• NPC warns IGP over action of Police officers; inquiry underway
• Flags breach of media ethics in crime reporting  

Sri Lanka’s Constitution clearly states that every person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty, as enshrined in Article 13(3).

Further, torture, cruel treatment, or humiliation, including the public shaming of suspects is strictly forbidden under Article 11.

Yet, in today’s social media-driven society, these protections are often tested, and sometimes, tragically, undermined by the actions of law enforcement officers and others.

Increasingly, suspects find themselves tried in the court of public opinion long before their case ever reaches a courtroom. Even when they are ultimately proven innocent, the damage to their reputation is irreversible. What’s more, premature disclosures can sabotage investigations, closing off avenues to identify the true perpetrators. 

While such leaks were once largely the product of media speculation, a troubling new trend has emerged: Police officers themselves are now releasing videos of suspects to the public, sometimes even before cases are filed in courts of law.

‘Illegal, unethical, and prejudicial to prosecution’

This shift has sparked serious public debate. Former President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and leading criminal law practitioner U.R. De Silva, President’s Counsel, spoke to The Sunday Morning, expressing deep concern over Police-issued suspect confessions making headlines.

“For investigative purposes, Police officers are permitted to record statements or take written confessions from persons they intend to arrest. This is allowed under the law to facilitate further investigation and strengthen the prosecution,” De Silva explained. 

“The problem arises when these statements or confessions are immediately leaked to the media. This premature disclosure, often under media pressure, is entirely illegal and directly violates internal circulars issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), which explicitly prohibits such actions.”

De Silva elaborated that while recording confessions was lawful, the Evidence Ordinance tightly regulated their use in court. 

“Only statements that lead to tangible evidence, such as revealing the location of a weapon, can be relied upon under Section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance. Other details — planning, preparation, or personal commentary — are not admissible. Broadcasting these statements publicly not only compromises the integrity of evidence but also risks the court disallowing them altogether,” he said.

Proper investigative procedure, De Silva emphasised, mandated that all recordings remained strictly internal. “Recording devices may be used to document arrests or operations, but these recordings must go directly to the authorities or the courts — not to the media. This is especially critical in sensitive cases like bribery or narcotics, where any misstep can lead to case collapse,” he warned.

The presence of media personnel during arrests or recordings only worsened the risk of evidence manipulation, he opined, adding: “Opening sealed evidence or exposing it to the media before judicial verification undermines authenticity. CCTV footage, phone records, and other digital evidence may be rejected by courts due to procedural violations.”

De Silva stressed: “Recording and documenting confessions are legitimate Police functions, but releasing them to the public is illegal, unethical, and prejudicial to prosecution. Strict adherence to the Evidence Ordinance, internal Police circulars, and judicial procedures is essential to protect fair trial rights and preserve public confidence in the justice system.”

NPC stance 

Meanwhile, the National Police Commission (NPC) has acted. Its Chairman Lalith Ekanayake told The Sunday Morning that the NPC recently reminded the Inspector General of Police to prevent such breaches in the future, stressing that they violated both legal provisions and the rights of the accused.

Ekanayake also confirmed an ongoing investigation into a Police officer involved in releasing video footage in a previous case, warning that disciplinary action would follow if officers failed to comply with existing laws and circulars.

Legal background 

The law is explicit. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979, Section 110(1) allows the Police to examine individuals acquainted with a case, but these examinations must remain confidential and serve purely investigative purposes. 

Section 110(2) further protects individuals from self-incrimination, aligning with the constitutional safeguard under Article 13(7). Public disclosure of statements or videos outside court proceedings directly contravenes both statutory and constitutional protections.

Additional legal frameworks reinforce this protection. The Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No.4 of 2015 (amended in 2023) obligates law enforcement to protect the dignity, privacy, and security of all involved in investigations. 

Section 3(b) guarantees treatment with “dignity and respect for privacy,” while Section 12 criminalises acts causing intimidation, humiliation, or harassment, including public exposure. While primarily aimed at victims and witnesses, these principles naturally extend to suspects, particularly those who may later testify or whose rights are threatened pending trial.

The Penal Code further strengthens safeguards. Section 321 criminalises coercion to obtain confessions, while Section 339 addresses wrongful confinement to extract statements. 

Releasing recordings or manipulated confessions can therefore constitute criminal conduct, and the Evidence Ordinance restricts admissibility of such statements under Section 25. Public leaks not only breach confidentiality but also risk rendering critical evidence unusable in court.

A human rights concern 

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has repeatedly reminded law enforcement that suspects must never be paraded before the media or publicly exposed in ways that violate their dignity. 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, HRCSL Commissioner Nimal Punchihewa emphasised that the commission would once again address these concerns with the Police and take necessary action.

He also stressed that while legal frameworks regulated Police conduct, the media too had a responsibility to restrain itself from disclosing suspect identities.

Historical guidelines are clear. The BASL, the NPC, and even former IGP C.D. Wickramaratne’s circulars all highlight the adverse effects of releasing videos, voice recordings, or photographs of suspects. Such actions endanger fair trial rights, erode the credibility of the Police service, and compromise the judicial process.

Procedurally, public exposure can violate the right to a fair hearing under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. It prejudices a suspect’s defence, shapes public perception, and influences potential jurors. Under the Supreme Court’s Fundamental Rights jurisdiction (Article 126), any person whose dignity, liberty, or presumption of innocence is breached by these acts may petition the court for redress.

Despite warnings, the issue persists, highlighting a critical tension: the intersection of law, ethics, and media sensationalism. For suspects, the courtroom should be the only arena for judgment — not social media feeds, television bulletins, or public gossip. 

The growing trend of premature exposure by Police officers themselves is not just a procedural lapse; it is a human rights concern, a threat to justice, and a reminder that fairness must always precede spectacle.

BOX

Legal measures 

Constitutional protections

• Article 13(3): Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
• Article 11: Prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, including public humiliation
• Article 14(1)(g): Right to a fair hearing, free from public prejudice

Statutory safeguards

• Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979: Sections 110(1) and (2) — Police examinations for investigation only; must remain confidential
• Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No.4 of 2015 (amended 2023): Sections 3(b) and 12 — privacy, dignity, and protection from harassment; applies implicitly to suspects
• Penal Code: Sections 321 and 339 — criminalises coercion, intimidation, or wrongful confinement to extract confessions
• Evidence Ordinance: Section 25 — confessions to Police officers inadmissible in court unless under strict due process; Section 27 — only statements revealing tangible evidence are usable

Police directives and circulars

• Inspector General of Police circulars: Prohibit releasing videos, voice recordings, or photos of suspects
• Departmental Orders (Volume II): Emphasise discretion, confidentiality, and protection of suspects’ dignity

Oversight bodies

• Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka: Monitors compliance and warns against public exposure of suspects
• National Police Commission: Reminds Police of legal obligations and can initiate disciplinary action
• Bar Association of Sri Lanka: Provides legal guidance and professional ethical standards for Police conduct