Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has reportedly appealed to the Supreme Court following the Court of Appeal’s rejection of his attempt to prevent his arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in connection with investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. The legal proceedings raise fundamental questions about investigative powers, constitutional protections and the continuing search for accountability.
More than seven years have passed since the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks devastated Sri Lanka, killing hundreds of innocent people and leaving families confronting losses that no judicial process can ever fully repair.
The attacks also exposed profound failures within the country’s national security establishment, particularly concerning the handling of intelligence, communication between agencies and the responsibilities of those entrusted with protecting the public.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Those failures have remained central to the continuing debate about accountability.
Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has now reportedly filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of his earlier application to the Court of Appeal seeking protection against arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The Inspector General of Police, the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department and other respondents have reportedly been named in the proceedings.
The appeal must be understood within its proper legal context. An application seeking to prevent arrest does not establish innocence or guilt. Equally, the existence of an investigation does not establish criminal responsibility.
The Supreme Court will be required to consider the legal questions placed before it, including the extent of the powers available to investigators and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals who may face arrest.
Those protections apply to every citizen, including former presidents.
Indeed, the rule of law would be seriously weakened if constitutional rights were selectively applied according to a person’s political history, public reputation or popularity.
But the rights of individuals facing investigation must be considered alongside the legitimate expectation of victims and their families that the State will pursue credible investigations without fear or favour.
The Easter Sunday attacks were not simply another criminal incident. They represented a catastrophic failure of public protection, followed by years of controversy, competing explanations and persistent demands for the full circumstances to be established.
The distinction between political responsibility, administrative negligence and criminal culpability is particularly important.
A public official may have failed in the performance of a duty without necessarily committing a criminal offence. Conversely, holding high office cannot provide protection where evidence establishes conduct amounting to an offence under the law.
Investigators must therefore demonstrate precisely what conduct is alleged, what evidence supports the allegations and how that conduct satisfies the requirements of the applicable legislation.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act introduces an additional dimension. Its extensive powers have long attracted criticism, and their use must be subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny regardless of the identity of the person concerned.
Sri Lanka cannot credibly demand due process in some cases while disregarding it in others.
The families of those killed on Easter Sunday deserve more than periodic announcements, political accusations and lengthy legal proceedings. They deserve a competent investigation, an honest accounting of institutional failures and, where the evidence justifies it, prosecutions capable of withstanding scrutiny in court.
The former President is entitled to pursue every lawful remedy available to him. The investigative authorities are equally entitled to exercise powers conferred by law, subject to judicial supervision.
Be that as it may, seven years after Easter Sunday, the central obligation remains unchanged. Sri Lanka must establish the truth through evidence, protect the rights of those under investigation and deliver justice that can withstand examination long after the political arguments have faded.
