A decision by the Attorney General not to release letters sent to state agencies to first discharge suspects in a case connected to the killing of Editor of the Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunge and then change that decision after a public uproar, has been reversed by the Right to Information Commission which has directed the state law department to disclose the letters to legal activist Nagananda Kodithuwakku on or before 25^th March 2026.

Failure to release the letters would lead to the RTI Commission taking steps under Section 39 of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) to prosecute responsible officers for failing to obey the directive of the Commission, it has been warned.

Mr Kodithuwakku appealed to the Commission against the refusal of the Attorney General to release certified copies of letters dated 27th January 2025 and 12th February 2025 (Department File Reference CR1/40/2020, case No. B 92/2009).The letters related to advice given by the Attorney General to discharge three suspects charged with destroying evidence and abducting Mr Wickrematunge’s driver.

The Attorney General had pleaded professional privilege, fiduciary relationship and the possibility of compromising the detection of crime, apprehension of offenders and the exposing of a confidential source of information in refusing to release the letters. All three grounds were held to be inapplicable by a Bench of the RTI Commission comprising (Rtd) Justice of the Court of Appeal D.N. Samarakoon and senior attorney-at-law/public interest advocate Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena with the other two members being Chair Daya Lankapura and retired educationist A.M. Nahiya.

Quoting several British cases in support, the Commission stated that, ‘in the circumstances of this appeal there will be no harm to the public or the prosecution of criminal proceedings …in releasing the copies of above letters by the Attorney General as well as divulging his reasons for his direction to discharge certain accused and then to reverse that decision, as the definition of an “information” under Section 43 of the Right to Information Act includes “an opinion” too. ‘

‘In fact in regard to ‘apprehension or prosecution of offenders’ what came as a bar for prosecution of three of the accused was the first letter of the Attorney General in question and the public and as a member of the public the Appellant has a right under Article 14A of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 discussed above to know the reason for that as well as the reason to reverse the same,‘ the Commission said.

The Appellant had argued that, ‘this abrupt and contradictory change in your position raises serious concerns regarding your motives and the integrity of your decision making process. It is evident that your actions have conferred an undue advantage upon the accused, amounting to a clear abuse of prosecutorial discretion.’

Referring to that concern, the Commission pointed out that the Attorney General is positioned in a fiduciary relationship to the People of Sri Lanka, the Sovereign and as such, there is a strong element of public trust with which the duties of the state law office ought to be carried out.

‘In this appeal, as the Appellant too has noted in his original request for information and as it appears obviously, the prosecutor has responded to the public pressure by reversing his original discretion. Therefore, in addition to reasons given above in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information Act and Article 14A of the Constitution, it is nothing but fitting, that, he discloses the form and content of his decisions to the public,’ the Commission said.