurt Grie. Assault Threat & Misuse Of state Robbery Arson Ma Murder Hurt Intimidation resources (To PA 11 30 141 26 230 189 18 36 59 740 UNP 15 24 88 21 156 91 18 19 432 JVP 4 1 5 MEP 0 NUA 1 1 UCPF 0 EPRLF 0 SU 1 1 CWC 0 TULF 1 1 3 2 1 8 EPDP 2 1 1 5 4 1 14 PLOTE 1 4 1 2 8 POLICE 2 2 1 5 SLMC 4 6 1 13 12 2 2 40 A - Z 1 2 1 1 5 PNG 18 22 32 2 51 103 1 15 59 303
TOTAL 48 82 271 52 469 405 20 75 140 1562
PA: People's Alliance UNP: United National Party JVP: Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MEP: Mahajana E UCPF: Upcountry People's Front NLF: New Left Front SU: Sihala Urumaya CWC: Ceylon Worker TULF : Tamil United Liberation Front EPDP: Eelam People's Democratic Party PLOTE : People's Liberatio SLMC : Sri Lanka Muslim Congress A - Z : Other Listed Parties PNG: Parties Not Given

Table III
ch Party (Cumulative Figures) Date:04/12/01
Minor Incidents
Remarks ry Arson Major Mischief Threat Damage to Election Others Minor Grand Firearms Poll.,
(Total) Property Offence (Total) Total Involved Related 36 59 740 281 191 37 15 20 544 1284 321 7 18 19 432 140 144 8 12 15 319 751 144 1
1 5 2 2 4 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 8 2 3 1 3 9 17 1 1 14 1 6 1 2 3 13 27 9 2 2 8 1 2 3 11 3 5 1 2 2 5 10 3 2 2 40 10 10 9 29 69 20
5 1 1 6 2 15 59 303 157 46 13 13 12 241 544 173 20 75 140 1562 596 410 69 43 55 1173 2735 677 30
MEP: Mahajana Eksath Peramuna LP: Liberal Party CWC: Ceylon Workers' Congress TE : People's Liberation of Organization Tamil Eelam ven

Page 13
Election Campaign Violations
Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetraters and Complainants (Cumulative
Comp.by Party against / Party PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF
Complaints by PA against 23 599 1 Complaints by UNP against 1124 26 6 Complaints by JVP against 24 67 Complaints by MEP against 1 Complaints by NUA against Complaints by UCPF against Complaints by EPRLF against 1 Complaints by SU against 1 2 2 Complaints by CWC against Complaints by TULF against 1 1 Complaints by EPDP against 13 Complaints by PLOTE against Complaints by POLICE against 3 7 Complaints by SLMC against 38 6 2 Complaints by A - Z against 13 7 1 1 Complaints by PNG against 56 22
TOTAL 1284 751 9 0 3 0 1 Sub Total (N-Central)
PA: People's Alliance UNP: United National Party JVP: Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MEP: Mahaj UCPF: Upcountry People's Front NLF: New Left Front SU: Sihala Urumaya CWC: Ceylon Wor TULF : Tamil United Liberation Front EPDP: Eelam People's Democratic Party PLOTE : People's Liberation of Organization Tamil Eelam A - Z : Other Listed Parties PNG: Parties Not Given

Table IV
plainants (Cumulative Figures ) Date:04/12/01
UCPF EPRLF SU CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC A - Z PNG TOTAL
1 3 5 43 131 806 1 10 1 4 8 2 292 1474 3 36 130
1 4 4 0 1 2 1 6 1 1 8 5 3 18 13 1 1 5 33 1 4 5
1 1 2 14 2 1 7 56 1 1 1 8 2 12 46
1 6 1 2 1 50 139 0 1 3 0 17 27 11 10 69 6 544 2735
MEP: Mahajana Eksath Peramuna LP: Liberal Party CWC: Ceylon Workers' Congress ation Tamil Eelam SLMC : Sri Lanka Muslim Congress

Page 14
Description Election Campaign Violations
of Incidents Reported by Date of Incident [ as at 04/
Major Incidents Dates of Alleged Murder Att. Hurt Grie. Assault Threat & Mis. of state Rob. Arson Major Mis
Offences Murder Hurt Intimid. resources (Total) 10/11/01 0 10/12/01 0 10/13/01 0 10/14/01 0 1 10/15/01 1 1 1 10/16/01 0 10/17/01 0 10/18/01 1 1 10/19/01 1 1 10/20/01 1 3 4 10/21/01 2 1 3 3 10/22/01 3 3 10/23/01 1 4 4 1 10 3 10/24/01 1 1 3 5 10/25/01 2 1 3 1 10/26/01 1 3 3 7 1 10/27/01 7 7 1 15 11 10/28/01 1 4 5 4 3 1 18 9 10/29/01 6 1 3 1 11 4 10/30/01 3 1 4 2 10 4 10/31/01 1 1 1 4 1 1 9 5 11/1/01 1 1 5 3 7 2 19 7 11/2/01 2 1 13 7 4 1 1 29 13 11/3/01 1 2 6 2 1 12 12 11/4/01 3 4 2 4 7 2 1 23 8 11/5/01 4 1 3 7 1 1 17 3 11/6/01 1 2 5 2 2 1 13 8 11/7/01 1 6 5 5 1 2 20 6 11/8/01 7 3 4 3 2 19 7 11/9/01 2 1 12 5 1 2 23 7 11/10/01 1 10 15 7 4 2 39 8 11/11/01 1 2 8 3 20 15 1 4 54 21 11/12/01 3 12 2 12 7 1 3 40 15 11/13/01 2 7 1 13 7 1 1 6 38 17 11/14/01 1 1 6 1 14 6 3 32 25 11/15/01 1 6 2 5 9 3 1 1 28 6 11/16/01 1 4 7 4 3 19 13 11/17/01 1 1 7 2 9 5 2 3 30 10 11/18/01 4 11 3 19 11 2 3 3 56 15 11/19/01 1 5 7 1 16 11 1 42 16 11/20/01 7 1 22 9 2 4 45 21 11/21/01 1 4 1 18 12 1 3 5 45 18 11/22/01 1 6 1 18 16 1 4 47 15 11/23/01 2 4 13 6 4 2 31 22 11/24/01 1 7 2 14 9 1 2 11 47 29 11/25/01 2 11 5 16 12 1 1 6 54 29 11/26/01 1 2 6 5 9 9 5 4 6 47 23 11/27/01 1 3 10 3 17 10 1 4 9 58 22 11/28/01 1 10 2 14 14 1 4 6 52 15 11/29/01 3 5 9 2 10 23 2 11 65 19 11/30/01 4 4 12 1 19 15 3 4 62 20 12/1/01 3 10 17 3 19 19 4 13 88 26 12/2/01 7 12 16 33 28 9 8 113 44 12/3/01 1 5 4 12 26 4 4 56 19 12/4/01 5 9 6 16 51 6 5 98 14
Total 48 82 272 52 469 404 20 75 140 1562 596
2001 General Election Campaign

e of Incident [ as at 04/12/01 ]
Table V
Minor Incidents Total # of
Remarks n Major Mischief Threat Dam. to Elec. Others Minor Incidents Firearms Poll.,
(Total) Property Offence (Total) Involved Related
0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 3 7 4 3 3 3 6 9 2 3 3 1 4 7 2 1 10 3 2 5 15 4 5 3 2 5 10 2 3 1 9 1 1 12 15 1 7 1 2 1 4 11 4 15 11 6 1 1 19 34 1 1 18 9 9 1 3 22 40 6 11 4 9 2 15 26 5 10 4 9 13 23 2 1 9 5 6 11 20 3 19 7 4 11 30 5 1 29 13 7 20 49 9 1 12 12 5 17 29 3 1 23 8 6 2 1 17 40 12 1 17 3 9 12 29 7 1 13 8 7 1 16 29 5 2 20 6 9 15 35 8 2 19 7 2 1 2 4 16 35 5 2 23 7 2 2 2 13 36 9 2 39 8 5 5 18 57 14 4 54 21 23 1 1 46 100 23 3 40 15 13 3 1 32 72 12 6 38 17 17 3 1 38 76 12 3 32 25 9 1 35 67 8 1 28 6 6 2 2 16 44 9 3 19 13 7 1 1 1 23 42 7 3 30 10 16 1 27 57 7 3 56 15 9 1 25 81 26 42 16 12 3 31 73 21 4 45 21 14 5 4 4 48 93 21 1 5 45 18 9 3 1 5 36 81 17 2 4 47 15 10 2 3 30 77 23 2 31 22 14 1 2 2 41 72 11 2 11 47 29 15 5 49 96 13
6 54 29 21 4 3 57 111 23 1 6 47 23 10 4 37 84 18 1 9 58 22 14 2 2 40 98 20 3 6 52 15 10 2 27 79 20 11 65 19 9 2 1 1 32 97 35 1 4 62 20 11 1 1 1 34 96 28 1 13 88 26 18 2 4 50 138 39 4 8 113 44 10 3 7 1 65 178 58 8 4 56 19 9 4 1 1 34 90 31 2 5 98 14 2 11 5 9 41 139 81 4 140 1562 596 410 69 43 55 1173 2735 677 30
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 15
Election Campaign Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
ALL INCIDENTS BY TYPE (
1173 Minor Incidents (43%)

Figure CIDENTS BY TYPE (2735)
1
1562 Major Incidents (57%)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 16
Election Campaign Violations
ALL INCIDENTS BY PARTY OF ALLEGED P
544 PARTIES NOT GIVEN (20%)
27 EPDP (1%)
69 SLMC (3%)
751 UNP (28%)
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 2 RTY OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR (2735)
1284 PA (48%)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 17
Election Campaign Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
MAJOR INCIDENTS BY TYPE
Murd 3%
Misuse of State Resources 1%
Robbery 5%
Arson 9%
Threat & Intimidation 26%

Figure INCIDENTS BY TYPE (1562)
3
Murder 3%
Attempted Murder 5%
Hurt 17%
Grievous Hurt 3%
Assault 31%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 18
Election Campaign Violations
MAJOR INCIDENTS BY PARTY OF ALLEGED
Parties Not Given (303)
Others (47)
SLMC (40)
UNP (432)
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 4 PARTY OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR (1562)
PA (740)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 19
Election Campaign Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
MINOR INCIDENTS BY TYPE
Threat 35%
Election Offences 4%
Others 5% Damage to Property 6%

Figure INCIDENTS BY TYPE (1173)
5
thers 5%
Mischief 50%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 20
Election Campaign Violations
MINOR INCIDENTS BY PARTY OF ALLEGED
Parties not Given 21% SLMC 3%
JVP 0%
UNP 28%
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 6 PARTY OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR (1173)
PA 48%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 21
Election Campaign Violations
PROFILE OF ALL ALLEGED VIOLATIO
250
230
200
189
18
PA UNP
2001 General Election Campaign
156
150
91
0
141
100
26
88
59
50
30
36
15
24
21 11

L ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BY PARTY
Murder Attempted Murder Hurt Grievous Hurt Assault Threat & Intimidation Misuse of State Resources Robbery Arson
5
24
Figure 7
156
103
88
91
59 51
32 21
18 19 18
22
15
0
2
1
UNP PARTIES NOT GIVEN
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 22
Election Campaign Violations
PROFILE OF ALLEGED PA VIOLENCE MAJOR INCIDENTS (740)
2001 General Election Campaign
PROFIL
Murder 1%
Threat & Intimidation 21%
Arson
Robbery
8%
5%
Attempted Murder 4%
Misuse of State Resources 3%
Hurt 19%
Th Intim 2
Grievous Hurt 4%
Assault 31%

Figure 8
PROFILE OF ALLEGED UNP VIOLENCE MAJOR INCIDENTS (432)
Murder
Robbery 4% IOLENCE 40)
Arson
Murder 4%
3%
Attempted Murder Hurt
6% 19%
Hurt 20%
Grievous Hurt 4%
Grievous Hurt 6%
Assault 37%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) Threat & Intimidation 21%

Page 23
Election Campaign Violations
PROFILE OF ALLEGED PA VIOLENCE MINOR INCIDENTS (544)
Others 4%
Election Offences 3%
Damage to Property 7%
2001 General Election Campaign
Mischief 51%
Threat 35%
PROFI

IOLENCE 44)
Mischief 51%
Figure 9 PROFILE OF ALLEGED UNP VIOLENCE MINOR INCIDENTS (319)
Election Offences 4%
Damage to
Others 5%
Property 3%
Mischief 44%
Threat 44%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 24
Election Campaign Violations
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PA + UNP TA
(MAJOR INCIDENTS)
PA + UNP MAJOR VIOLATIONS (1172) ALL
Murder
Robbery
2%
Misuse of State
5%
Resources
Attempted Murder 5%
2%
Hurt 20%
Grievous Hurt 4%
Assault 32%
2001 General Election Campaign
Arson 7%
Threat & Intimidation 20%

Figure 10 GAINST PA + UNP TAKEN TOGETHER (MAJOR INCIDENTS)
NS (1172)
ALL OTHERS - MAJOR VIOLATIONS (390)
er
Murder 6%
Arson
Attempted
urt 0%
Robbery
16%
5%
Misuse of State
Murder 7%
Hurt 11%
Resources
Grievous Hurt 1%
1%
Grievous Hurt 4%
Threat &
Assault 21% Intimidation
32%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 25
Election Campaign Violations
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PA + UNP TA
(MINOR INCIDENTS)
PA + UNP MINOR VIOLATIONS (863) ALL O
Election Offence 3%
Damage to Property 5%
Mischief 49%
Threat 39%
2001 General Election Campaign
Others 4%
D

Figure 11 GAINST PA + UNP TAKEN TOGETHER (MINOR INCIDENTS)
63) ALL OTHERS - MINOR VIOLATIONS (310)
Election Offence
Others 6%
5%
Damage to Property 8% Mischief 49%
Mischief
Threat
57%
24%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 26
Election Campaign Violations
Complaints against
Complaints against PA (23) Parties Not Given (131)
Complaints against Others (53)
2001 General Election Campaign
COMPLAINTS MADE BY PA C
Complaints against UNP (599)
ag
Complain against Ot
(32)

Figure 12
PA COMPLAINTS MADE BY UNP
Complaints against Parties Not Given
Complaints against UNP (26)
(292)
Complaints against Others (32)
Complaints plaints against
against PA UNP (599)
(1124)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 27
Election Campaign Violations
COMPLAINTS MADE BY PA + UNP IN
TO OTHER PARTIES
PA + UNP 83%
All Others 17%
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 13 ADE BY PA + UNP IN COMPARISON TO OTHER PARTIES
Parties not
JVP Given
35% 36%
EPDP SLMC
TULF
9% ll Others
15%
5% 17%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 28
Election Campaign Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
OFFENCES REPORT BY PRO
350
338
Ma
300
268
250
225 213
165
145
132
0
Western Central North Western North Central South
201 200
157
150
100
50

Figure ES REPORT BY PROVINCE
14
Major Minor
225
201
196
202
168 157
135
100
48
42
orth Central Southern Uva Sabaragamuwa North-Eastern
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 29
Election Campaign Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
OFFENCES REPORT BY DIS
M
180
171
85
167
80
160
156
91
46
153
114
48
43
37
140
120
114
100
80
83
59
3
18
0
66
70
74
60
52
51 44 40
20
22

CES REPORT BY DISTRICT
Major Minor
4
74
48
43
37
114
37
85
74
14
17
Figure 15
91
80 73
74
62
49
34
25
26
27
28
23
19
32
12
9
Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 30
Election Campaign Violations
Comparison between 2000 and 2001 G USE OF FIREARMS BY PRO 180
160
165
2000 Elec
2001 Elec
140
120
100
103 96
80
85
78
60
60
59
40
37
20
0
Western Central North Western North Central Sou
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 16 een 2000 and 2001 General Elections F FIREARMS BY PROVINCE
2000 Elections (39 days)
2001 Elections (40 days)
121
87
78
59
53
52
41
37
35
11
rth Central Southern Uva Sabaragamuwa North-Eastern
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 31
Election Campaign Violations
Comparison Between 2000 and 2001
800
TOTAL NUMBER OF INC
700
136
First Week Second Week Third Week
2001 General Election Campaign
2000 20
600
500
* 463
471
130 * 108
0
* This includes incidents up to one week after the close of nominations ** This
443 400
300
200
100

Figure 17 etween 2000 and 2001 General Elections TAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
738
**
2000 2001
617
471
480
250
136
Third Week Fourth Week Fifth Week
minations ** This figure is for 6 days - 29/11/2001 to 04/12/2001
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 32
Election Campaign Violations
Comparison between 2000 and 2001 G TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS B 300
250
247
256
247
267
2000
200
196
135
111 98 87
2001 General Election Campaign
173
150
136
144 142
1
128
119
100
95
91
86 62
58
40
0
82
6
50

Figure 18
een 2000 and 2001 General Elections BER OF INCIDENTS BY DISTRICT
267
2000 2001
171
151
159
147
147
119
111
112
119
91
105
86
58
66
80
88
81
59
46
55
42
47
31
15
25
12
21
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 33
Election Campaign Violations
Comparison between 2000 and 2001 G TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS B 600
2000
500
503 481
418 400
358
300
288
301
277
200
205
100
0
Western Central North Western North Central S
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 19 een 2000 and 2001 General Elections ER OF INCIDENTS BY PROVINCE
2000 2001
421
358
370
259
235 205
204
218
151
90
North Central Southern Uva Sabaragamuwa North-Eastern
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 34
ELECTION DAY VIOLEN

CTION DAY VIOLENCE

Page 35
The following detailed Tables are self-explanatory. They outline the
nature and extent of irregularities during the actual election. The
Elections Commissioner himself annulled 37 polling centers based on
reports he had received from his Senior Presiding Officers (SPOs),
but it is CMEV’s view that there is no legal or ethical basis on which
he removed stuffed ballots from other polling centers, while counting
as valid all other votes polled in these centers. Since CMEV has
written on this subject in previous reports and since there is a
fundamental rights case being heard which relates to this and other ad
hoc measures adopted by the Elections Commissioner, this report will
not go into the matter in detail.
PART TWO: ELECTION DAY, DECEMB
It is imp
only 22
the Comm
flawed el
Detailed
polling c
CMEV, w
complain
the violen
exercise o

TION DAY, DECEMBER 05, 2001
tline the
on. The
based on
(SPOs),
n which
counting
EV has
ere is a
other ad
port will
It is important to note, however, that in the 2000 General Election
only 22 centres were annulled, which is another indicator that from
the Commissioner’s point of view as well this was a more violent and
flawed election.
Detailed analysis of election day monitor reports indicate that 920
polling centers were seriously flawed, out of 6003 monitored by
CMEV, which is 15.32% A comparison with police records and other
complaints needs to be made in order to spell out the exact extent of
the violence and violations on election day which marred the public’s
exercise of its franchise.

Page 36
SUMMARY BY DISTRIC
ELECTORAL DISTRICT [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO. OF NO. POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO. OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Colombo [136]
NO. OF POLLING CENTRES
NO. OF REGD. VOTERS
1,081,934 (75.10%)
Kalutara [98]
777 368 80 1,440,682
572,691 (79.78%)
Gampaha [247]
503 263 07 717,764
1,012,687 (78.74%)
Kandy [139]
850 449 105 1,285,973
637,679 (76.03%)
Matale [40]
619 398 133 838,687
226 108 20 299,606
(77.95%) 233,539

MMARY BY DISTRICT
NO. OF REGD. VOTERS
COMMENTS (All annulments and removal of ballots are by the Election Commissioner. Other comments reflect CMEV monitor reports)
1,440,682
NO. OF NO. OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
1,081,934 (75.10%)
(11.53%) 124761
193,016 (UNP)
717,764
(79.78%) 572,691
(2.55%) 14,636
Relatively calm and peaceful on election day.
1,285,973
27,871 (UNP)
CMEV concludes that Attanagalla, Ja Ela, Katana and Minuwangoda, electoral divisions should be re-polled
838,687
1,012,687
144920 (78.74%)
(14.31%)
8,509 (UNP)
26 Polling Centres Annulled. CMEV concludes that Galagedera, Gampola, Kundasale, Hewaheta, and Patha Dumbara electoral divisions should be re-polled
299,606
(76.03%) 637,679
(20.32%) 129588
80,660 (UNP)
233,539
23569 (77.95%)
(10.09%)
20,992 (UNP)
02 Polling Centres Annulled

Page 37
Nuwara Eliya [97]
343,472 (82.34%)
Kurunegala [255]
371 228 08 417,264
826,129 (79.01%)
Puttalam [247]
800 540 109 1,046,102
304,847 (71.53%)
Anuradhapura [267]
361 249 73 426,193
362,287 (73.97%)
Polonnaruwa [91]
396 292 49 489,776
189,574 (78.84%)
Galle [111]
219 123 08 240,444
557,561 (79.81%)
Matara [159]
529 379 46 698,558
402,235 (75.22%)
Hambantota [151]
414 306 23 534,694
357 190 53 369,073
(77.89%) 287,487

7,103 417,264
(82.34%) 343,472
(2.07%)
137,424 (UNP)
1,046,102
CMEV concludes that Hiriyala and Wariyapola electoral divisions should be re-polled
426,193
(79.01%) 826,129
(14.71%) 121526
49,993 (UNP)
CMEV concludes that Anamaduwa and Nattandiya electoral divisions should be re- polled
489,776
304,847
69,568 (71.53%)
(22.82%)
25,892 (UNP)
CMEV concludes that Kalawewa and Keirawa electoral divisions should be re-polled
240,444
362,287
55241 (73.97%)
(15.25%)
15,662 (UNP)
189,574
8244 (78.84%)
(04.34%)
13,107 (UNP)
698,558
CMEV concludes that Hiniduma electoral division should be re- polled
534,694
557,561
47,217 (79.81%)
(08.47%)
6,305 (UNP)
402,235
23,850 (75.22%)
(05.93%)
374 (UNP)
369,073
CMEV concludes that 287,487
44969 (77.89%)
(15.64%)
6,988 (UNP)
Beliatta and Tangalle electoral divisions should be re-polled

Page 38
Badulla
[31] 462 410 28 491,288
(78.72%) 400,463
Moneragala
[59] 259 158 16 247,280
(79.27%) 196,033
Ratnapura [88]
528 325 23 623,506 511,813 (82.08%)
Kegalle [147]
445 356 29 554,698
(77.57%) 430,285
Jaffna
[53] 445 265 61 633,457
(31.14%) 197,279
Wanni [41]
102,363 (46.77%)
Batticaloa [74]
177 86 07 218,861
188,723 (66.90%)
Trincomalee [19]
269 152 10 282,079
169,567 (79.87%)
Digamadulla [166]
230 138 05 212,280
289377 [80.27%]
TOTAL
[2735]
314 220 27 360497
9551 6003 920 124,28762
(76.36%) 94,49878

20011 491,288
(78.72%) 400,463
(05.00%)
62,730 (UNP)
247,280
(79.27%) 196,033
(06.13%) 12,009
1,256 (PA)
623,506 511,813 (82.08%)
32,161
19,050 (UNP) (06.28%)
CMEV concludes that Nivithigala electoral division should be re- polled
554,698
CMEV concludes that Aranayake and Rambukkana electoral divisions should be re-polled
633,457
430,285 (77.57%)
41,562 (09.66%)
37,764 (UNP)
197,279 (31.14%)
46114 (23.37%)
- -
218,861
(46.77%) 102,363
3210 [03.145]
39871 [TULF]
-
282,079
(66.90%) 188,723
6098 [3.23%]
40565 [TULF]
-
212,280
(79.87%) 169,567
4747 [2.79]
21079 [TULF]
-
360497
[80.27%] 289377
[11.77%] 34046
75257 [SLMC]
-
124,28762
(76.36%) 94,49878
(10.74%) 10,15150
755,211 [ UNP ]

Page 39
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO. OF NO. POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO. OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Galagedara [23]
NO. OF
NO. OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
36,092 (74.70 %)
Gampola [28]
41 39 23 48,642
57,323 (73.63 %)
Harispattuwa [01]
54 10 10 77,854
93 37 00 126,815
97,682 (77.03 %)

NO. OF VOTES POLLED IN FLAWED CENTRES (% polled)
COMMENTS (All NO. OF
annulments and removal REGD.
of ballots are by the VOTERS
Election Commissioner. Other comments reflect CMEV monitor reports)
48,642
NO. OF VOTES POLLED (%)
MAJORITY & PARTY VICTORIOUS
#24 two ballot boxes were burnt and Centre was annulled Centre Nos. 01,02,03,04,05,10,11,14,15 16,17,19,21,23,25,26,29,31 34,35,36 and 40 seriously flawed
77,854
36,092
20,087 (74.70 %)
(55.65 %)
4,459 (UNP)
Centre No. 31 was annulled. Ballots stuffed at #50 and #51 (84) #45 had 01 Murder. Another person killed at Andiyakadawatha. CMEV Monitor threatened. Centre Nos. 05,08,24,42,43 and 52 flawed.
126,815
57,323 (73.63 %)
11,622 (20.27 %) 291 (UNP)
97,682
00 (77.03 %)
24,613 (UNP)
--

Page 40
Hewaheta [13]
28,034 (48.46 %)
Kandy [06]
47 39 33 57,850
26,690 (75.50 %)
Kundasale [02]
25 25 01 35,351
53,300 (75.73 %)
Nawalapitiya [15]
40 28 10 70,383
55,233 (75.68 %)
Patha Dumbara [13]
47 19 04 72,986
48 24 24
67,327
45,121 (67.02 %)

Centre # 42- Murder. Centre Nos. 07, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 25, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38(m, f), 40, 41, 42, 43
57,850
28,034
20,269 (48.46 %)
(72.30 %)
were annulled [17 Centres in 3,684 (UNP)
all] 38 Ballots stuffed at #46. Centre Nos 01,02,03,04,05,12,14,16,19, 21,23,27,34,36,39 and 44 flawed
35,351
26,690
676 (75.50 %)
(2.53 %)
10,275 (UNP) Centre 01 flawed
70,383
Centres 20 – 01 Murder Centre No. 01 was annulled. 56 ballots stuffed at #13.
72,986
53,300
15,375 (75.73 %)
(28.85 %)
7,907 (UNP)
57 ballots stuffed at Centre 36. Centre Nos 29,42 and 46 flawed CMEV Monitor threatened.
67,327
55,233 (75.68 %)
7,971 (14.43 %) 3,520 (PA)
At Udathalawinna – 10 murders at 1700 hrs Centres No. 12(m, f), 16, 17, 22, 25, 30 were annulled. 14 and 78 ballots stuffed at #33 45,121 (67.02 %)
25,187 (55.82 %) and 38 respectively.
450 (PA)
CMEV Monitor assaulted and robbed. Centre Nos 01,03,04,05,06,10,11,13,14, 15,23,24,27,28,29 and 39 flawed

Page 41
Senkadagala [02]
46,997 (76.20 %)
Teldeniya [02]
41 35 02 61,677
30,014 (79.20 %)
Udu Dumbara [08]
34 34 02 37,897
37,752 (76.23 %)
Udunuwara [02]
48 37 01 49,524
50,811 (77.15 %)
Yatinuwara [24]
56 42 20 65,863
51,991 (78.16 %)
KANDY DISTRICT [139]
45 29 02 66,518
619 398 133132 838,687
637,679 (76.03 %)

1,570 61,677
46,997 (76.20 %)
(3.34 %)
9,851 (UNP)
69 ballots stuffed at Centre 5. Centre No 01 flawed
37,897
Centre Nos 12 and 23 flawed
49,524
30,014 (79.20 %)
2,382 (7.94 %)
2,516 (UNP)
Centre Nos 38 flawed
65,863
37,752 (76.23 %)
1,124 (2.98 %)
3,367 (UNP)
16 ballots stuffed at Centre 24. Centre Nos 01,02,03,07,10,11,14,16,21, 22,25,26,31,34,39,41,44,47 and 53 flawed
66,518
50,811 (77.15 %)
20,375 (40.10 %) 26,502 (UNP)
Centre Nos 29 and 43 flawed
838,687
51,991 (78.16 %)
2,950 (5.67 %)
4,553 (UNP)
Elections Commissioner annulled 26 polling centres. Compare with 13 annulled in October 2000 general election. 637,679
129588 (76.03 %)
(20.32%)
80,660 (UNP)
CMEV concludes that all centres in Galagedera, Gampola, Hewaheta, Kundasale and Patha Dumbara should be re- polled.

Page 42
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO. OF NO. POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO. OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Dambulla
[17]
NO. OF
NO. OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
76,594 (74.87 %)
Laggala
[09]
75 32 06 102,302
42,451 (75.64 %)
Matale
[08]
54 09 06 56,244
49,979 (74.56 %)
Rattota
[06]
40 30 04 67,034
56,831 (75.77 %)
MATALE
DISTRICT
[40]
57 37 04 74,026
226 108 20 299,606
233,539 (77.95 %)

NO. OF
NO. OF NO. REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS (See above for explanation)
102,302
Centre No. 67 was annulled Centre Nos 59,62,63,66 and 68 flawed
56,244
76,594
5,510 (74.87 %)
(7.19 %)
4,785 (UNP)
Centre No. 48 was annulled Centre Nos 20,47,51,52 and 54 flawed
67,034
42,451 (75.64 %)
6,658 (15.68 %) 4,821 (PA)
49,979
6,649 (74.56 %)
(13.30 %)
Centre Nos 01,02,13 and 36 flawed
74,026
13,434 (UNP)
56,831
4,752 (75.77 %)
(8.36 %)
Centre Nos 13,25,34 and 44 flawed
299,606
7,582 (UNP)
CMEV monitoring in the
233,539
23.569 (77.95 %)
(10.09 %)
20,992 (UNP)
Matale District was less than satisfactory due to the late recruitment of local monitors.

Page 43
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Hanguranketa
[32]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
47,532 (79.16 %)
Kotmale
[05]
63 39 01 60,044
49,975 (80.43 %)
N’Eliya/
Maskeliya
[25]
58 34 03 62,131
186,408 (81.64 %)
Walapane
[35]
185 104 03 228,317
53,450 (80.17 %)
N’ELIYA
DISTRICT
[97]
65 51 01 66,671
371 228 08 417,264
343,472 (82.34 %)

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
VOTES
MAJORITY POLLED IN FLAWED CENTRES (% polled) OF VOTES
& POLLED
PARTY (%)
VICTORIOUS
COMMENTS (See above for explanation)
60,044
47,532
1,392 (79.16 %)
(2.93%)
12,013 (UNP)
Centre No 57 flawed
62,131
49,975
2,139 (80.43 %)
(4.28 %)
15,128 (UNP)
Centre Nos 19, 23 and 24 flawed
228,317
186,408
2,735 (81.64 %)
(1.47 %)
Centre Nos 123,124 and 184 flawed
66,671
101,899 (UNP)
53,450
837 (80.17 %)
(1.56 %)
7,849 (UNP) Centre No 24 flawed
417,264
343,472
7,103 (82.34 %)
(2.07 %)
137,424 (UNP)
CMEV monitoring of the plantation areas was weak.

Page 44
SOUTHERN PROVINCE – DETAILS BY ELECTORATE - GALLE DI
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Akmeemana
[08]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
59,026 (80.42%)
Ambalangoda
[02]
53 30 04 73,397
49,141 (79.50%)
Baddegama
[26]
46 43 05 61,813
66,425 (81.98%)
Balapitiya
[00]
66 41 04 81,026
35,836 (75.01%)
Bentara –
Elpitiya
[07]
39 39 06 47,774
60 33 01 78,967
(79.63%) 62,884

ORATE - GALLE DISTRICT
NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS [See above for explanation]
73,397
Centre Nos 19,35,40 and 52 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
61,813
59,026
3,889 (80.42%)
(5.29%)
764 (PA)
Centre Nos 05,10,13,15 and 35 flawed
81,026
49,141
5,553 (79.50%)
(8.98%)
114 (PA)
Centre Nos 08,10,31 and 34 flawed
47,774
66,425
5,102 (81.98%)
(6.29%)
880 (PA)
Centre Nos 12,19,32,35,36 and 39 flawed
78,967
35,836
4,145 (75.01%)
(8.67%)
2,074 (UNP)
62,884
1,153 (79.63%)
(1.46%)
1,678( PA)
Centre No 02 flawed

Page 45
51,322 Galle
(74.43%) [01]
Habaraduwa
[10]
46 28 04 68949
55,090 (77.08%)
Hiniduma
[46]
57 30 02 71,473
75,518 (84.65%)
Karandeniya
[06]
64 54 14 83,302
46,918 (77.84%)
Ratgama
[05]
44 29 02 60,273
55,401 (77.38%)
GALLE
DISTRICT
[111]
54 52 04 71,592
529 379 46 698,558
(79.81%) 557,561

Centre 68949
(74.43%) 51,322
3,493 (5.06%)
11876(UNP)
Nos 07,17,18 and 40
flawed
71,473
(77.08%) 55,090
2,795 (3.91%)
Centre Nos 20 and 28 flawed
83,302
1,891(PA)
Centre Nos 07,08,15,16,21,35,46,52,54, 57,59,61,62 and 63 flawed
60,273
75,518 (84.65%)
15,181 (18.22%)
485 (PA)
46,918 (77.84%)
1,822 (3.02%)
Centre Nos 08 and 36 flawed
71,592
302 (PA)
Centre Nos 02,13,08 and 39 flawed
698,558
55,401 (77.38%)
4,084 (5.70%)
1,531(PA)
557,561 (79.81%)
47,217 (08.47%)
6,305 (UNP)

Page 46
SOUTHERN PROVINCE – DETAILS BY ELECTORATE - MATARA D
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Akuressa [36]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
63,899 (80.02%) Deniyaya [27]
59 39 01 79,850
49,141 (84.54%) Devinuwara [14]
57 53 01 77,540
53,733 (76.31%)
Hakmana [15]
58 50 06 70,412
60,033 (77.04%)
Kamburupitiya [21]
58 30 04 77,929
55,329 (76.22%)
Matara [18]
60 45 00 72,590
59 49 08 75,301
(77.81%) 58,589
Weligama [28] 63 40 03 81,072
(75.87%) 61,511
MATARA DISTRICT [159]
414 306 23 534,694
(75.22%) 402,235

ORATE - MATARA DISTRICT
NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
79,850
Centre No 52 flawed
77,540
63,899
1,394
UNP (80.02%)
(1.74%)
78
Centre No 15 flawed
70,412
49,141
1,471
UNP (84.54%)
(1.89%)
1,715
Centre Nos 23,29,44,48,54 and 56 flawed
77,929
53,733
5,419
UNP (76.31%)
(7.69%)
2,469
60,033
4,669 (77.04%)
(5.99%)
PA 1,120
Centre Nos 08,09,13 and 33 flawed
72,590
(76.22%) 55,329
00 (00%)
PA 1,202
--
75,301
Centre Nos 14,18,19,23,27,42,53 and 56 flawed
81,072
58,589
7,777
PA (77.81%)
(10.32%)
104
Centre Nos 06,42 and 62 flawed
534,694
61,511
3,120
PA (75.87%)
(3.84%)
1,462
402,235
23,850 (75.22%)
(5.93%)
UNP 374

Page 47
SOUTHERN PROVINCE – DETAILS BY ELECTORATE - HAMBANTO
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Beliatta
[34]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
54286 (76.94%)
Mulkirigala
[27]
72 43 12 70,560
63,309 (76.85%)
Tangalle
[42]
80 47 10 82,382
74,040 (78.66%)
Tissamaharama
[48]
86 61 25 94,126
95,852 (78.56%)
HAMBANTOTA
DISTRICT
[151]
119 39 06 122,005
357 190 53 369,073
(77.89%) 287,487

ORATE - HAMBANTOTA DISTRICT
NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
70,560
08 and 61 ballots stuffed at Centres 22 and 47 respectively. Centre Nos 15,19,21,30,31,33,35,36,37 and 44 flawed
82,382
54286 (76.94%)
9968 (14.13%)
PA 815
Centre Nos 11,15,16,17, 18,20,21,22,29 and 65 flawed
94,126
63,309
8112
UNP (76.85%)
(9.84%)
3,229
Forcible removal of 50 ballot papers at Centre #73. 55 ballots stuffed at # 15. Centre Nos 04,09,12,22,23,32,33,34,35, 36,39,43,44,53,70,75,78,79, 81,82,83,85 and 86 flawed
122,005
(78.66%) 74,040
(22.69%) 21,362
PA 1,206
01 Murder. 06 ballots stuffed at Centre 48. Cerntre Nos 13,77,97,109 and 114 flawed
369,073
95,852 (78.56%)
5,527 (04.53%)
UNP 5,780
287,487
44969 (77.89%)
(15.64%)
UNP 6,988

Page 48
SOUTHERN PROVINCE – DETAILS BY ELECTORATE - KALUTAT
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Agalawatta [17]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
67,709 (78.64%)
Bandaragama [13]
77 60 - 86,105
80,467 (81.39%) Bulathsinhala [10]
68 35 03 98,871
54,176 (79.91%) Beruwela [09]
65 36 - 67,795
74,333 (80.22%)
Kalutara [09]
51 28 - 92,658
75,316 (78.70%)
Horana [09]
58 29 01 95,698
75,417 (82.00%) Panadura [11]
61 15 02 91,968
76,615 (79.40%) Mathugama [20]
60 30 - 96,487
68,658 (77.86%)
KALUTARA DISTRICT [98]
63 30 01 88,182
503 263 07 717,764
(79.78%) 572,691

ORATE - KALUTATA DISTRICT
NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
86,105
--
98,871
67,709 (78.64%)
- 4,587 (UNP)
Centre Nos 31,54 and 61 flawed
67,795
80,467
9,274 (81.39%)
(09.37%)
306 (UNP)
--
92,658
54,176 (79.91%)
- 3,683 (UNP)
--
95,698
74,333 (80.22%)
- 11,068 (UNP)
# 27 A grenade was thrown to the polling Center at 0400-0500 hrs
91,968
75,316
1,271 (78.70%)
(01.32%)
3,651 (UNP)
Centre Nos 23 and 42 flawed
96,487
75,417
2,564 (82.00%)
(02.78%)
326 (PA)
--
88,182
76,615 (79.40%)
- 2,725 (UNP)
Centre No 28 flawed
717,764
68,658
1,527 (77.86%)
(01.73%)
3,529 (UNP)
572,691
14,636 (79.78%)
(2.55%)
27,871 (UNP)

Page 49
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Anuradhapura East [37]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
54,788 (74.41%)
Anuradhapura West [50]
57 41 -- 73,626
56,818 (72.77%)
Horowpathana [21]
65 41 4 78,076
46,037 (73.79%)
Kekirawa [35]
49 28 2 62,393
46,897 (75.03%)
Kalawewa [92]
49 44 7 62,502
69 48 25 97,120 72,665
(74.82%)
Madawachchiya [18]
47,820 (72.56%)
Mihinthale [14]
62 60 2 65,903
37,262 (74.34%)
ANURADHAPURA DISTRICT [267]
45 30 9 50,126
396 292 49 489,776
(73.97%) 362,287

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
73,626
(74.41%) 54,788
-- 3,062 (UNP)
--
78,076
(72.77%) 56,818
4,881 (8.59%)
6,542 (UNP Centre Nos 35,39,49 and
57 flawed
62,393
Centre Nos 41 and 42 flawed
62,502
46,037 (73.79%)
1,990 (4.32%)
2,692 (UNP)
Centre Nos 05,06,09, 46,897
16,22, 27 and 34 flawed. (75.03%)
CMEV Monitor threatened.
97,120 72,665
(74.82%)
9,394 (20.03%)
5,765 (UNP)
Centre Nos 19,29,30,33,35,38,39,40,41 ,42,43,44,47,48,50,51,52, 53,55,57,64,66,67,68 and 69 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
65,903
27,060 (37.23%)
2,760 (PA)
Centre Nos 05,20 flawed
50,126
47,820
1861 (72.56%)
(3.89%)
627 (PA)
Centre Nos 20,25,27,30, 37,40,42,43 and 44 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
489,776
37,262
10,055 (74.34%)
(26.98%)
1,240 (UNP)
362,287
55241 (73.97%)
(15.25%)
15914 (UNP)

Page 50
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Medirigiriya
[6]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
50,879 (80.10%)
Minneriya
[18]
55 38 2 63,518
51,624 (77.46%)
Polonnaruwa
[67]
61 29 3 66,645
87,071 (78.95%)
POLONNARUWA
DISTRICT
[91]
103 56 3 110,281
219 123 8 240,444
(78.84%) 189,574

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
63,518
2750 (4.33%) 5,301 (UNP)
Centre Nos 11 and 25 flawed
66,645
50,879 (80.10%)
Centre Nos 07 and 17 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened. # 09 annulled.
110,281
51,624
3033 (77.46%)
(5.87%)
2,013 (UNP)
Centre Nos 38,43 and 56 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
240,444
87,071
2,461 (78.95%)
(2.82%)
5,818 (UNP)
189,574
8244 (78.84%)
(04.34%)
13,132 (UNP)

Page 51
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Kayts
[03]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
21361 [41.83%]
Jaffna
[09]
38 38 38 51072
13578 [24.58%]
Vaddukoddi
[00]
27 21 02 55244
20128 [33.01%]
Kopai
[01]
44 35 04 60967
23415 [38.17%]
Point Pedro
[15]
45 17 - 61334
36 30 01 43087
[32.56%] 14031

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
51072
No other polling agents Except EPDP allowed into polling centres
55244
21361 [41.83%]
21361 [100%]
11074 (EPDP)
EPDP chased away voters, rigged forcibly Centre Nos 20 and 21 flawed
60967
13578
3,499 [24.58%]
[25.76%]
3721 (TULF)
5,034 [25.00%] Centre Nos 34,36,39 and
5191 (TULF)
40 flawed
61334
20128 [33.01%]
--
43087
23415 [38.17%]
- 6239 (TULF)
14031
1,403 [32.56%]
[9.99%]
5789 (TULF) Centre No 03 flawed

Page 52
Kankasanthurai
[02]
17159 [26.76%]
Manippai [13]
45 14 - 64119
25339 [39.43%]
Chavakacheri [02]
45 43 04 64262
05 (Clustered in “cleared” areas)
No polling centres provided
15840 [28.92%]
Uduppiddy [08]
44
54779
18448 [34.2%]
Nallur [00]
39 34 4 53941
19776 [29.49]
Kilinochchi [00]
32 28 8 67057
No polling centres provided
1944 [3.38%]
Total [Jaffna District- [53]
50
57595
445 265 61 633457
[31.14%] 197279

17159 64119
[26.76%]
- 3318 (TULF) --
64262
[39.43%] 25339
1684 [6.65%]
Centre Nos 08,16,27 and 30 flawed
54779
6089 (TULF)
The non-provision of polling centres to voters of this area is travesty of democracy.
53941
15840 [28.92%]
- 7644 (TULF)
Centre Nos 11,27,30 and 35 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
67057
18448 [34.2%]
6394 [34.65%]
9108 (TULF)
Centre Nos 03,05,20,21,22,23,24 and 25 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
57595
19776 [29.49]
23353 [33.73%]
7222 (TULF)
The non-provision of polling centres to voters of this area is travesty of democracy.
633457
1944 [3.38%]
- 669 (TULF)
EPDP – 15378 197279
46114
[7.79%] [31.14%]
[23.37%]
TULF – 95914 [48.61%]
__

Page 53
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Kalmunai [36]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
46016 [79.82%]
Amparai [62]
45 44 14 57563
98544 [77.80%]
Pottuvil [61]
119 106 04 126660
96159 [82.39%]
Samanthurai [07]
100 54 05 116710
48658 [81.81%]
Digamadulla District [166]
50 16 04 59474
314 220 27 360407
[80.27%] 289377

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
57563
Severe form of rigging votes had taken place Centre Nos 01,03,04,05,09,10,12,13, 15,16,17,23,24 and 25 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
126660
46016 [79.82%]
19106 [41.52%] 11207[SLMC]
Centre Nos 18,57,58 and 108 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
116710
98544
4478 [77.80%]
[4.54%]
17664 [UNP]
Centre Nos 20,56,57,58 and 59 flawed
59474
96159
6326 [82.39%]
[6.57%]
165 [SLMC]
Centre Nos 09,12,13 and 25 flawed
360407
48658 [81.81%]
4136 [8.50%]
15724 [SLMC]
SLMC – 73517 289377
34046
[25.4%] [80.27%]
[11.77%]
UNP – 41149 [14.2%]
__

Page 54
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Bingiriya [29]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
57,778 (79.16%)
Dambadeniya [05]
60 45 02 72,990
64,382 (79.66%)
Dodangaslanda [22]
61 31 08 80,821
43,991 (74.56%)
Galgamuwa [14]
45 34 09 58,998
64,424 (70.46%)
Hiriyala [17]
62 34 02 84,253
55,957 (69.95%)
Katugampola [20]
56 43 31 80,000
63,106 (78.67%)
Kuliyapitiya [32]
65 44 07 80,221
68 45 01 82,926
(77.68%) 64,419

NO OF
NO OF REGD. VOTERS
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
VOTES POLLED IN FLAWED CENTRES (% polled)
MAJORITY & PARTY VICTORIOUS
COMMENTS
72,990
Centre Nos 29 and 45 flawed
80,821
57,778
(2.42%) (79.16%)
1,399
4,787 UNP
Centre Nos 32,36,37,45,50,51,55 and 57 flawed
58,998
64,382
(14.45%) (79.66%)
9,309
2,607 UNP
Centre Nos 06,10,24,29,30,31,34,36 and 37 flawed
84,253
43,991
(25.82%) (74.56%)
11,361
0765 UNP
Centre Nos 09 and 41 flawed
80,000
64,424
(4.74%) (70.46%)
3,059
0865 UNP
Centre Nos 01,03,06,08,09,18,21,24, 25,33,36,37,40,42,43,44, 45,46, 48,50,51,52,53 and 54 flawed Centre Nos 07,15,29 annulled. 50,40,58,83 ballots stuffed at #30,# 31,#38,#41 respectively
80,221
55,957 (69.95%)
(74.23%)
41538 5,998 UNP
Centre Nos 01,16,18,21,36,39 and 40 flawed
82,926
63,106
(11.18%) (78.67%)
7,060
1,253 PA
64,419
(1.47%) (77.68%)
0953
5,635 UNP Centre No 61 flawed

Page 55
Kurunegala [23]
53,863 (75.74%) Mawathagama [18]
46 40 02 71,111
54,197 (75.25%) Nikawaratiya [24]
55 30 03 72,027
58,723 (75.75%) Panduwasnuwara [16]
63 43 04 77,522
48,605 (77.60%)
Polgahawela [04]
49 30 03 62,636
51,098 (77.31%)
Wariyapola [20]
53 31 - 66,099
47,658 (75.29%)
Yapahuwa [11]
50 45 29 63,298
70,461 (75.97%)
Kurunegala District [255]
67 45 08 92,750
800 540 109 1,046,102
(79.01%) 826,129

(4.48%) 71,111
(75.74%) 53,863
2,416
7,471 UNP
Centre Nos 10 and 42 flawed
72,027
(75.25%) 54,197
(3.74%) 2,031
Centre Nos 12, 27 and 52 flawed
77,522
6,142 UNP
58,723 (75.75%)
(6.36%) 3,735
Centre Nos 35,36,47 and 59 flawed
62,636
4,495 UNP
48,605 (77.60%)
(1.84%) 3,800
Centre Nos 14,38 and 46 flawed
66,099
3,032 UNP
51,098 (77.31%)
- 4,007 UNP --
63,298
Centre Nos 02,03,04,05,06,07,08,10,14 ,15,20,21,22,24,25,27,28,2 9,32,38,48,49 and 50 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
Centre No 12, 39 annulled 31,59,72,62 ballots stuffed at #11, #13,#19,#26 respectively
92,750
47,658 (75.29%)
(53.22%) 25364
0516 UNP
Centre Nos 03,35,39,40,41,42,57 and 61 flawed
1,046,102
70,461 (75.97%)
(13.33%) 9,398
4,758 UNP
826,129 (79.01%)
121526 (14.71%)
49,993 UNP

Page 56
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Anamaduwa
[106]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
60,783 (69.12%)
Chilaw
[37]
86 75 29 87,938
68,128 (73.22%)
Nattandiya
[21]
78 54 11 93,040
51,155 (70.90%)
Puttlam
[50]
57 43 16 72,155
57,471 (67.72%)
Wennappuwa
[33]
69 51 08 84,866
61,667 (69.92%)
Puttlam District [247]
71 26 09 88,194
361 249 73 426,193
(71.53%) 304,847

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
87,938
Centre Nos 04,05,06,07,10,13,14,16, 17,18,19,20,23,24,26,28, 30,32,33,36,37,41,50,68, 69,70,72 and 80 flawed 10 ballots stuffed at #21
93,040
60,783 (69.12%)
(49.16%) 29,886
0798 UNP
Centre Nos 12,23,34,47,57,60,66,69, 73,74, and 77 flawed
72,155
68,128
(15.63%) (73.22%)
10,654
4,433 UNP
Centre Nos 06,09,16,18,25,26,27,28, 29,34,35,45,49,50 and 56 flawed # 21 annulled.
84,866
51,155
(27.05%) (70.90%)
13,841
0592 UNP
Centre Nos 05,31,33,34,42,43 and 46 flawed 53 ballots stuffed at #69
88,194
57,471
(12.57%) (67.72%)
7225
17,190 UNP
Centre Nos 01,05,07,08,09,13,14,38, and 39 flawed
426,193
61,667
(12.91%) (69.92%)
7,962
2,630 UNP
304,847
69568 (71.53%)
(22.82%)
25,892 UNP

Page 57
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Badulla [07]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
34,561 (75.89%) Bandarawela [08]
39 39 01 45,540
51,340 (78.17%)
Wiyaluwa [00]
57 52 03 65,674
31,618 (76.77%)
Hali-ela [00]
45 18 05 41,188
42924 (78.98%) Haputale [07]
48 48 - 54,349
40,235 (77.73%)
Mahiyanganaya [06]
54 54 - 51,762
55,275 (78.21%)
Passara [01]
69 62 14 70,678
39,665 (7828%) Uva Paranagama [00]
50 40 03 50,668
42,462 (82.03%)
Welimada [03]
48 48 02 51,363
48367 (81.06%) BADULLA DISTRICT [32]
52 49 - 59,666
462 410 28 491,288
(78.72%) 400,463

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
45,540
Centre No 29 flawed
65,674
34,561
968 (75.89%)
(2.80%)
3,722-UNP
Centre Nos 04,06 and 24 flawed
41,188
51,340
1,965 (78.17%)
(3.82%)
8,040-UNP
Centre Nos 12,29,32,34 and 40 flawed
54,349
31,618
3,574 (76.77%)
(11.30%)
2,843-UNP
--
51,762
42924 (78.98%) -
5,617-UNP
--
70,678
40,235 (77.73%)
- 9,774-UNP
Centre Nos 17,36,37,41,42,57,58,59,60 ,61,62,63,67 and 69 flawed
50,668
55,275 (78.21%)
8534 (15.43%) 13,092-UNP
Centre Nos 12,22 and 37 flawed
51,363
39,665
2,763 (7828%)
(6.96%)
8,316-UNP
Centre Nos 05 and 43 flawed
59,666
42,462
2,207 (82.03%)
(5.19%)
4,209UNP
--
491,288
48367 (81.06%)
- 7,042-UNP
400,463
20011 (78.72%)
(5.00%)
62,730-UNP

Page 58
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Bibile
[28]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
49424 (78.69%)
Monaragala
[16]
70 65 05 62,810
60586 (77.64%)
Wellawaya
[15]
85 54 05 78,033
86023 (80.82%)
MONARAGALA
DISTRICT
[59]
104 39 06 106,437
259 158 16 247280
(79.27%) 196033

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
62,810
Centre Nos 01,05,06,11 and 16 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
78,033
49424
4261 (78.69%)
(8.62%)
835-UNP
Centre Nos 19,21,28,30 and 38 flawed
106,437
60586
3148 (77.64%)
(5.19%)
3278-PA
Centre Nos 07,09,33,34,72 and 77 flawed
247280
86023
4600 (80.82%)
(5.34%)
1198-UNP
196033
12009 (79.27%)
(6.13%)
1256 (PA)

Page 59
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Aranayake
[26]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
35,684 (74.89%)
Dedigama [15]
40 38 09 47,648
61,042 (79.82%)
Deraniyagala [11]
60 44 - 76,475
43,789 (78.00%)
Galigamuwa [15]
53 53 01 56,143
45,680 (77.42%) Kegalle [21]
49 44 02 59,001
46,946 (76.55%) Mawanella [11]
46 44 04 61,324
55,963 (76.23%)
Rambukkana [38]
48 33 03 73,064
43,130 (76.23%)
Ruwanwella [05]
45 33 10 56,580
48,995 (79.13%) Yatiyantota [05]
52 31 - 61,914
49,056 (78.43%) KEGALLE DISTRICT [147]
52 36 - 62,548
445 356 29 554,698
(77.57%) 430,285

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
47,648
Centre Nos 09,13,27,31,33,34,37,38 and 40 flawed
76,475
35,684
12,270 (74.89%)
(34.38%)
5781-UNP
--
56,143
61,042 (79.82%)
- 6150-UNP
Centre No 04 flawed
59,001
43,789 (78.00%)
1510 (3.44%) 3855-UNP
Centre Nos 17 and 36 flawed
61,324
45,680
3710 (77.42%)
(8.12%)
1950-UNP
Centre Nos 35,39,40 and 44 flawed
73,064
46,946
5740 (76.55%)
(12.23%)
212-PA
Centre Nos 02,04 and 30 flawed
56,580
55,963
5112 (76.23%)
(9.13%)
13,204-UNP
Centre Nos 07,13,14,15,16,17,20,22,29 and 30 flawed
61,914
43,130
13,220 (76.23%)
(30.65%)
2904-UNP
--
62,548
48,995 (79.13%)
- 724-UNP
--
554,698
49,056 (78.43%)
- 3196-UNP
430,285
41,562 (77.57%)
(9.66%)
37,764 -UNP

Page 60
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Balangoda [03]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
66,967 (81.68%)
Eheliyagoda [05]
78 38 05 81,992
63,340 (79.93%)
Kalawana [06]
61 42 04 79,242
41,229 (84.69%) Kolonna [03]
47 44 - 48,682
84,419 (79.66%)
Nivitigala [29]
84 48 01 105,974
62,032 (84.77%)
Pelmadulla [05]
62 28 06 73,176
52,240 (84.82%) Rakwana [18]
52 34 02 61,586
64,232 (81.74%) Ratnapura [19]
68 43 02 78,583
77,354 (82.05%) RATNAPURA DISTRICT [88]
76 48 03 94,271
528 325 23 623,506
511,813 (82.08)

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
81,992
Centre Nos 02,13,22,52 and 58 flawed
79,242
66,967
5797 (81.68%)
(8.66%)
5133-UNP
Centre Nos 07,08,22 and 60 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened.
48,682
63,340
6725 (79.93%)
(10.62%)
861-UNP
41,229 (84.69%)
- 1737-PA
105,974
(79.66%) 84,419
1755 (2.08%)
3403-UNP Centre No 50 flawed
73,176
Centre Nos 02,04,07,10,20 and 23 flawed
61,586
62,032
9037 (84.77%)
(14.57%)
2613-PA
Centre Nos 42 and 44 flawed
78,583
52,240
2361 (84.82%)
(4.52%)
2806-UNP
Centre Nos 35 and 41 flawed
94,271
64,232
2628 (81.74%)
(4.09%)
6321-UNP
Centre Nos 02,03 and 61 flawed
623,506
77,354
3858 (82.05%)
(4.99%)
566-UNP
511,813
32,161
19,050-UNP (82.08)
(6.28%)

Page 61
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Avisswella
[13]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
73,889 (78.92%)
Borella
[05]
52 30 05 93,630
42986 (70.04%)
Colombo-
Central
[05]
33 32 26 61,373
112,670 (70.68%)
Colombo East
[18]
92 31 05 159,417
47600 (71.33%)
Colombo North
[01]
35 34 05 66736
40 32 06 86842 62,800
(72.32%)
Colombo West
[05]
23 16 - 41,908
(67.40%) 28,248

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
93,630
Centre Nos 05,08,29,35 and 50 flawed
61,373
73,889
8,768
3608 (78.92%)
(11.87%)
[UNP]
Centre Nos 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08, 09,10,11,12,13,14,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26, 28 and 29 flawed
159,417
42986
36370
11639 (70.04%)
(84.61%)
[UNP]
Centre Nos 13,26,60,75 and 76 flawed
66736
112,670 (70.68%)
6442 (5.72%)
61169 [UNP]
47600
8,184
14829 Centre (71.33%)
(17.19%)
[UNP]
Nos 15,27,28,29 and 34 flawed
Centre Nos 01,05,10,11,16 and 40 86842 62,800
flawed. (72.32%)
CMEV Monitor threatened.
41,908
12,829
29260 (20.43%)
[UNP]
28,248 (67.40%)
-
13967 [UNP]
--

Page 62
Dehiwala /
Mount Lavinia
[04]
45,004 (73.51%)
Homagama
[16]
33 15 03 61,222
97,531 (76.54%)
Kaduwela
[20]
65 24 03 127,422
104,930 (77.41%)
Kesbewa
[14]
66 37 05 135,550
102695 (78.05%)
Kolonnawa
[03]
73 36 03 131,571
58 23 14 102,676 79,175
(77.11%)
Kotte
[09]
55,582 (74.97%)
Maharagama
[14]
43 27 04 74,140
87,108 (75.84%)
Moratuwa
[02]
61 07 - 114,854
91438 (79.22%)
Ratmalana
[07]
71 - - 115,430
50,278 (74.04%)
COLOMBO
DISTRICT
[136]
32 24 01 67,911
777 368 80 1440,682
(75.10%) 1081,934

Centre 61,222
(73.51%) 45,004
4,606 (10.23%)
Nos 10,18 and 20
flawed
127,422
11,533 [UNP]
5722 (5.87%)
Centre Nos 25,29 and 35 flawed
135,550
97,531 (76.54%)
2554 [UNP]
Centre Nos 03,17,35,36 and 37 flawed
131,571
104,930 (77.41%)
9,205 (8.77%)
4092 [UNP]
102695
4445
(78.05%)
Centre [UNP]
Nos 15,20 and 45
flawed
102,676 79,175
(77.11%)
4,511 (4.39%)
21,366 (26.98%)
8791 [UNP]
Centre Nos 01,10,12,15,16,17,19,21, 22,28,39,46,49 and 54 flawed
74,140
Centre Nos 04,19,23 and 25 flawed
114,854
55,582 (74.97%)
5,399 (9.71%)
9144 [UNP]
87,108 (75.84%)
-
3132 [UNP]
--
115,430
(79.22%) 91438
-
8523 [UNP]
--
67,911
(74.04%) 50,278
1,359 (2.70%)
17,633 [UNP]
Centre No 30 flawed
1440,682
(75.10%) 1081,934
(11.53%) 124761
193,016 [UNP]

Page 63
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Attanagalla
[28]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
83,306 (78.57%)
Biyagama
[06]
65 45 31 106,025
73,998 (78.98 %)
Divulapitiya
[10]
59 35 01 93,735
70,265 (86.72)
Dompe
[10]
56 38 02 87,050
72,944 (79.73%)
Gampaha
[14]
65 28 - 91,487
91,361 (78.24%)
Je-Ela
[16]
78 21 - 116,768
70 30 23 109,799
(78.68) 86,394

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
106,025
Centre Nos 03,04,05,08,09,10,11, 12,15,23,24,25,26,29,30 ,33,39,40,41,44,48,50,5 2,53,54,55,56,57,63 and 64 flawed. CMEV Monitor threatened. 51 ballots stuffed at #51.
93,735
83,306 (78.57%)
37346 [44.82%]
9,913 [PA]
73,998
1556 (78.98 %)
[2.10%]
4,104 [UNP]
Centre No 17 flawed
87,050
Centre Nos 13 and 18 flawed
91,487
70,265
2,741
1,778 (86.72)
[3.90%]
[UNP]
4,492 [PA] --
116,768
72,944 (79.73%)
-
91,361 (78.24%)
9,040 [PA]
--
109,799
-
Centre Nos
86,394
35,168 (78.68)
(40.71 %)
3,697 [UNP]
01,02,03,06,09,10,15, 19,20,25,26,29,31,33,34 ,35,38,39,44,47,48,49 and 60 flawed

Page 64
Katana
[31]
86,232 (80..96%)
Kelaniya
[11]
69 40 13 106,508
62,063 (78.35%)
Mahara
[20]
56 33 02 79,217
88,281 (78.01%)
Minuwangoda
[39]
69 34 - 113,172
80,810 (78.11)
Mirigama
[15]
69 40 26 103,461
78,976 (78.32%)
Negombo
[30]
72 25 03 100,833
60 34 04 85,784 65,417
(76.26%)
Wattala
[17]
72,640 (78.82%)
GAMPAHA
DISTRICT
[247]
62 46 - 92,154
850 449 105 1285,973
(78.74%) 1012,687

Centre Nos
106,508
(80..96%) 86,232
17,453 (20.24%)
01,02,03,04,07,09,13, 23,28,30,41,43 and 45 flawed
79,217
4,423 [PA]
62,063 (78.35%)
2,924 (4.71%)
3,755 [UNP]
Centre Nos 05 and 09 flawed
113,172
(78.01%) 88,281
-
2,595 [PA]
--
103,461
# 58,59 Polling Centres were annulled. # 01, Centre 54 Votes were removed before counting. Centre Nos 02,03,07,13,18,19,20, 21,22,23,24,26,29,31, 32,35,40,49,57,65,69,42 and 54 flawed
100,833
80,810 (78.11)
38,375 (47.49%)
1,622 [PA]
78,976
4,389 (78.32%)
(5.56%)
2,391 [UNP]
Centre Nos 22,37 and 60 flawed
85,784 65,417
(76.26%)
4,968 (7.6%)
13,867 [UNP]
Centre Nos 12,43,44 and 45 flawed
92,154
(78.82%) 72,640
-
12,941 [UNP]
--
1285,973
(78.74%) 1012,687
144920 (14.31 %)
8,509 [UNP]

Page 65
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Kalkudah
[18]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
55947 (69.34%)
Batticaloa
[56]
79 38 06 80685
88,819 (67.88%)
Paddrippu
[00]
119 85 04 130,846
43,957 (62.31%)
BATTICALOA
DISTRICT
[74]
71
29
-- 70,548
269 152 10 282,079
(66.90%) 188,723

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
80685
Centre Nos 06,07,47,48,67 and 68 flawed
130,846
55947
3172 (69.34%)
[5.67%]
2078 (TULF)
88,819
2926 (67.88%)
[3.29%]
Centre Nos 93,96,97 and 101 flawed
70,548
117,29 (TULF)
43,957 (62.31%) -- 26,758 (TULF) ---
282,079
(66.90%) 188,723
6098 [3.23%]
TULF – 40565 [21.49%]

Page 66
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Trincomalee
[05]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
61,746 (75.83%)
Seruwila
[06]
76 35 -- 81,422
42,720 (70.39%)
Muthur
[08]
81 56 04 60,690
58,645 (83.57%)
TRINCOMALLEE DISTRICT
[19]
73 47 01 70,168
230 138 05 212,280
(79.87%) 169567

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
81,422
21079 [TULF] --
60,690
61,746 (75.83%)
--
42,720
3603
1301 (70.39%)
[8.43]
(UNP)
Centre Nos 20,39,47 and 48 flawed
70,168
(83.57%) 58,645
1139 [1.94%]
15083 (UNP)
Centre No 01 flawed
212,280
TULF – 21079 169567
4747
[12.43%] (79.87%)
[2.79]
UNP – 16384 [9.66%]

Page 67
ELECTORAL DIVISION [Number of Incidents of Violence During Campaign]
NO OF NO POLLING CENTRES VISITED
OF POLLING CENTRES SERIOUSLY FLAWED
NO OF VOTES POLLED (%)
Vavuniya
[41]
NO OF
NO OF POLLING
REGD. CENTRES
VOTERS
73 52 07 94,853
(55.92%) 53,038
Mannar
54 34 -- 70,850
(35.93%) 25,463
Mullaitivu
50 -- -- 53,158
630 ( 1.19%)
VANNI
DISTRICT
[41]
177 86 07 218,861
(46.77%) 102,363

NO OF
NO OF NO REGD. VOTERS
OF
VOTES
MAJORITY VOTES
POLLED IN
& POLLED
FLAWED
PARTY (%)
CENTRES
VICTORIOUS (% polled)
COMMENTS
94,853
Centre Nos 39,42,43,44,45,46 and 69 flawed
70,850
53,038
3210
16896 (55.92%)
[6.05%]
(TULF)
--
53,158
25,463 (35.93%)
--
12,996 (TULF)
---
218,861
630 ( 1.19%)
---
61 (PA)
102,363
3210
TULF – 39871 (46.77%)
[3.14]
[38.9%]

Page 68
Election Day Violations
Alleged Perpetrators of
AREA/PARTY PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF SU CWC TULF Western
Colombo 51 19 Gampaha 103 12 Kalutara 9 4 Sub Total(Western) 163 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central
Kandy 143 19 Matale 30 7 N ' Eliya 1 7 1 Sub Total(Central) 174 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 North Western
Kurunegala 79 9 Puttlam 54 20 Sub Total (Nor-West) 133 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Central
A 'pura 51 10 Polonnaruwa 8 5 Sub Total (N-Central) 59 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern
Galle 34 16 1 Hambantota 41 13 Matara 11 10 1 Sub Total (Southern) 86 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uva
Badulla 7 6 Monaragala 9 7 1 Sub Total (Uva) 16 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 22 3 Kegalle 33 11 Sub Total (Sabara) 55 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern
Jaffna 3 Wanni 2 6 Sub Total (Nothern) 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 Eastern
Batticaloa 8 1 3 Trincomalee 5 Digamadulla 11 5 2 Sub Total (Eastern) 24 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 GRAND TOTAL 710 187 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 9

Table Alleged Perpetrators of Violence
VI
LF SU CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC Election A - Z PNG TOTAL Firearms Officials (Remarks) 2 49 121 8
47 162 33 1 9 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 105 306 45
2 3 84 251 82 1 31 69 12 1 6 15 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 121 335 94
78 166 38 1 10 85 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 88 251 54
30 91 18 5 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 109 20
2 1 22 76 9
1 34 89 31
10 32 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 66 197 44
1 14 28 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 48 0
17 42 4
3 47 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 89 19
21 1 5 30 4 6 14 1 23 0 0 6 21 14 0 0 1 0 6 53 4
3 2 2 10 26 1
6 11 6 10 14 48 8 0 0 3 8 0 0 12 0 0 30 85 9 0 1 9 29 14 7 17 4 0 488 1473 289

Page 69
Election Day Violations
Geographic spread of offence
AREA/PARTY Murder Att. Hurt Griev. Assault Threat & Rob. Arson Mis Western Murder Hurt Intimid. Colombo 3 9 Gampaha 2 5 1 7 20 1 2 3 Kalutara 2 2 4 1 3 Sub Total(Western) 0 2 7 1 12 33 2 2 6 Central
Kandy 17 4 1 35 3 1 3 Matale 2 5 1 1 3 1 14 2 N ' Eliya 1 2 Sub Total(Central) 19 9 2 0 4 38 4 15 5 North Western
Kurunegala 3 2 1 1 3 25 2 4 Puttlam 2 5 1 8 11 2 5 3 Sub Total (Nor-West) 5 7 2 1 11 36 2 7 7 North Central
A 'pura 1 3 1 2 15 1 1 Polonnaruwa 1 Sub Total (N-Central) 0 1 3 1 2 16 0 1 1 Southern
Galle 1 1 1 11 2 Hambantota 1 1 12 1 Matara 2 2 4 Sub Total (Southern) 1 3 4 1 0 27 1 0 2 Uva
Badulla Monaragala Sub Total (Uva) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 1 1 1 4 1 2 Kegalle 2 1 1 2 1 Sub Total (Sabara) 0 3 1 1 2 6 1 0 3 Northern
Jaffna 1 Wanni Sub Total (Nothern) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern
Batticaloa 1 2 Trincomalee 2 Digamadulla 9 2 Sub Total (Eastern) 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 2 GRAND TOTAL 25 26 19 5 32 169 10 25 26

Table VII spread of offence
Rob. Arson Mischief Threat Dam. to Elec. Others TOTAL # of polling Firearms Pro. Offence centres (Remarks)
55 67 61 6 1 2 3 1 14 56 45 20 1 3 4 16 14 4 2 2 6 1 0 73 0 139 120 30
3 1 3 1 4 69 41 48 1 14 2 1 30 16 7
2 5 4 4 15 5 0 2 6 0 104 61 55
2 4 1 3 18 63 39 14 2 5 3 1 1 39 29 14 2 7 7 2 3 19 0 102 68 28
1 1 1 7 32 22 12
1 2 1 5 3 1 0 1 1 2 0 9 1 37 25 13
2 3 29 1 49 26 9 1 15 30 22 14
11 19 15 4 1 0 2 3 0 55 1 98 63 27
7 7 5 10 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 11 0
1 2 8 18 11 2 1 1 8 7 2 1 0 3 0 0 9 0 26 18 4
1 2 2 1 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 6 1
8 11 10 1 3 5 4 2 2 13 9 5 0 0 2 0 0 13 0 29 23 6 10 25 26 8 5 206 2 558 395 164

Page 70
Election Day Violations
AREA/PARTY Ballot Sys. Sml. Scl Seizing Poll.Agt Voter Ballot Box Elec. O Western Stuffing Imper
Geographic spread of offence
n
Imper
n
Polling Cards Related Related Related Relate Colombo 1 6 20 1 5 1 Gampaha 7 18 15 7 7 42 2 1 Kalutara 1 3 Sub Total(Western) 8 24 35 8 8 50 2 2 Central
Kandy 34 2 13 10 19 66 18 1 Matale 4 2 1 10 15 2 N ' Eliya 3 3 Sub Total(Central) 38 2 18 11 29 84 18 3 North Western
Kurunegala 30 11 6 5 6 31 1 Puttlam 3 8 2 11 17 1 Sub Total (Nor-West) 30 14 14 7 17 48 0 2 North Central
A 'pura 2 2 4 5 5 27 Polonnaruwa 1 1 1 2 1 2 Sub Total (N-Central) 3 3 4 6 5 29 1 2 Southern
Galle 1 4 2 10 1 Hambantota 5 5 7 13 7 8 Matara 2 1 Sub Total (Southern) 5 6 13 13 10 18 1 0 Uva
Badulla 2 7 1 1 7 Monaragala 1 1 1 1 Sub Total (Uva) 2 0 8 2 2 8 0 0 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 4 1 3 7 Kegalle 3 2 21 1 Sub Total (Sabara) 0 0 7 1 5 28 1 0 Northern
Jaffna 6 12 1 5 1 Wanni 6 13 Sub Total (Nothern) 0 12 25 0 1 5 0 1 Eastern
Batticaloa 1 4 1 2 6 Trincomalee 1 1 3 Digamadulla 5 9 1 6 12 1 Sub Total (Eastern) 6 14 3 0 8 21 0 1 GRAND TOTAL 92 75 127 48 85 291 23 11

Table VIII ic spread of offence
Ballot Box Elec. Off. Att
d
Stuffing Intimid. Ele.Mtr Total of # of polling Firearms Related Related & Imper
n
Presense Related Incidents centres 1 7 10 3 54 30 2 2 1 6 1 106 76 13
1 2 7 5 2 2 8 18 4 167 111 15
18 1 1 14 4 182 124 34
2 3 2 39 25 5 3 1 10 10 18 3 4 18 6 231 159 39
1 5 6 2 103 67 24 1 2 2 46 42 2 0 2 7 8 2 149 109 26
2 10 2 59 34 6 1 2 2 3 13 8 1 1 2 4 10 5 72 42 7
1 5 4 27 11
7 7 59 39 17 8 1 1 13 9 1 0 15 13 5 99 48 17
2 1 21 17 2 3 1 10 7 0 0 2 5 2 31 24 0
3 5 1 24 20 2 1 6 6 39 24 13 1 0 9 11 1 63 44 15
1 1 2 28 24 3
19 19 0 1 1 0 2 47 43 3
1 15 12
1 6 4 1 1 35 21 3 0 1 1 1 1 56 25 3 23 11 51 84 28 915 605 125

Page 71
Election Day Violations
Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetraters a
Comp.by Party against / Party PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF SU CWC TUL
Complaints by PA against 2 63 1 Complaints by UNP against 194 5 Complaints by JVP against 7 2 Complaints by MEP against Complaints by NUA against Complaints by UCPF against Complaints by EPRLF against Complaints by SU against Complaints by CWC against 1 Complaints by TULF against Complaints by EPDP against Complaints by PLOTE against Complaints by POLICE against 17 2 Complaints by SLMC against 15 1 Complaints by A - Z against 4 1 Complaints by PNG against 30 8 3 Complaints by CMEV Mtr against 435 105 3 2 2 6 Complaints by Ele.Officials against 5
TOTAL 710 187 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 9

Table IX
ations of Perpetraters and Complainants
CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC A - Z PNG CMEV Mtr Elec. Official TOTAL 1 2 2 10 80
2 3 41 245
2 11
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 30 16 1 6 3 33 74 6 27 14 5 11 390 4 1004
1 6 0 1 9 29 14 7 17 0 488 0 4 1473

Page 72
Election Day Violations
Alleged Offences by Pa
Murder Att. Hurt Griev. Assault Threat & Rob. Arson Party/ Offence
Murder Hurt Intimid. PA 17 7 10 2 18 84 8 9 UNP 3 8 4 2 9 21 2 3 JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF SU CWC 1 TULF EPDP 1 2 PLOTE POLICE 2 SLMC 1 2 Election Official A - Z PNG 5 10 4 1 4 58 13 Total 25 26 19 5 32 169 10 25

Table X
lleged Offences by Party
t & Rob. Arson Mischief Threat Dam. to Elec. Others TOTAL Firearms id. Pro. Offence (Remarks)
8 9 10 3 3 79 2 252 78 2 3 7 3 1 40 103 24
3 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 3
3 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 3 1 4 4 0 13 9 1 1 72 178 57 10 25 26 8 5 206 2 558 164

Page 73
Election Day Violations
Alleged Offences - Election R
Party/ Offence
Stuffing Ballot Sys. Sml. Scl Imper
n
Imper
n
Seizing Poll.Agt Voter Polling Cards Related Related Ballot Bo Related PA 53 23 33 29 52 172 17 UNP 4 5 11 2 4 40 1 JVP MEP NUA 1 UCPF EPRLF SU CWC TULF 6 EPDP 1 5 10 1 5 PLOTE 12 POLICE SLMC 3 1 2 8 Election Official A - Z PNG 34 32 60 17 26 66 5 Total 92 75 127 48 85 291 23

Table XI
Offences - Election Related
Voter Ballot Box Elec. Off. Att
d
Stuffing & Intimid. Ele.Mtr Total of Firearms Related Related Related Imper
n
Presense Related Incidents
Involved
172 17 6 23 35 15 458 61 40 1 1 8 7 1 84 6
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 5 1 1 2 26 4
12 3 3 8 14
0 0 66 5 3 19 42 6 310 54 291 23 11 51 84 28 915 125

Page 74
Election Day Violations
Attempted Murder
At the Centre Near the Centre Total
13 13 26
Threat and Intimidation
Threatening Activity Unlawful Entry
Bomb/Granade/Shooting At Near At Near
72 12 10 37 38
Polling Agent Related Incidents
Assault Chased out T & I Abduction Hurt Prev
30 26 15 4 6
Voter Related Incidents
Assault Chased out T & I Hurt Abduction Prev
65 40 119 13 4
Ballot Box Related Incidents
Attempted Theft Destruction Attempted Destruction Theft Total
3 12 1 7 23
Election Officials Related Incidents
T & I Documents Seized Assault Total
6 0 5 11
Election Monitor Related Incidents
Assault Threat Att.Murder Chasing away Documents
7 17 1 2 1

Table XII
de/Shooting
Near
Total
38 169
Hurt Preventing from reaching Documents Destroyed Attempted Murder Total
6 1 2 1 85
Abduction Preventing from reaching Total
4 50 291
Total
23
Documents Total
1 28

Page 75
POST-ELECTION VIOLEN

T-ELECTION VIOLENCE

Page 76
PART THREE: POST-ELECTION
(DECEMBER 6 – 13, 2001
One of the most disturbing features of this election is the resurgence of post-election violence, which was significantly reduced in regional and national elections since 1994. CMEV is not equipped to monitor post-election violence on a continuing and systematic basis, due mainly to financial constraints, hence this report does not claim either to be comprehensive or detailed.
Tables VI – X are self-explanatory, and yet the story they tell marks a return to the earlier era of extensive post-election violence and revenge-seeking with impunity that even the more violent recent elections had eschewed. In the short space of one week after the election, a total of 422 incidents have been recorded by CMEV, of which as much as 259 (61.4%) are Major violations, including 08 Murders, 06 Attempted Murders, 20 acts resulting in Hurt, 07 in Grievous Hurt, 40 Assaults, 32 reports of Threat and Intimidation, 24 Robberies and last but certainly not least 122 acts of Arson [See Figures 20 & 21]. The number of shops and houses burnt is most alarming since in the space of less than one week (and in a less than exhaustive coverage) this figure rivals the total for the entire five-week campaign (140) [See Figures 03 & 22].
The alleged perpetrators of the overwhelming majority of these incidents are supporters of the UNP who stand accused in 271 (64.2%), while the PA is allegedly responsible for 62 (14.7%) and persons of undeclared political affiliation for 82 (19.4%) [Figure 24].
The UNP incidents Thus, po election access to importan Murders 02 and p
CMEV r allegianc at the ha complain had been
Despite c be prose of the go UNP tak the oppo come in office in the elect Lanka.

E: POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE ECEMBER 6 – 13, 2001)
is the ificantly MEV is ing and nce this
.
they tell violence violent ek after CMEV, cluding rt, 07 in idation, on [See is most n a less e entire
of these in 271 %) and re 24].
The UNP is allegedly responsible for over 4 times the number of incidents for which the PA stands accused [Figures 02 & 21]. Thus, post-election violence reflects the mirror image of pre- election violence, with the party in power (or which just achieved access to power) wreaking the greatest damage. However, it is important to note that the PA is allegedly culpable for 05 of the 08 Murders that have taken place during this period, the PLOTE for 02 and persons of unknown political affiliation for 01.
CMEV reports indicate that, on the whole, the Police switched allegiance overnight, with many victims of post-election violence at the hands of UNP supporters being unable even to have their complaints recorded at police stations which prior to the election had been partisan towards the ruling People’s Alliance!
Despite claims made by the authorities that election violators will be prosecuted expeditiously, CMEV has not seen sufficient proof of the good faith of the main parties to this end. Both the PA and UNP take a high moral stand vis-à-vis election violations while in the opposition, but do little to bring the culprits to book once they come in to power. Identified perpetrators still continue to hold high office in these party hierarchies. Unless this situation is remedied, the electorate will lose all faith in the democratic process in Sri Lanka.

Page 77
Post Election Violations
Dates of Alleged
Description of Incidents Reported by Date of Inci
Major Incidents
Murder Att. Hurt Grie. Assault Threat & Mis. of state Rob. Arson Major Offences Murder Hurt Intimid. resources (Total) 12/6/01 6 2 13 9 3 25 58 2 12/7/01 3 5 7 2 14 12 15 51 109 4 12/8/01 5 3 8 2 4 10 8 30 70 2 12/9/01 1 1 2 2 8 7 8 35 64 2 12/10/01 5 1 3 4 2 15 30 1 12/11/01 1 1 4 14 20 8 12/12/01 1 3 2 1 4 11 7 12/13/01 1 4 5 2 1412/01 1 1 2 4 12/15/01 1 1 2 2 12/16/01 3 2 5 12/17/01 1 1 12/18/01 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10 11 33 10 43 50 0 44 180 381 15

Table eported by Date of Incident [ as at 18/12/01 ]
XIII
Minor Incidents Total # of
Remarks Arson Major Mischief Threat Dam. to Elec. Others Minor Incidents Firearms Poll.,
(Total) Property Offence (Total) Involved Related 25 58 25 9 15 1 1 51 109 14 51 109 45 7 16 1 1 70 179 25 30 70 23 17 15 2 57 127 19 35 64 23 9 2 1 3 38 102 12 15 30 15 8 1 24 54 5 14 20 8 3 1 12 32 1 4 11 7 1 1 9 20 3 4 5 2 2 7 1 2 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 6 8 10 1 5 0 5 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 381 150 54 58 3 7 272 653 85 0

Page 78
Post Election Violations
Alleged Perpetrators of Violence (Cumulative
AREA/PARTY PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF SU CWC Western
Colombo 3 Gampaha 8 54 Kalutara 4 10 Sub Total(Western) 12 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central
Kandy 2 33 Matale 6 30 N ' Eliya 8 Sub Total(Central) 8 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Western
Kurunegala 15 115 Puttlam 12 37 Sub Total (Nor-West) 27 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Central
A 'pura 12 43 Polonnaruwa 2 45 Sub Total (N-Central) 14 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern
Galle 3 Hambantota Matara 1 6 Sub Total (Southern) 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uva
Badulla 1 1 Monaragala 1 Sub Total (Uva) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 1 14 Kegalle 6 28 Sub Total (Sabara) 7 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern
Jaffna 2 Wanni 1 Sub Total (Nothern) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern
Batticaloa 5 2 Trincomalee 1 Digamadulla 1 1 Sub Total (Eastern) 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 78 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table f Violence (Cumulative Figures) Date:18/12/01
XIV
EPRLF SU CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC A - Z PNG TOTAL
1 4 22 84 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 105
10 45 3 39 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 97
23 153 13 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 215
13 68 7 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 122
9 12 1 1 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 26
1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
1 16 1 11 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 62
2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6
1 2 2 12
1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 16 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 132 653

Page 79
Post Election Violations
Offences Report (Cumulative Figures)
Major Incidents
AREA / OFFENCE Murder Att. Hurt Griev. Assault Threat & Misuse of State Robbery Arson Western Murder Hurt Intimid. Resources
Colombo 3 1 Gampaha 2 5 4 3 7 5 24 Kalutara 2 2 1 2 Sub Total (Western) 0 2 5 4 8 9 0 6 27 Central
Kandy 1 1 2 4 15 Matale 3 1 5 7 8 N ' Eliya 3 1 4 Sub Total (Central) 4 0 5 1 0 7 0 11 27 North Western
Kurunegala 2 7 1 8 14 9 47 Puttlam 1 4 3 4 3 4 19 Sub Total (Nor-West) 1 6 10 1 12 17 0 13 66 1 North Central
A 'pura 1 1 4 5 5 6 23 Polonnaruwa 1 4 3 3 3 8 Sub Total (Nor-Cen.) 1 2 8 0 8 8 0 9 31 Southern
Galle 1 11 Hambantota 1 Matara 2 3 2 2 Sub Total (Southern) 1 0 0 2 3 2 0 1 13 Uva
Badulla 1 1 Monaragala 1 Sub Total (Uva) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sabaragamuwa
Ratnapura 1 2 3 Kegalle 1 3 2 2 3 1 10 Sub Total (Sabara) 0 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 13 Northern
Jaffna 1 1 Wanni 2 1 1 Sub Total (Nothern) 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 Eastern
Batticaloa 6 2 1 Trincomalee 1 1 Digamadulla 1 1 Sub Total (Eastern) 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 1 1
GRAND TOTAL 10 11 33 10 43 50 0 44 180 3

Table XV
mulative Figures) Date:18/12/01
Minor incidents Total # of
Remarks
Robbery Arson Major Mischief Threat Damage to Election Others Minor
Incidents Firearms Poll.. (Total) Property Offence (Total) Involved Related 1 4 0 4 5 24 50 22 9 1 2 34 84 12 1 2 7 7 3 10 17 2 6 27 61 29 12 1 0 2 44 105 14 0
4 15 23 14 6 2 22 45 4 7 8 24 9 1 5 15 39 8
4 8 4 1 5 13 11 27 55 27 8 7 0 0 42 97 12 0
9 47 88 36 1 27 1 65 153 20 4 19 38 8 8 8 24 62 9 13 66 126 44 9 35 0 1 89 215 29 0
6 23 45 13 7 3 23 68 7 3 8 22 20 8 3 1 32 54 4 9 31 67 33 15 6 0 1 55 122 11 0
1 11 12 0 12
1 0 1 1 2 9 3 1 4 13 4 1 13 22 3 1 0 0 0 4 26 5 0
1 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 2 0
2 3 6 3 4 3 10 16 1 10 22 11 3 4 3 3 24 46 4 3 13 28 14 7 7 3 3 34 62 4 0
2 0 2 1 4 0 4 3 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0
1 9 1 2 3 12 3 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 13 0 1 2 0 0 3 16 5 0 44 180 381 150 54 58 3 7 272 653 85 0

Page 80
Post Election Violations
Category of Offences Carried Out by Each Party (Cumul
Major Incidents Perpetrators Murder Att. Hurt Grie. Assault Threat &
Misuse Of state Robbery
Arson Major Murder Hurt Intimid. resources (Total) PA 6 4 12 2 12 14 2 6 58 UNP 1 3 20 6 28 26 36 104 224 JVP 0 MEP 0 NUA 0 UCPF 0 EPRLF 0 SU 0 CWC 0 TULF 1 1 EPDP 0 PLOTE 2 1 3 POLICE 0 SLMC 1 1 2 A - Z 0 PNG 1 4 1 2 1 10 6 68 93
TOTAL 10 11 33 10 43 50 0 44 180 381
PA: People's Alliance UNP: United National Party JVP: Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MEP: Mahajana Ek UCPF: Upcountry People's Front NLF: New Left Front SU: Sihala Urumaya CWC: Ceylon Workers' TULF : Tamil United Liberation Front EPDP: Eelam People's Democratic Party PLOTE : People's Liberation SLMC : Sri Lanka Muslim Congress A - Z : Other Listed Parties PNG: Parties Not Given

Table XVI
by Each Party (Cumulative Figures) Date:18/12/01
Minor Incidents
Remarks Arson Major Mischief Threat
Damage to
Election Others Minor Grand Firearms Poll., (Total) Property Offence (Total) Total Involved Related 2 6 58 11 8 1 20 78 25 36 104 224 112 42 51 2 5 212 436 36
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 3
0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 1
0 0 0 6 68 93 27 4 6 2 39 132 20 44 180 381 150 54 58 3 7 272 653 85 0
MEP: Mahajana Eksath Peramuna LP: Liberal Party WC: Ceylon Workers' Congress
: People's Liberation of Organization Tamil Eelam

Page 81
Post Election Violations
Tabulations of Party Affiliations of Perpetraters and Complainants (Cumulative
Comp.by Party against / Party PA UNP JVP MEP NUA UCPF EPRLF
Complaints by PA against 3 411 Complaints by UNP against 71 5 Complaints by JVP against 7 Complaints by MEP against
Complaints by NUA against
Complaints by UCPF against
Complaints by EPRLF against
Complaints by SU against
Complaints by CWC against
Complaints by TULF against Complaints by EPDP against 2 Complaints by PLOTEagainst
Complaints by POLICE against Complaints by SLMC against 2 Complaints by A - Z against Complaints by PNG against 2 11
TOTAL
78 436 0 0 0 0 0
PA: People's Alliance UNP: United National Party JVP: Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna MEP: Mahaja UCPF: Upcountry People's Front NLF: New Left Front SU: Sihala Urumaya CWC: Ceylon Work TULF : Tamil United Liberation Front EPDP: Eelam People's Democratic Party PLOTE : People's Liberation of Organization Tamil Eelam A - Z : Other Listed Parties PNG: Parties Not Given

Table XVII
plainants (Cumulative Figures ) Date:18/12/01
UCPF EPRLF SU CWC TULF EPDP PLOTE POLICE SLMC A - Z PNG TOTAL
1 105 520 1 19 96
1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2 0 1 1 2 0 7 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 132 653
MEP: Mahajana Eksath Peramuna LP: Liberal Party CWC: Ceylon Workers' Congress ion Tamil Eelam SLMC : Sri Lanka Muslim Congress

Page 82
Post Election Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
ALL INCIDENTS BY TYPE (
272 Minor Incidents (42%)

Figure NCIDENTS BY TYPE (653)
20
381 Major Incidents (58%)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 83
Post Election Violations
ALL INCIDENTS BY PARTY OF ALLEGED P
132 PARTIES NOT GIVEN (20%)
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 21 ARTY OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR (653)
78 PA (12%)
436 UNP (68%)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 84
Post Election Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
MAJOR INCIDENTS BY TYPE
Murder 3%
Arson 46%

Figure INCIDENTS BY TYPE (381)
22
Murder 3%
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)
Attempted Murder 3%
Hurt 9%
Grievous Hurt 3%
Assault 11%
Threat & Intimidation 13%
Robbery 12%

Page 85
Post Election Violations
MAJOR INCIDENTS BY PARTY OF ALLEGED
93 Parties Not Given (25%)
224 UNP (60%)
2001 General Election Campaign

Figure 23 PARTY OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR (381)
224 UNP (60%)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)
58 PA (15%)

Page 86
Post Election Violations
Complaints against PA (03) Complaints against Parties Not Given (105)
Complaints against Others (01)
2001 General Election Campaign
COMPLAINTS MADE BY PA C
Complaints against UNP (411)
Compla against O
(01

Figure 24
PA COMPLAINTS MADE BY UNP
Complaints against Parties Not Given (19)
Complaints against Others (01)
laints against UNP
(411)
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)
Complaints against UNP (05)
Complaints against PA (71)

Page 87
Post Election Violations
2001 General Election Campaign
OFFENCES REPORT BY PRO
140
126
Ma
120
100
89
80
67 61 60
55
55
44
42 40
22 20
0
Western Central North Western North Central South

Figure25 ES REPORT BY PROVINCE
Major Minor
67
55
34 28 22
19
4
3
1
3
orth Central Southern Uva Sabaragamuwa North-Eastern
Source: Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 88
Post Election Violations
90
2001 General Election Campaign
OFFENCES REPORT BY DIS
88
M
65
38
24
80
70
60
50
34
7
50
45
32
23
22
12
0
40
30
24
15
8
5
23
22
20
10
10
4
0
0
1
0

CES REPORT BY DISTRICT
Major Minor
32
22
12
0
1
0
Figure 26
22
24
9
10
9
4
2
1 1
0
6
2
0
4
0
3
2
0
2
0
Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Page 89
PART FOUR

PART FOUR

Page 90
PART FOUR:
Gender and Election Violations: 250 female candidates sought election from a total of 4368, amounting to only 5.72%. Of these candidates, only a mere 10 or 5.1% were elected to Parliament, indicating that both the percentage of nominations and those successful at the election are extremely low even for the South Asian region.
In terms of individual districts, female candidates were successful only in Ratnapura (01), Matara (01), Kandy (01), Gampaha (01), Anuradhapura (01), Moneragala (01), Digamadulla (01), Puttalam (01) and Kurunegala (02). Where candidates were elected, this was on a higher percentage basis than males, which leads to the hypothesis that nomination is, in fact, the bottleneck for women. In fact, all the parties made their bias in favour of men clear in that none of the 29 national list MPs were women.
Regarding violence by and against women during the campaign, a continuing trend has been observed over the past few elections which relates to the gross sexualisation of violations, including forcible stripping, verbal sexual abuse, even rape of women. This trend has very serious consequences for democracy and gender equality in this country, but, unfortunately, the male chauvinist domination of the legal system, as evidenced by both the police and the judiciary, has thus far prevented any significant redress.
In summary, 125 acts of violence were committed against women during the campaign, the highest number taking place in the districts of Anuradhapura (22), Puttalam (14), Matara (13), Ratnapura (12) and Polonnaruwa (11). This means that of the 2735 incidents recorded islandwide, 4.6% were violations directed against women, and considering that only 5.7% of the candidates for election were females, this is alarmingly high.
Women incidents (06) dis violations maintaine women, trend tow oriented tendency brought b
Methodo
1) Pre-El
CMEV h including Governm Provincia North Ce in April 1 the 1999 of these, utilizing district le with a s political written a up), whi cumulativ informati to the Co

f 4368, re 10 or rcentage ely low
ccessful ha (01), Puttalam s was on pothesis t, all the f the 29
paign, a ns which forcible rend has y in this of the iary, has
t women districts (12) and recorded en, and on were
Women were allegedly involved as perpetrators in a total of 20 incidents, the highest recorded from Kandy (06) and Nuwara Eliya (06) districts, which together accounted for 60% of all such violations. Since this is the first election in which CMEV has maintained detailed records of violence directed against and by women, it is difficult to make nuanced comparisons. However, the trend towards demeaning women and subjecting them to sexually- oriented humiliation and worse appears to be on the increase. This tendency needs to be checked immediately and the perpetrators brought before the law without delay.
Methodology:
1) Pre-Election Violence
CMEV has monitored elections held in Sri Lanka since 1997, including the Local Government Elections of 1997, the Local Government Election in the Jaffna Peninsula in 1998, the North- West Provincial Council election in January 1999, the Western, Central, North Central, Uva, and Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council Elections in April 1999, the Southern Provincial Council election in June 1999, the 1999 Presidential Election, and the 2000 General Election. In each of these, CMEV’s methodology has remained virtually the same: utilizing field monitors at electoral division level, coordinators at district level, observers on election day at individual polling centres, with a secretariat in Colombo with access to police complaints, political party offices, organisations and individuals. CMEV accepts written and verbal complaints (which must be subsequently written- up), which are verified at the field level before inclusion in the cumulative totals. In addition, CMEV monitors obtain first-hand information and receive complaints which they follow-up and report to the Colombo office for processing.

Page 91
The vast majority of CMEV’s pre-election violence reports are substantiated by parallel police complaints. All of them, without exception, are corroborated by site visits and interviews with complainants. In every case of a major complaint the alleged perpetrator is contacted for his/her comment, though in some cases such inquiries from CMEV representatives have not been entertained by the alleged perpetrators.
There remain, however, a significant body of complaints which have not reached the police for a variety of reasons, such as 1) the police in some areas do not record complaints against some perpetrators, notably leading members of the PA, 2) some complainants claim, often with just cause, that they are afraid to make police complaints because of police partisanship and fear of repercussions from the alleged perpetrators, 3) some police complaints made at local stations do not reach the police election secretariat due to a number of reasons, which include, negligence, deliberate mis-identification of election-related complaints as non-election-related complaints (mis- classification of complaints),delays and other errors of omission and commission. Even these complaints reported only to CMEV are followed up with the police and other relevant authorities, and here too every effort is made to cross-check all Major Incidents with the accused individuals to obtain their side of the story.
In response to constructive criticism on CMEV’s previous reports, which suggest that a simple numerical tally of violations may be misleading since there is no discrimination between trivial incidents and serious ones, this Report too follows the 1999 Presidential Election Report in classifying all complaints into Major and Minor Incidents in conjunction with Police nomenclature. Thus, Major Incidents comprise Murder, Attempted Murder, Grievous Hurt, Hurt, Assault, Threat & Intimidation, Robbery, and Arson. The Minor Incidents are categorised as Mischief, Threat, Damage to Property, Election Offences, and Others. In this way, the analysis of violations can focus on both
quantum incidents cumulativ certainly Although offences, franchise public in CMEV d records t affected b place dur
2) Violen
CMEV h These are
1) T di vi 2) 30 by fo 3) D di w 4) E se an 5) M id

orts are without ws with alleged e cases tertained
ich have police in etrators, s claim, mplaints rom the stations mber of ation of nts (mis- sion and EV are and here with the
reports, may be incidents Election idents in comprise hreat & tegorised ces, and on both
quantum and degree of violence. Whilst CMEV has categorized the incidents into Major and Minor offences, we wish to emphasize that the cumulative impact of Minor offences in a particular area would certainly have a bearing on the exercise of the franchise in that area. Although these incidents fall into identifiable acts of election related offences, their direct consequences with regard to the exercise of the franchise can only be determined from the impact they have on the public in general and the victims of violence in particular. Thus, CMEV does not attempt to predict election outcomes, but merely records that the final results of an election would be fundamentally affected by the level and degree of violence and violations that take place during the campaign period and on polling day.
2) Violence on Election Day:
CMEV has five categories of observers in place on election day. These are
1) The Monitors responsible for each electoral (or polling) division, who are provided with a vehicle and are expected to visit around 15 polling centres each, 2) 30 election-day Observers per polling division who are picked by these monitors and who remain within one polling centre for the duration of polling, 3) District Coordinators who tour the problem areas within their districts, and provide an overview of the area as well as liaise with the police and election officials, 4) Experienced International Monitors who were located in selected areas countrywide and were provided both transport and translation facilities as well as local support. 5) Mobile monitoring teams which were deployed to pre- identified trouble spots and areas with weak local coverage.

Page 92
Workshops and training sessions were held regionally and at the polling division level in order to prepare monitors and election-day observers, and constant supervision and monitoring of their performance was maintained both by the Colombo coordination staff and specially-trained field coordinators.
In addition, CMEV had the benefit of reports and complaints from representatives of political parties and candidates, other independent observers, the general public, police records etc. All these were cross- checked, and the final accounting reflects this complex yet complementary relationship between CMEV and all of its trained officers as well as the ordinary citizen.
3) Post-Election Violence:
Though CMEV is not able to provide exhaustive post-election coverage islandwide, mainly due to financial constraints, the extent and seriousness of post-election violence necessitated a more representative coverage than on previous occasions. To this end, CMEV deployed five field teams which travelled to the worst-affected areas and provided first-hand information as well as documentary and photographic evidence of the carnage. As usual, local and election secretariat police records were obtained to corroborate CMEV’s own information, and the persons concerned were interviewed wherever possible.
4) General:
Different methodologies and monitoring strategies are used by the various organisations involved in election- monitoring the world over. In Sri Lanka MFFE/ PAFFREL (Movement for Free and Fair Elections & People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections) is the oldest election-
monitorin have wor mutual a adopted ultimate misunder findings o work of t
It is our than CM monitorin it has bu voluntaris issues su concrete has train representa approach particular
Other El
At the tim the PAFF Misuse o Administ 2001, an Mission t
The Elec nominatio incidents election c

at the tion-day of their tion staff
nts from ependent re cross- lex yet trained
-election extent a more his end, -affected tary and election V’s own wherever
by the rld over. lections election-
monitoring organisation in the country. CMEV and MFFE/ PAFFREL have worked in a spirit of close cooperation in the past, and there is mutual acknowledgement that the methodologies and techniques adopted by the two organisations differ fundamentally, though the ultimate goals remain the same. However, in order to clear any misunderstandings that may arise as a result of the comparison of the findings of CMEV with MFFE/ PAFFREL, the differences between the work of the two organisations need to be spelt out here.
It is our understanding that MFFE/ PAFFREL has broader objectives than CMEV, that it provides a platform for public participation in its monitoring, and that it works with local level organisations with whom it has built up a relationship over the years. Its ethos is, therefore, voluntarism and the creation of active public consciousness on the issues surrounding the electoral process. CMEV, is involved in the concrete task of monitoring specific election violations, and to this end has trained a team of professionals as well as a cadre of regional representatives. These and other differences in perspective and approach could naturally lead to a difference in the final analysis of a particular election.
Other Election Reports:
At the time of finalizing this report, CMEV was able to obtain copies of the PAFFREL/MFFE Interim Report, the Final Report on Monitoring Misuse of State Resource issued by the Institute of Human Rights, the Administration Report of the Commissioner of Elections for the Year 2001, and the Final Report of the European Union’s Observation Mission to Sri Lanka’s December 5, 2001 Parliamentary Election.
The Election Commissioner’s report is unequivocal: “From the date of nomination to the declaration of results there were a total of 2330 incidents of violence with some 46 murders and it was the worst election campaign and the whole process of democratic election might

Page 93
be destroyed especially if the major parties did [sic] not take urgent corrective action to curb violence and malpractice during the election” [104, CMEV emphasis].
However, the EU report claims that the “violence, abuses and attempted malpractice” did not prevent the people of Sri Lanka from exercising their democratic rights, and, moreover, that the “overall outcome which in our view did reflect the view of the electorate” [3 – 4]. In a context where every single preferential vote counts in the election of individuals to parliament, and in a situation where 40 polling centres were annulled and many thousands of votes removed in others by the Elections Commissioner himself, such a statement is patently untenable. Not only would even small differences in vote counts affect who is elected, differences in the total numbers would determine bonus seats and national lists as well.
The “almost 80%” voter turn out is repeatedly cited by the EU as evidence of the election’s legitimacy. Yet, as CMEV has pointed out since the 1997 local government elections, a high “voter turn out” is achieved in the polling centres with the highest number of impersonations and/or the greatest stuffing!
Attacks on CMEV Monitors/Observers:
Notable was the number and seriousness of threats received by CMEV Monitors during the election campaign as well as on election day. In fact, for the first time in CMEV’s history, four International Monitors were threatened and intimidated, two of their drivers assaulted or threatened and, in one case in Attanagalla, their vehicle damaged by PA supporters. Police complaints were lodged in each of these cases. On election day 3 monitors were attacked and subjected to injury by unidentified supporters of the PA. in Gampola, Patha Dumbara and Nawalapitiya in the Central Province,
one mon threatene Province
In the So in Sabara and in threatene monitor w Dasanaya threatene Yapahuw threatene monitors bringing the rest b
Validity
The ques physical the 2000 outcome. on hypot to make influence assumpti
1) The d irrede natur and comp

e urgent ing the
ses and ka from “overall rate” [3 ts in the here 40 emoved ement is in vote s would
e EU as nted out n out” is ber of
ived by election rnational drivers vehicle in each ked and PA. in rovince,
one monitor was assaulted in Polonnaruwa and another two threatened in Anuradhapura and Mihintale in the North Central Province, one threatened in Bibile in the Uva Province.
In the Southern Province one election day observer was threatened, in Sabaragamuwa Province in Eheliyagoda another was attacked, and in Colombo North in the Western Province another was threatened. In the North Western Province in Puttalam a foreign monitor was threatened while in the residence of PA candidate DM Dasanayake and on election day one monitor from Anamaduwa was threatened, while in the Kurunegala District in Wariyapola and Yapahuwa a CMEV monitor and election day observer were threatened respectively. In the North-East Province in Jaffna two monitors were attacked, and in the East another two were assaulted, bringing the total to 18, all but two allegedly by PA supporters, and the rest by the EPDP in Jaffna.
Validity of the outcome of a flawed election
The question invariably posed to CMEV is whether the extent of physical violence, intimidation, rigging and ballot-stuffing during the 2000 General Election was sufficient to influence its final outcome. CMEV does not wish to become embroiled in speculation on hypothetical alternate outcomes of this election, but we are able to make an objective assessment on the extent of possible voter influence on the basis of the following methodology and assumptions:
1) The determination that a particular polling station (centre) was irredeemably flawed is based on a composite assessment of the nature and extent of violations as observed by CMEV monitors and coordinators in the field, supplemented by verified complaints from individuals, political parties and the police.

Page 94
These violations range from shooting and bomb-throwing, stuffing of ballot boxes, systematic impersonation on a large scale, intimidation and violence on an extensive and organised scale throughout the day, the chasing out of rival polling agents and so on.
2) It is, therefore, clear that the free exercise of the franchise did not take place in the flawed Polling Centres, and that the outcome of the count in these centres is fundamentally flawed.
3) In the context of the General Election particularly (but in other elections as well) where not merely party votes but also individual preferential votes are of the utmost significance, it is clear that every single ballot is crucial. It is, therefore, irrelevant to speak of the election taken as a whole generally reflecting the will of the voters, since there are equally important issues as to who gets elected to Parliament and so on.
4) Despite repeated attempts to obtain the data on actual numbers polled in these stations, CMEV was unable to lay its hands on this information. CMEV decided, therefore, to measure the effect of the flawed Polling Centres in terms of total registered voters per electorate and then to reduce the number in keeping with the actual voter turn out for the electorate in question
5) This hypothetical figure would then stand in for the total number of votes polled in each flawed poling station, and the simple addition of these individual counts would produce the total votes (as a maximum) produced by flawed polling stations in the electorate.
6) This maximum would clearly not be the actual number of votes affected by irregularities, but there is no way of determining the exact quotient.
7) In ad
clear non-a votes which Perera of int Perera of, sa and th was p votes permi
which which
This effect of yo you a tallied behal
8) Using
statio this to taking

rowing, a large rganised g agents
did not tcome of
in other ndividual lear that speak of ll of the ho gets
numbers s on this ct of the ters per he actual
umber of addition es (as a orate.
of votes ning the
7) In addition, where stuffing and intimidation took place, it is not clear whether the majority polled reflects a significant proportion of non-affiliated voters (or those who are abroad etc), or whether the votes cast represent votes belonging to members of rival parties, in which case the difference should be halved. In other words, if voter Perera is a PA supporter who was unable to cast his vote as a result of intimidation and violence at a particular Polling Centre, and if Perera’s vote had been illegally cast by an impersonator in favour of, say, the UNP candidate, then, in effect, the PA has lost one vote and the UNP has gained two (the vote illegally cast and the one that was prevented from going to the PA). If, for instance, 100 such votes illegally cast were “rectified”, and the original voters permitted to vote, these 100 votes will change from being
100 UNP + 00 PA = 100 votes
to
00 UNP and 100 PA = 100 votes
which, from the PA point of view will be a shift from –100 to +100 which is a difference to 200.
This is why intimidation and violence against one’s rivals is so effective on election day. The mere fact of preventing one supporter of your opponent from voting is already one vote in your favour. If you are able to illegally use this ballot, then you have, in effect, tallied two votes. If, on the other hand, you have voted illegally on behalf of an absent non-partisan voter, the net gain is only one vote.
8) Using the maximum figure of votes polled from all flawed polling stations in a particular electorate as a rough gauge, and comparing this total with the majority recorded in the relevant electorate, and taking into account the scale and magnitude of violations that took

Page 95
place, CMEV has made a tentative assessment of the consequences of these flawed Polling centres on the final outcome in each electorate
9) It must be noted, however, that this is merely a tentative conclusion bases on the reasoning outlined above. It is not offered as a definitive statement on the election. Such a statement would be unnecessary since CMEV has already gone on record that the extent and magnitude violations necessitates a re-poll in the affected polling divisions.
Recommendations
CMEV wishes to reiterate its recommendations made at the end of the Presidential Election in 1999, since many of the key issues still remain unresolved. While there is little doubt that the Elections Commission needs to bring about far-reaching changes in the entire electoral process, at a more immediate level the following issues can and should be addressed as an urgent priority:
1) Changes in the procedure of applying and obtaining postal votes, to (a) increase confidentiality and security, (b) to ensure that persons so applying are not denied their right to vote without due process, (c) to ensure uniform procedures and safeguards, and (d) to prevent mistakes in deleting the names of postal voters from local voter registers.
2) Updating and streamlining of voter registers, particularly in areas such as the Jaffna District. In this process public and NGO participation is crucial. The availability of an accurate and up- to- date voter register (which take account of deaths, migration/ displacement, foreign residence etc.) is invaluable in preventing certain types of systematic impersonation on polling day.
3) Train carry has b occas record Centr situat protec may w have threat is no future
4) Payin
within and r electi Centr comp offici preva
5) The
voters delive occup wheth of act
6) Great pollin that t determ

of the outcome
tentative t offered t would that the l in the
d of the ues still lections he entire sues can
al votes, ure that hout due , and (d) ers from
in areas d NGO up- to- igration/ eventing
3) Training and Monitoring of election officials to ensure that they carry out their work professionally and without fear and favour. It has been repeatedly alleged, both at this election and on other occasions, that officials including Senior Presiding Officers do not record malpractices/ fraud that occur in their respective Polling Centres, thereby shutting out any possibility of remedying the situation. At the same time, these election officials should be protected from possible repercussions by affected politicians who may wish to take the law into their hands. A number of instances have been recorded where election officials have been allegedly threatened into submission even by prominent politicians. If there is no legal or other recourse to counteract this blatant violence, the future of the democratic electoral process is in jeopardy.
4) Paying more attention to the presence or absence of polling agents within Polling Centres. Training of polling agents in their duties and responsibilities which are crucial to ensuring a free and fair election. Providing greater protection at and around Polling Centres for polling agents and other officials. Redressing complaints by polling agents, counting agents and election officials to ensure that confidence and belief in the system prevails.
5) The mechanism and procedure of delivering polling cards to voters should be reformed. The current practice where postmen deliver all polling cards for a particular address to the chief occupant can and does lead to misuse. There is no verification whether all the polling cards delivered to an address bear names of actual current residents.
6) Greater transparency and accountability should be ensured at polling and particularly counting centres. CMEV holds the view that the total number of votes polled at each Polling Centre, as determined at both the polling and counting stages, should be part

Page 96
of the public record, freely accessible to all. This would prevent discrepancies between totals for the same centre at the polling and counting stages, as was evidenced at this Presidential election. This information would also indicate whether violence at a particular Polling Centre has affected voter turn- out, and whether the centre has any further credibility after such violence. CMEV is not suggesting that any information that would compromise the confidentiality of the ballot be released, merely the total number of votes cast.
7) Special training and guidance should be provided to polling and counting agents of all parties to ensure that impersonation and other irregularities are minimised on election day.
8) A more careful monitoring of the media during an election campaign is necessary to ensure that election laws are not violated. The misuse of state media by the party in power needs to be protected against, as well as the misuse of state resources.
9) The entire electoral process ;- voter registration, information on the relevant year of the list, appointment of officials, the poll, procedure at counting centres etc needs to be more transparent and open. This will foster confidence in the process.
Acknowledgements
CMEV wishes to record its appreciation of all those who assisted in the monitoring process, notably the Election Secretariat of the Police Headquarters as well as regional and local police officers, the Commissioner of Elections and his staff, polling station staff throughout the country who extended CMEV all courtesy and support as well as the media for their invaluable cooperation in the public interest campaign against election violence. As always CMEV is
Dr. P. Sara Co-Conven
grateful election funders n acknowle
CMEV complem campaign commitm division mention i
The Cen monitored 1997, wa (CPA), th Political monitor t

prevent ling and election. ce at a whether MEV is mise the number
ling and tion and
election are not needs to es.
ation on the poll, rent and
sisted in e Police ers, the on staff support e public MEV is
Dr. P. Saravanamuttu Sunanda Deshapriya Sunila Abeysekera Co-Convenor Co-Convenor Co-Convenor
grateful to the public who assisted in innumerable ways in this election monitoring exercise. But for the generosity of CMEV’s funders none of this would have been possible, and we gratefully acknowledge their continued support and belief in our work.
CMEV wishes to thank the international observers who complemented the efforts of our local monitors at the end of the campaign and on election day. Without the dedication and commitment of the CMEV Colombo staff, the provincial and polling division monitors, field coordinators and others, too numerous to mention individually, this exercise would not have been successful.
The Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV), which has monitored every national and regional election in Sri Lanka since 1997, was formed in that year by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), the Free Media Movement (FMM) and the Coalition Against Political Violence as an independent and non-partisan organization to monitor the incidence of election-related violence.