- No immediate plans to launch a special rehabilitation programme: Dep. Min. Dissanayake
The tragic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December, which claimed the lives of 16 individuals and injured dozens more during a Hanukkah celebration, has once again forced the global community to confront the devastating reality of targeted, extremist-linked violence.
As Australia mourns this recent loss and investigators delve into the radicalisation of the suspects involved, a critical question compels Sri Lanka as well: does Sri Lanka require a more robust, formalised rehabilitation system for radicalised individuals to neutralise these threats before they manifest in violence?
Hate crimes are defined as criminal acts motivated by bias against a victim’s actual or perceived characteristics, encompassing race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Recent federal data from the United States, released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in August, reveals that law enforcement agencies recorded 11,679 hate crime incidents involving more than 14,243 victims in 2024.
The majority of these incidents were motivated by racial or ethnic bias, followed significantly by religious and sexual orientation biases. Within these figures, anti-Jewish hate crimes rose by approximately 12%, while anti-Muslim incidents saw an 18% increase in major urban centres, illustrating how international tensions can directly influence domestic safety.
In the broader European landscape, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) released its 2024 Hate Crime Report in November.
This report consolidated data from 46 participating states and 125 civil society organisations, documenting a staggering 12,714 hate incidents. These statistics include a wide spectrum of harm, ranging from violent physical assaults and threats to property damage and harassment. Some analysts continue to warn that, despite these high numbers, hate crimes remain significantly underreported and under-prosecuted due to varying legal definitions and disparities in policing practices across different jurisdictions.
Easter Sunday attacks
The necessity for effective intervention is nowhere more apparent than in the memory of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka.
On 21 April 2019, the nation suffered one of its deadliest tragedies when suicide bombers from local extremist groups, primarily the National Thowheeth Jama’ath (NTJ) and Jammiyathul Millathu Ibrahim (JMI), targeted three churches and three luxury hotels. The coordinated strikes resulted in the deaths of 269 individuals and left over 500 injured.
The quest for justice remains a central pillar of the national discourse; in early 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling holding former President Maithripala Sirisena and high-ranking security officials liable for failing to prevent the attacks despite possessing actionable intelligence.
As of late 2025, criminal proceedings against 25 key suspects remain active in the Trial-at-Bar on the High Court, underscoring the long path towards accountability.
Post-conflict recovery
In response to the broader challenges of post-conflict recovery in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict and the threat of violent extremism, Sri Lanka has historically utilised a multimodal ‘6+1’ rehabilitation model.
This framework was designed to reintegrate individuals and prevent recidivism through six core pillars: educational training to improve literacy, vocational programmes for skill acquisition, psychosocial counselling for trauma, creative therapies involving art and music, social and family engagement to rebuild community ties, and spiritual or religious guidance to address ideological distortion. The final ‘+1’ component focused on community rehabilitation, ensuring that individuals were successfully absorbed back into civilian life with the necessary social and economic support.
While this model was originally adapted to address ex-combatants following the internal conflict, its potential application in the modern era of digital radicalisation and lone-actor threats remains a subject of intense debate, given its integration into the framework of the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (NDDCB). NDDCB Chairman Dr. Indika Wanninayake, who was reached multiple times for comments, issued promises to respond to queries but subsequently failed to do so.
The framework is credited with maintaining social stability and achieving low recidivism rates. As the world witnesses the ‘slow-burn’ radicalisation patterns seen in incidents like the Bondi Beach attack, the refinement of these rehabilitation systems may prove essential in transforming violent mindsets into constructive roles within society.
Legal constraints
Addressing the global escalation of hate crimes and the renewed debate on whether Sri Lanka should establish a formal rehabilitation or deradicalisation framework, Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala underscored that any such intervention must operate strictly within Sri Lanka’s constitutional and legal boundaries.
“The primary issue we face is not simply whether rehabilitation is desirable in theory, but whether the State has the legal authority to identify and compel individuals into such programmes,” Wijepala said.
“Under our existing legal framework, rehabilitation is permitted only in clearly defined circumstances, such as for drug-dependent offenders or former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) cadres, and even then, it must be either voluntary or ordered by a competent court following due judicial process. There is no provision in our law that allows the State to rehabilitate individuals merely because they are suspected of holding extremist, racist, or radical views. Suspicion, belief, or ideology alone cannot be the basis for State intervention.”
Responding to comparisons with deradicalisation initiatives implemented in developed countries, the Minister cautioned against transposing foreign models without regard to domestic legal realities.
“Sri Lanka’s laws do not permit the arrest, detention, or forced rehabilitation of a person who has not committed an offence,” he said. “Holding extreme or unpopular views, however disturbing they may be, does not in itself constitute a crime. Therefore, if any broader rehabilitation mechanism is to be considered, it would necessarily have to be voluntary in nature. Coercive State action in this area would not only be unlawful, but would also undermine public trust and expose the State to allegations of rights violations,” he opined.
Reflecting on the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks, Wijepala acknowledged that the tragedy had exposed the limitations of pre-emptive intervention within a rights-based legal system. “It is true that many of the perpetrators were first-time offenders and that some of them had appeared on intelligence radars prior to the attacks,” he said.
“In principle, early intervention before violence occurs is desirable. However, our law draws a very firm line. Where there is credible intelligence, the authorities are required to act through the courts. It is the Judiciary, not the Executive, that must determine what action is appropriate. Any attempt by the State to impose rehabilitation or detention outside judicial oversight would amount to an abuse of power and would almost certainly result in serious human rights challenges.”
On the question of introducing new legislation in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday attacks, the Minister said laws of this nature were typically enacted in response to an ongoing and demonstrable threat. “The Easter attacks remain the most serious benchmark in our recent history, but the principal perpetrators have been apprehended and prosecutions are continuing,” he noted.
He also highlighted the evidentiary challenges involved in cases of radicalisation. “Unlike narcotics offences, where physical evidence is usually present, radicalisation is often concealed, ideological, and intangible. That is precisely why judicial scrutiny and legal safeguards are indispensable.”
Wijepala further emphasised that public acceptance was a critical determinant of policy viability. “Six years have passed since the Easter attacks, and the country has experienced relative stability since then,” he said. “In such a context, proposing a large-scale rehabilitation programme now could be perceived as arbitrary or unnecessary by the public. We have seen in the past that even attempts to provide counselling to individuals arrested on terror-related suspicions have triggered backlash, with accusations that certain communities were being unfairly targeted. Any initiative that lacks public confidence risks doing more harm than good.”
Drawing a distinction between different categories of offenders, the Minister cautioned against viewing rehabilitation as a universal remedy. “Rehabilitation programmes are designed to address ideological deviation and emotional motivation,” he said. “They are not effective against hardened conspirators who are driven by political manipulation, organisational discipline, or personal ambition. Such individuals cannot be transformed through ideological engagement alone, and treating them as candidates for rehabilitation would be a serious misjudgement,” he opined.
Looking ahead, Wijepala said the concept of rehabilitation itself should not be dismissed, but must be approached with caution and rigour. “Rehabilitation remains a valid concept, but it requires careful study,” he said. “We must examine how other countries balance deradicalisation with constitutional safeguards, human rights protections, and public accountability. Any future framework adopted by Sri Lanka must be lawful, evidence-based, and publicly acceptable, while still enabling the State to act decisively, through the courts, when credible intelligence indicates a real risk of violence.”
Other Govt. stakeholders on radicalisation
Deputy Minister of Religious and Cultural Affairs Muneer Mulaffer highlighted the urgent need for Sri Lanka to seriously consider introducing a structured rehabilitation programme in response to the global escalation of hate crimes and religiously motivated violence.
“Since the early 2000s, we have witnessed a marked and sustained increase worldwide in murders and violent acts committed under the guise of religion. This is not limited to developing countries; it spans developed nations as well, including incidents in Australia, the UK, and France. Here in Sri Lanka, our own Easter Sunday terror attacks tragically remind us that such violence can reach us as well. It is crucial to understand that this violence does not stem from faith itself, but from the deliberate misinterpretation and weaponisation of religion by extremist actors seeking to mislead the faithful for their own violent agendas,” Mulaffer said.
He elaborated on the role of the State in mitigating these risks: “The true victims of radicalisation are often deeply religious individuals who are misled by ideologues. It is the responsibility of the State to identify these vulnerable individuals early, intervene where possible, and guide them away from paths of violence. Rehabilitation is not merely a preventive measure; it is essential for securing long-term peace, social stability, and cohesion among communities.”
Pointing to existing institutional frameworks, Mulaffer noted: “Under the Ministry of National Integration, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) was established primarily to heal the wounds of our past conflict. Yet, they should also consider whether these structures can be adapted to address harms caused by radical ideologies today. As a Government, we have a duty to openly discuss and evaluate whether our current mechanisms are adequate to respond to evolving global threats.”
He emphasised the critical role of communities in prevention: “Local communities often have early knowledge of suspicious behaviours. Reporting such concerns to law enforcement is both a civic responsibility and a legal obligation. Community cooperation is indispensable to early intervention, and the State cannot succeed alone.”
Mulaffer also acknowledged institutional efforts: “Discussions are already underway, including with the Ministry of Justice, about establishing early warning systems and preventive mechanisms to counter hate crimes. The Ministry of Public Security has taken proactive steps, but further coordination, policy development, and institutional support are necessary to ensure that Sri Lanka remains safe for generations to come.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Minister of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs Gamagedara Dissanayake emphasised that Sri Lanka currently lacked a formal rehabilitation system specifically designed for radicalised individuals, and that governments and societies often responded only after major incidents occurred.
He said: “The State must be cautious when introducing measures that could inadvertently inflame tensions. Maintaining trust among religious communities is paramount. Across the country, we enjoy strong relationships with Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist communities. Open communication and mutual cooperation underpin this trust, and we rely on communities to alert us if illicit or extremist activities are observed within their midst. Small groups exhibiting troubling tendencies often generate concern within the wider community itself, which acts as an early warning system.”
Dissanayake also stressed the State’s role in fostering unity and inclusivity. “Our goal is to reinforce social cohesion. We demonstrate this by celebrating major religious events at the national level, including the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, Maha Sivarathri, and Christmas. These actions show that the State stands equally with all faiths and no religion is more privileged than another,” he said.
On the question of rehabilitation programmes, he said: “Even in countries like the US and Australia, hate crimes persist. Introducing a rehabilitation programme could empower the State to act proactively. However, if it is perceived as suppressing religious freedom or violating basic rights, public resistance may arise, undermining social cohesion. A carefully designed programme could do more good than harm, but public acceptance is critical. Even in nations with established deradicalisation systems, debates continue about state overreach and human rights. In Sri Lanka, we must ensure that no religion or community feels targeted or threatened.”
Dissanayake clarified current Government priorities by stating: “There are no immediate plans to launch a special rehabilitation programme. Our focus remains on building peace and sustainability so that individuals do not feel compelled towards radicalisation. Where risks are identified, it is the responsibility of the State Intelligence apparatus to intervene and neutralise threats.”
He also highlighted the evolving nature of radicalisation: “Most radicalisation occurs in secrecy, increasingly influenced by transnational factors and facilitated by technology. The Easter Sunday attacks revealed significant lapses in intelligence operations. Greater investment in intelligence gathering, analysis, and investigative capacity is essential to prevent hate-driven violence from taking root in Sri Lanka and to maintain the trust of our communities.”
Radicalisation, rehabilitation and prevention
Nanyang Technological University Professor of Security Studies Rohan Gunaratna warned that Sri Lanka remained vulnerable to future attacks unless it confronted religious radicalisation decisively through structured rehabilitation, active community engagement, and responsible political leadership.
Drawing lessons from the Bondi Beach shooting in Australia in December, Prof. Gunaratna said: “The Bondi incident offers invaluable lessons to mitigate the rise of community radicalisation. It demonstrates the persistent global threat posed by radical and violent religious clerics, how protests and grievance narratives can radicalise individuals to hate Jews, and how online propaganda can incite individuals to kill and die. Ideologies promoted by groups like the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other terror organisations politicise religion, radicalise segments of the community, and mobilise them by promoting distorted beliefs, including that if they kill non-Muslims, they will be forgiven. To build social cohesion, schools must teach religious knowledge that promotes respect for all religions and clerics should emphasise the similarities among religions rather than the differences.”
On the failures preceding the Easter Sunday attacks, Prof. Gunaratna was critical of both political and religious leaders. “Programmes to rehabilitate radicalised individuals and community engagement efforts were disrupted by Sri Lankan Muslim leaders,” he claimed.
“They failed in their primary duty to protect their country, their community, and their faith. When then Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe disclosed in Parliament in November 2016 that 32 Sri Lankans had travelled to join the Islamic State, Muslim politicians condemned him, accusing him of racism. The Muslim Council of Sri Lanka expressed concern that his statement came at ‘a very opportune time to certain extremist elements bent on tarnishing the image’ of Sri Lankan Muslims. Wahhabi organisations also criticised him. This short-sighted response, combined with the failure of clerics to protect religious spaces from extremist ideologies, culminated in the Easter Sunday massacre. Even after 269 people were killed and more than 500 injured, politicians and clergy across communities have not taken the threat seriously, instead turning the tragedy into a political football for votes and conspiracy narratives,” he charged.
On the necessity of rehabilitation and community engagement, Prof. Gunaratna said: “Sri Lanka desperately needs both a rehabilitation programme and proactive community engagement due to three developments. First, the politicisation of religion has led to religious exclusivism, extremism, violence, and terrorism across all faiths. Second, politico-religious groups promoting suspicion, prejudice, anger, hatred, violence, and terrorism must be proscribed, and their leaders and activists investigated. Third, exclusivist and extremist ideologies must be countered by the Government working in coordination with religious institutions, educational establishments, and digital platforms. All religious organisations should be closely monitored, and foreign preachers should be screened. Without these measures, attacks will be inevitable.”
Prof. Gunaratna stressed the importance of collective responsibility across communities: “Although the Easter Sunday attacks were carried out by extremists, it is vital not to blame the Muslim community or Islam itself. All religions can be distorted by radical clerics driven by political or personal interests. Reciprocal radicalisation across communities is a serious risk. Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders must work individually and together to prevent radicalisation within their own communities. Sensible religious clerics and community leaders should first acknowledge and then address community radicalisation.”
On the ongoing threat and intelligence preparedness, Prof. Gunaratna warned: “Sri Lanka remains vulnerable to another attack because radicalisation continues unchecked. Since the Easter Sunday attacks, four plots by Sri Lankan extremists have been detected and disrupted, but we may not be so lucky next time. False narratives persist, including blaming the military, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), or even Israel’s Mossad for the Easter attacks. It is time for leaders to wake up and implement the recommendations of the Presidential Commission led by Justice Janak De Silva.”
Commenting on the timing and implementation of rehabilitation, he said: “Rehabilitation must begin from day one, from the moment of arrest or surrender. Waiting until a court conviction is too late. In interviews with detainees involved in the Easter Sunday attacks, including Islamic State ideologues like Noufer Moulavi and his military wing leader Milhan, they expressed willingness to undergo rehabilitation. If the Government delays, these detainees will infect others with extremist beliefs. The criminal justice and prison systems must urgently be educated and equipped to deliver rehabilitation programmes to detainees who harbour extremist and exclusivist ideologies. This is not optional; it is a critical safeguard to prevent future violence and protect the nation,” he opined.