Last month, Sri Lanka marked the occasion of Vesak Poya, an important religious and cultural event. In keeping with a longstanding tradition, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake granted Presidential pardon to over 380 prisoners.

This act of clemency is generally intended to offer relief to those who have shown good behaviour, or those who have spent a substantial portion of their sentence behind bars with good behaviour. It is also meant to address miscarriages of justice and provide an opportunity for reintegration into society. However, this year’s pardon process has sparked widespread debate about the integrity and accountability of the system. This debate began when it was revealed that among the pardoned prisoners was an individual convicted of several serious financial frauds.

In the wake of the controversy, the Prisons Department issued a statement in an attempt to clarify the matter. It said that the specific individual was not singled out for Presidential pardon, but rather, he was simply deemed eligible according to the general criteria. Meanwhile, the Presidential Secretariat clarified that the name of this individual was not part of the official list that had been submitted to the President’s office by the department. This contradiction between the department’s and the Presidential Secretariat’s accounts has left the public and media in a state of confusion and anger.

The issue has now escalated to the point where the Presidential Secretariat has filed an official complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department, which is currently investigating the matter.

One key point that needs to be clarified is the role of the President in the pardoning process. It is impractical to expect the President to personally evaluate the nature of each prisoner’s offence or check the eligibility of every individual on the list. Instead, the list of potential pardon recipients is vetted by the department and other relevant officials working under the President. These officials are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the criteria for pardon are strictly adhered to. However, this delegation of responsibility comes with a significant burden of accountability. It is clear that the process lacks sufficient scrutiny, transparency, and oversight.

A Presidential pardon is not a blanket amnesty. It is a privilege that should be extended only to those who meet certain, well-defined criteria. It is certainly not intended for individuals convicted of serious, multiple, and financial crimes, as was the case here. In this context, the use of Presidential powers must not be taken lightly. There must be clear procedures in place to ensure that this powerful act of clemency is not abused or misused. In light of these concerns, it is vital that steps be taken to improve the accountability and transparency of the pardon process. This includes ensuring better oversight, rigorous checks, and thorough due diligence. Officials involved in the process must be held to the highest standards of responsibility, and there must be systems in place to prevent similar controversies from arising in the future.

Moreover, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka could play an instrumental role in supporting these improvements by issuing clear recommendations and guidelines. By doing so, they would help ensure that the criteria for granting pardons are not only fair and transparent but also in alignment with the country’s human rights obligations. After all, the issue at hand is not just a legal one; it is also a matter of human rights.  The thousands of individuals incarcerated in Sri Lanka’s prisons deserve a system that operates with fairness and integrity, especially when decisions about their future are being made.

It is imperative that the process of selecting, approving, and releasing prisoners under the Presidential pardon is continuously refined and strictly monitored. This will help restore public confidence in the system.