Despite repeated calls from the aggrieved party, the Attorney General’s Department has yet to name former CID Director Shani Abeysekara as a witness in the high-profile Prageeth Eknaligoda disappearance case, more than two and a half years since the issue was first raised in court.
When the matter was taken up on November 30, 2022, President’s Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma, representing the aggrieved party, told the Colombo High Court that failing to summon Abeysekara—the former Chief Investigating Officer in the case—had seriously undermined the prosecution.
In response, then-Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris admitted in open court that it was a “serious lapse” on the part of the Attorney General’s Department.
‘Serious Deficiency’ Still Unaddressed
More than two years later, that admitted deficiency remains uncorrected, raising questions about whether the omission is due to negligence, deliberate inaction, or a broader institutional attitude toward the case.
This concern is compounded by the fact that two key witnesses in the case retracted earlier statements, contradicting their original testimonies—an about-face that occurred after Gotabaya Rajapaksa became President.
Witnesses Say They Were Threatened
Both witnesses—former LTTE member Sumathipala Sureshkumar (alias Murali) and Army Intelligence officer Sergeant Major Ranbanda—have since claimed that they changed their testimony under duress.
-
Murali was allegedly threatened by retired Brigadier Shammi Kumararatne, now the first suspect in the case. Kumararatne was recently arrested and is remanded until July 9 by the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court.
-
Ranbanda has also lodged a formal complaint at the Nikaweratiya Police Station, citing threats to his life.
Why Abeysekara’s Testimony Matters
In light of the compromised witness testimonies, Shani Abeysekara’s role as Chief Investigating Officer becomes critically important. He has previously testified in other high-profile cases, such as the Vass Gunawardena murder trial and the Royal Park murder case, reinforcing his credibility and investigative significance.
The failure to summon him—despite acknowledging the lapse in court—casts further doubt on the AG Department’s commitment to impartial prosecution, especially in cases involving military and intelligence personnel.
Growing Concern Over AG’s Conduct
The delay has fueled public suspicion that the Attorney General’s Department may be protecting those accused in cases where defendants are predominantly linked to state security forces.
Given the gravity of the case and the serious nature of the charges, the continued exclusion of Shani Abeysekara from the witness list raises pressing questions about the integrity of the justice process.
(With the inputs from FB post by Sanath Balasooriya)