A library photo.
During the appeal hearing of an information request submitted to the Sri Lanka Police regarding the killing of two suspects in Kotahena police custody by police on Crow Island, the first respondent in the related Fundamental Rights petition related to the killings reportedly obstructed the release of information. The officer appeared before the Information Commission with a private lawyer, claiming to represent the police.
The killing incident took place in February 2025.
The Centre for Society and Religion (CSR) has requested that the Information Commission initiate an investigation against the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), who allowed this officer to appear on behalf of the IGP.
According to human rights defenders, this action is illegal, violates the Right to Information Act, and reflects a continuation of improper and unlawful conduct within the police.
CSR notes that the IGP has issued circulars stating that the designated Information Officer of the Sri Lanka Police must be an officer senior to Superintendents of Police and Directors in charge of divisions. These circulars further require that Information Officers independently decide on information requests without consulting others.
Despite this, the SSP in charge of the Kotahena division allowed the Kotahena OIC to respond to the information request—contrary to the IGP’s circulars and the RTI Act—CSR informed the Commission.
CSR also points out that the Kotahena OIC is a respondent in the fundamental rights case filed by the father of one of the deceased. Even the Attorney General has declined to appear on his behalf, and the Supreme Court has permitted an inquiry against the OIC and six others for the alleged murder of the suspects.
Nevertheless, the OIC issued written notices to the IGP and the SSP—who are the legitimate Information Officers—stating that he has sought private legal advice and therefore is delaying or refusing to provide the requested information.
The same private lawyer who represents the OIC in the fundamental rights case appeared before the Information Commission, signing in as counsel representing the police in the RTI appeal. CSR has informed the Commission that this constitutes a serious misrepresentation.