- Now let the courts, not politics, decide
The much-awaited verdict delivered this week in the marathon Easter Sunday attacks case marked an important moment for Sri Lanka's criminal justice system. After more than seven years of uncertainty, investigation and political controversy, a three-Judge High Court Trial-at-Bar convicted 15 of the 24 accused in the principal case, while nine were acquitted. The case involved 23,270 charges and more than 2,300 prosecution witnesses.
This perhaps is the most eagerly awaited case after the hearing of the case against several dozens of Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) members, including its Leader Patabendi Don Jinadasa Nandasiri Rohana Wijeweera for the insurrection of April 1971.
The Easter Sunday attacks of 21 April 2019 were among the darkest episodes in Sri Lanka's post-war history. Churches and hotels were targeted, hundreds were killed and many more were injured. The wounds have never completely healed.
There will be many analyses by legal experts as well as politicians on the issue of the verdict and the question of the mastermind, if any, of this gruesome crime. However, it is of imperative importance to allow the judicial process to do its work without turning the tragedy into an endless instrument of political confrontation.
Those found guilty must face the punishment prescribed by law, subject to their legal rights of appeal. At the same time, those acquitted must be treated as acquitted unless a higher court overturns those decisions.
This distinction is fundamental to the rule of law. The verdict demonstrates why criminal justice must remain in the hands of courts rather than political parties, Governments, media campaigns or public demonstrations. Fifteen people have been convicted and nine have been acquitted. That outcome does not necessarily satisfy every political narrative surrounding the Easter attacks, but it is the judicial determination in this particular case.
The verdict is not necessarily the end of every investigation. There is an important distinction between the conclusion of this trial and the conclusion of every question surrounding Easter Sunday.
There are also separate proceedings concerning alleged failures by senior security officials to act on intelligence warnings. In July of this year (2026), the former Inspector General of Police Pujith Senadhi Bandara Jayasundara and former Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando were sentenced to death after being convicted of criminal negligence and both have rights of appeal.
A separate investigation has also involved former Intelligence Chief Suresh Sallay, who was arrested in February 2026 under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Allegations concerning his involvement have been reported, but, allegations and arrests must not be confused with convictions. The Criminal Investigation Department has investigated the charges for several months, if not years. Hence, objecting to the grant of bail to a suspect on the argument that it would impede investigations could lead to speculations on political interference in the minds of the public.
That distinction is particularly important now. Justice should not become political revenge. Sri Lanka has experienced enough politicisation of criminal investigations. For decades, Governments have accused their predecessors of corruption, the abuse of power and criminal wrongdoing. Opposition politicians have accused Governments of using the Police and the legal system for political revenge. Governments change, investigations change direction and suspects sometimes become victims of political circumstances.
The Easter tragedy must not become another chapter in that cycle. If there is evidence against an individual, that person should be investigated, charged where appropriate and brought before a competent court.
If the evidence does not establish guilt, the individual should not be politically branded as guilty. That principle must apply equally to former Presidents, Ministers, military and intelligence officials, Opposition politicians, Government supporters and ordinary citizens.
There is a legitimate difference between accountability and a political vendetta. Accountability is evidence-based, institutionally independent and subject to judicial scrutiny. Vendetta is driven by political objectives, public pressure and the desire to punish an opponent. Any democratic society should choose the first and reject the second.
The Supreme Court's 2023 Fundamental-Rights judgement had already established significant findings concerning failures by senior officials to act upon information relating to the impending attacks. The Court considered applications concerning, among others, former President Maithripala Yapa Sirisena and senior security officials.
That judicial record should not be rewritten according to whichever political party happens to be in power. The victims deserve justice, not political theatre. For the families who lost parents, children, spouses and relatives, the Easter issue is not a political slogan.
They have legitimate questions on who planned the attacks and financed the criminal act, why were intelligence warnings not acted upon, and whether there was a wider network behind the attackers. These legitimate questions require legitimate answers and not political speculation.
The victims deserve a judicial process capable of establishing facts beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not need successive Governments converting their suffering into election rhetoric.
The Government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake came to power promising to pursue the truth about Easter Sunday. It has therefore been appropriate for the authorities to continue investigations where credible evidence exists. The Government must also demonstrate that these investigations are independent, evidence-driven and free from political direction.
That is especially important because Sallay's arrest and other investigations have inevitably revived political controversy surrounding the attacks. The Government should resist the temptation to declare political victory from every arrest. An arrest is not a conviction. An indictment is not a conviction. A political allegation is certainly not a conviction.
Only a court, after a fair trial, can establish criminal guilt. Sri Lanka needs to determine why the intelligence system failed, why warnings were not effectively acted upon, whether information-sharing mechanisms were defective and whether institutional reforms have actually prevented similar failures.
The lesson of Easter Sunday should therefore be bigger than punishment. It should include stronger intelligence coordination, clear responsibility for acting on credible warnings, the independent oversight of national security institutions, professional rather than political appointments, effective Parliamentary scrutiny, improved counter-terrorism capacity and an accountable security architecture operating within the law.
NPP/JVP @2: Successes & failures
President Dissanayake and the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) entered office in September 2024 with a strong political mandate, followed by a two-thirds Parliamentary majority. The central promise was not simply to change Governments but to affect a system change.
Two years on, the record is a mixed report card, neither an unqualified success nor a simple catalogue of failures.
The NPP's most politically important promise was to end the culture in which allegations of corruption disappeared when Governments changed. There is evidence that the machinery of investigation has become more active. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has continued arrests and prosecutions involving public officials and politicians. Among recent cases were the arrest of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna National Organiser and Opposition Parliamentarian Lakshman Namal Rajapaksa and charges against several other Rajapaksa family members – Yoshitha Rajapaksa, Shasheendra Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa, the latter who is absconding - and the Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Kumar Jayadeva Karannagoda. Former Ministers Johnston Xavier Fernando, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Nalin Fernando, and several others have been charged and some of them have been prosecuted such as former MP Sajin de Vass Gunawardena over an alleged failure to disclose assets, along with arrests involving senior former State officials.
The Government also points to its broader campaign against corruption, illicit financial networks and the misuse of public resources. President Dissanayake has repeatedly said that investigations must proceed on evidence and that political connections should not protect suspects.
But an arrest is not a conviction, and an investigation is not the same as justice. The Government's real test will be whether major investigations ultimately produce properly prepared indictments, fair trials, convictions where the evidence warrants them, the recovery of stolen assets and institutional reforms that prevent corruption from recurring.
The most politically sensitive issue is the perception of selectivity. The NPP came to power promising that corruption would be treated equally, irrespective of political party, family background or social position. The Government's supporters argue that investigations into figures associated with previous administrations demonstrate that the old culture of impunity is being dismantled.
The International Monetary Fund has specifically emphasised the independence of the CIABOC, beneficial ownership transparency, public procurement, State-owned enterprises and public-asset management. In its seventh staff level review, the IMF has raised several issues on accountability and transparency as well and stressed the need to strength the economy and curtail inflation.
The acid test, therefore, is not how many Opposition politicians are investigated, but whether the same law is demonstrably applied when allegations involve people close to the Government itself.
The most critical area is the economy. Economic stabilisation is not the same as economic transformation. The World Bank has warned that recovery remains incomplete as poverty remains substantially above pre-crisis levels, food prices remain high and the labour market has been slow to recover. The IMF similarly says that public debt remains elevated, reserves are below programme targets and private investment and foreign investment remain below potential.
The people want to see the recovery translated into a substantially better household economy. They want lower electricity charges, gas and petrol at lower costs as promised during the 2024 Elections. That remains an unfinished part of the Government's report card.
The largest gap in the two-year report card may be found not in day-to-day administration but in the Government's promise of a system change. The NPP promised a new Constitutional framework and the abolition of the Executive Presidency and holding the Provincial Council Elections as early as possible.
The manifesto had promised the abolition of the Executive Presidency and a new Constitution. A new Constitution requires consultation, consensus and careful drafting, but, the public is entitled to know when the process begins, who will conduct it and what its objectives are.
Instead of appointing a Constitutional Council for drafting a new Constitution, the Government decided to rush in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and that has resulted in genuine fears on the future strategy of the JVP.
The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations
---------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication