• Supun Lahiru Prakash on the conservation lessons Sri Lanka needs to learn 

The death of an elephant rarely passes without public emotion in Sri Lanka. But the recent passing of Sujeewa, a female elephant who spent years in state custody, has done more than stir grief, it has reopened difficult questions about conservation systems, law enforcement, and accountability.

Sujeewa’s story is not an isolated one. Taken from the wild as a calf and linked to a broader network of illegal elephant trafficking, she spent nearly a decade under the supervision of the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC). Her death, after months of reported illness, has prompted calls for a thorough and transparent investigation.

To better understand the wider context behind these concerns, The Daily Morning Brunch spoke with Environmental researcher and Activist Supun Lahiru Prakash, whose work has documented the illegal capture and internal trade of wild elephants in Sri Lanka. In this conversation, he reflects on Sujeewa’s life, the structural challenges within wildlife management, and what her death represents in a much larger system.

A system under strain

“Sujeewa’s story is deeply emotional, but it is also part of a broader pattern,” he said. “When we speak about her death, we are not only asking what happened in her final months. We are asking what her entire life in custody tells us about how we manage wildlife in Sri Lanka.”

Sujeewa was first taken into DWC custody in 2016 in connection with a case involving the illegal capture of elephants from the wild. Like many others in similar cases, she remained in a holding facility for years as legal proceedings moved slowly through the system. During this time, she matured, gave birth, and continued to live under state supervision.

“For an animal that survived the trauma of capture and adapted to captivity to then die under institutional care, it naturally raises questions,” Prakash said. “But those questions must be addressed through evidence, not assumptions.”

One of the key concerns raised in the aftermath of Sujeewa’s death relates to the capacity of institutions responsible for wildlife care.

Prakash pointed out that facilities such as the Udawalawe Elephant Transit Home have long faced resource constraints.

“There have been ongoing concerns about staffing shortages, particularly trained mahouts and veterinary support,” he explained. “These are not new issues. They have been raised repeatedly by professionals within the system itself.”

According to him, such limitations do not automatically imply wrongdoing, but they do highlight vulnerabilities.

“When you have a high number of animals, many of them with complex histories involving trauma or poor health, the margin for error becomes very small,” he said. “Even routine care becomes a challenge if resources are stretched.”

The legal and political backdrop of Sujeewa’s case

Sujeewa’s case cannot be separated from the legal and political developments that have shaped wildlife governance in recent years.

In 2021, a controversial regulation under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance allowed for the regularisation of certain captive elephants, including those suspected to have been illegally captured.

“This was a turning point,” Prakash noted. “It sparked a significant public debate because it raised ethical and legal questions about whether animals linked to illegal trade should be returned to individuals claiming ownership.”

The issue reached the courts, with conflicting interpretations about whether such releases should proceed. Ultimately, Sujeewa and her calf remained in DWC custody, but the case highlighted deeper tensions within the system.

“What it showed is that wildlife cases are not just about conservation. They intersect with law, politics, and sometimes influence,” he said.

Much of the current discourse around Sujeewa’s death revolves around whether it should be treated as suspicious. Prakash is measured in his response. “It is important to distinguish between suspicion and conclusion,” he said. “At this stage, what we have are concerns, some of which are valid. But the only way to address them responsibly is through a proper investigation.”

He supports calls for an inquiry involving independent authorities, including the Criminal Investigation Department, but stresses that its purpose should be clarity, not blame. “If there has been negligence, it must be identified. If there has been wrongdoing, it must be addressed. And if the death was due to natural or unavoidable causes, that too must be communicated transparently,” he said.

Patterns that cannot be ignored

While Sujeewa’s death is a focal point, Prakash emphasises that similar cases have occurred before.

He referenced the death of another elephant, Seevali, who was also linked to a trafficking case and died while in custody. There are also concerns about the health of other elephants currently under care.

“When individual cases begin to resemble each other, it becomes necessary to look at systemic factors,” he said. “This does not mean assigning blame prematurely, but it does mean asking whether there are recurring issues that need to be addressed.”

Prakash’s research has documented the scale of illegal elephant capture in Sri Lanka, particularly between 2008 and 2018. “We identified dozens of cases, but we believe the real number is higher,” he said. “This is a difficult trade to track because it is often organised and involves multiple actors.”

The demand for captive elephants, whether for religious, cultural, or tourism-related purposes, continues to drive this trade. “As long as there is demand, there will be attempts to supply it, legally or otherwise,” he explained. “That is why enforcement, transparency, and policy reform are all essential.”

What needs to change

Looking ahead, Prakash outlined several areas where improvements could make a meaningful difference. First is the need to strengthen legal processes. “Cases involving wildlife crimes should not take years to conclude,” he said. “Delays affect not only justice, but also the welfare of the animals involved.”

Second is investment in facilities and personnel. “We need trained staff, better infrastructure, and consistent funding,” he added. “Without that, even the best intentions cannot translate into effective care.”

Third is the development of a clear national policy on captive elephants, including registration systems, monitoring protocols, and welfare standards aligned with international guidelines. “These are not abstract recommendations,” he said. “They are practical steps that have been proposed for years.”

At its core, the conversation returns to accountability, not only within institutions, but across society. “Wildlife conservation is often seen as the responsibility of a single department,” Prakash said. “In reality, it reflects the priorities of an entire country.”

He pointed out that addressing illegal wildlife trade requires cooperation between law enforcement, policymakers, conservationists, and the public. “It is easy to react when something goes wrong,” he said. “The challenge is to build systems that prevent those situations in the first place.”

For him, the significance of her death lies in what happens next. “Sujeewa was not just a case file or a statistic. She was a living being with a history shaped by human actions. If her story leads to stronger systems, better care, and more accountability, then at least something meaningful can come out of it,” he said. “But that requires sustained attention, not just a moment of concern.”

Sujeewa’s life, marked by capture, captivity, and controversy, now leaves behind a set of questions that extend far beyond a single incident. Whether those questions are answered may determine not only the outcome of an investigation, but the future of how Sri Lanka protects its most iconic species.