(Sri Lanka Brief/26.02.2025)
Urgent conscientious action is required from the New Government to respond to complaints of unfair, illegal and arbitrary oppressive actions by the police, on victims of the Aragalaya
The year 2022 marks a watershed moment in Sri Lanka’s political history. The economic crisis moved its people to take to the streets in what became known as the Aragalaya or Porattam. The power of the people manifested in months of protests and occupation. The social unrest brought upon by the complete breach of the social contract culminated in the resignation of key political figures, including then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The Sri Lankan economic crisis of 2022 triggered a profound moment of political transformation. The protest movement was a significant expression of the public's dissatisfaction with governance and their determination to hold political leaders accountable. While the immediate goal of ousting President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was achieved, the long-term challenges of economic recovery, political reform, and rebuilding trust in governance remain.
The crisis highlighted deep structural issues within Sri Lanka's political and economic
systems, and the people’s struggle continues to shape the discourse on how to navigate the future of the country.
People rising up in dissent, in dissatisfaction and in determination to hold the Government accountable, took the form of public gatherings, public chanting, speeches and other forms of expression, public marches and occupation of public space.
The reaction of the State to these public assemblies, forms of expression and occupation of public space, involved measures to restrict freedoms, cause fear and perpetrate harm by violence (water canons, tear gas, riot police, torture), and use of the law to arrest, remand and prosecute individuals participating in public protest on the streets and online.
The then Government’s brutal suppression of unarmed, non-violent struggle by the people during this time, saw nearly 3,000 civilians arrested and prosecuted. Arrests were carried out in several ways: arrests made at, or near protest sites, arrests made allegedly on the basis of CCTV camera footage of protests and other sites, arrests made allegedly for offences captured on video footage from protest sites (e.g. scene videos recorded by the cameramen of the Criminal Records Division, social media and video footage obtained from
media institutes that covered the scenes of the protest), and arrests were also made after summoning persons to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) under the guise of obtaining statements related to a protest, or expression of dissent against the then Government. The politicised and arbitrary actions of the police were unmistakably retaliatory.
The laws deployed for the above arrests were
1. Penal Code – Offences under Sections 140, 138, 139, 386, 433, 486, 141,
142, 143, 144, 148, 157, 149, 150, 183, 185, 186, 410, 343, 344, 220,
113(A), 100, 101, 102, 106, 110, 115, 261, 219, 220, 223, 276, 119, 120,
367, 369, 394, 395, 434, 490, 418, 419, 440, 443, 436, 437, 332, 409, 314,
316, 380, 382, 421, 323, 324, 442, 296, 484 and 283 read with Sections 32
and 146.
2. Police Ordinance No. 16 of 1865 (Amended) – Offences under Sections
77(1), 77(3), 80(2), 77(2) and 98 read with Sections 79(2), 2(1)(5) and 96
3. Offences against Public Property Act No. 12 of 198 – Offences under
Sections 02, 03, 04 and 05
4. Antiquities Ordinance No. 09 of 1940 (Amended) – Offences under
Sections 4 and 34(c) read with Sections 15(a) and 15(b)
5. Public Security Ordinance No. 25 of 1947 – Offences under section 16(3)
6. Judicature Act No. 02 of 1989 – Offences under Sections 55(1), 55(2)(b)
and 107(2)(3)
7. National Thoroughfares Act No. 40 of 2008 (Amended) – Offences under
Sections 56(1), 59(1) and 59(2)
8. Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act – Offences under
Sections 2(1)(a), (c), (d), (h), (e) and 3(a), (b)
9. Computer Crime Act No. 24 of 2007 –
Offences under Section 06
Notably, there has been little to no progress on a majority of these cases. These delays add another layer of punishment and oppression on those persecuted for participating in protests, without actually having committed any offence. A vast majority of the cases are still ‘under investigation’, in some cases charge sheets have been served, and only a handful are in the trial stage.
Several cases have also been referred to the Attorney General for advice. Some of the human rights concerns that have arisen,
● Failure to expedite and file investigation reports within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, the opportunity to file charges and to expeditiously conclude cases has been stalled. Even in cases where submissions have been made on behalf of the suspects that sufficient evidence is not available to file a case, no case has been dismissed due to lack of evidence due to resistance by the police.
● In many cases, travel bans have been issued against the suspects in order to carry out the ongoing investigation, directly affecting their personal freedom. Suspects who had obtained visas to travel overseas for employment, have also lost opportunities to secure livelihoods.
The fact remains, that many of these cases are against persons who were not either, directly involved in the incident, or who had not even entered the relevant location, indicates the arbitrary actions of law enforcement officers. In some cases, delays on the basis of further investigations, have resulted in punishment, as they’re maintaining criminal cases against individuals with no substantive reason. It is imperative that as it comes up to almost three years since the initiation of these cases, there is an urgent need to review if these cases can be maintained as a direct consequence of having sufficient evidence.
Demands
(1) Government to issue a policy statement, including if necessary with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission, to assess complaints received, to recognise that these arbitrary and freedom encroaching actions were taken in retaliation, against protestors and bystanders involved in the peoples’ struggle, in 2022-23.
(2) Government to request the Attorney General to review all police action (arrest, torture, prosecution and travel bans), in these cases currently pending before Court.
(3) Based on the Government’s request, the Attorney General to review and act on these cases within 6 months. Review the Magistrate Court and/or High Court cases initiated against people in connection with protests during the period March 2022 to Dec 2023. The purpose of the review is to reflect the Government policy in relation to understanding
the context during the time of the Argalaya, the allegations of State power being used arbitrarily at the time, and to make legally sound and appropriate recommendations relating to each of the cases.
This letter has been sent to the Minister of Justice Law and Society Trust (LST) on 21 Feb 2025.