By Jehan Perera –

More than seven years after the Easter Sunday bombings ripped through churches and luxury hotels, the first major criminal convictions of senior state officials have taken place. Last week, former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundera and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando were convicted by a two to one majority at a Trial-at-Bar of criminal liability arising from their failure to act on repeated intelligence warnings that preceded the attacks. They were sentenced to death. One of the parents who had filed action before the Supreme Court regarding the Easter bombing wept when interviewed after the verdict was announced. In response to the journalist’s query whether he felt vindicated by the decision, he replied that it would not bring back his son and daughter.

The death sentences imposed on two of the country’s most senior former public officials have come as a shock to the system. This is not the way those at the highest levels of government have been treated in the past. One of the central demands of the Aragalaya people’s movement, which brought down the government in 2022 was that those entrusted with public authority should also be held accountable when they fail in their duties. The more accustomed way in which the justice process has worked in the past where those holding high office were concerned is perhaps encapsulated in the history of the Easter Sunday prosecutions themselves.

In early 2022, just before the Aragalaya protests became the tidal wave that swept away the government headed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a three judge Trial-at-Bar unanimously acquitted former IGP Jayasundera and former Defence Secretary Fernando at the close of the prosecution’s case. The court upheld the submission by lawyers for the defence that there was no case to answer and ruled that the Attorney General had failed to lead sufficient evidence to require the accused to present a defence. Accordingly, the accused were acquitted without being called upon to give evidence. However, following an appeal by the Attorney General, in 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and directed that the trial should proceed before a differently constituted Trial-at-Bar.

The Supreme Court did not pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Rather, it held that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require them to answer the charges. Since the central allegation was that they had received repeated intelligence warnings and failed to take adequate preventive action, the court ruled that they should be given the opportunity to explain what action they had in fact taken. The retrial ultimately resulted in last week’s convictions. The legal history of this case illustrates an important feature of an independent judicial system. Different benches of judges, considering the same facts at different stages of the proceedings, at different points in time, and under different political and judicial leadership, may reach different conclusions.

Leadership Continuity

For many decades, there has been a widespread perception that those occupying the highest offices of the state enjoyed a degree of protection that was unavailable to ordinary citizens. Whether in politics, the public service or business, accountability often appeared selective. The Easter Sunday bombing verdict challenges that perception. Public confidence in judicial independence is one of the foundations of constitutional government and must be safeguarded. The government has argued that Sri Lanka’s courts are burdened by a backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases and that increasing the number of judges while retaining experienced judges for a longer period will assist in improving efficiency, reducing the backlog of cases and ensuring continuity in the administration of justice. This is particularly relevant when the courts are dealing with constitutional questions and criminal cases of exceptional public importance.

The Easter Sunday prosecutions themselves illustrate why continuity in judicial leadership deserves consideration. Any system, whether in government, business or civil society, depends on leadership if it is to function effectively. Institutions require laws, procedures and resources, but they also require people who are willing to assume responsibility and make difficult decisions. Leadership in the judiciary is measured not by popularity but by the willingness to uphold the law impartially, to hear difficult cases without fear or favour and to maintain and build up public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Easter Sunday verdict is therefore about much more than the criminal liability of two former public officials. It is a reminder that accountability is possible, even when those concerned once occupied the highest offices of the state. It offers hope to other victims who have waited many years for justice. It is also a reminder that the justice system can best command public confidence when it combines independence with accountability, and continuity with leadership. These are the qualities that Sri Lanka’s institutions will need if they are to meet the expectations of a people who have waited too long for justice.

Larger Accountability

The significance of the Easter bombing judgment extends beyond the Easter attacks. It is likely to encourage other families who have waited many years for justice. The families of newspaper editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, rugby player Wasim Thajudeen, the eleven young men abducted in Colombo for ransom, the seventeen Action Contre la Faim aid workers murdered in Muttur, and the 176 families of those who disappeared after being removed from the Eastern University refugee camp may all draw renewed hope that justice need not remain an elusive dream. There are, however, many other episodes of mass killings and disappearances in Sri Lanka’s past that cannot realistically be addressed through ordinary criminal trials alone. The numbers involved run into the tens of thousands, spanning different periods of political violence and armed conflict.

The regular courts of law are designed to determine the criminal liability of identifiable individuals on the basis of evidence that meets the high standard required in criminal law. The courts are less equipped to deal with large-scale patterns of abuse where perpetrators and victims number in the thousands, evidence has disappeared over time and the primary need of victims is often to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones and acknowledgement of the same. Many countries, most notably South Africa, but also Columbia which is emerging from conflict have established Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and other transitional justice mechanisms to establish the truth, acknowledge suffering, recommend reparations and promote national reconciliation while leaving room for criminal prosecutions where appropriate. Sri Lanka itself recognised this need. In 2015, the government co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council committing itself to establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission together with other transitional justice mechanisms.

There comes a time when promises need to give way to implementation if confidence is to be restored among victims and society as a whole. The Easter Sunday judgment is important not only because of the convictions that were entered, but because it demonstrates that institutions can evolve. It shows that cases once believed to have reached their end can be reopened through the judicial process when higher courts determine that this is warranted. It also reminds public officials that responsibility accompanies public office. The accountability demanded by the Aragalaya was not simply about changing governments. It was also about changing institutions and ensuring that public office carries consequences when official duties are neglected, where there is no good faith and human rights are violated. It also reminds us that many other victims still await justice and acknowledgement.