Sri Lanka’s judiciary faces another test as legal experts demand review of Maithripala Sirisena’s controversial 2019 amnesty to hardline monkdent
(Lanka-e-News -19.Nov.2025, 8.30 PM) In the spring of 2019, as Sri Lanka reeled from the shock of the Easter Sunday attacks, the country’s political leadership quietly made a decision that would ignite a new chapter of controversy: the presidential pardon of Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero, the firebrand monk whose rhetoric, rallies and interventions had long been linked to violent campaigns against Sri Lanka’s Muslim community.
Now, years later—and after two landmark rulings in which the Sri Lankan Supreme Court struck down presidential pardons issued by former presidents Maithripala Sirisena and Gotabaya Rajapaksa—legal experts, civil society groups and minority leaders are calling for Gnanasara’s pardon to be scrutinised, reviewed, and potentially overturned.
Their argument is clear: the pardon was irregular, politically motivated, and fundamentally incompatible with Sri Lanka’s constitutional safeguards, public trust doctrine, and commitment to equal protection under the law. And after the Supreme Court annulled two high-profile pardons in the last year, pressure is mounting for the judiciary to take a stand once again.
On 22 May 2019, then-President Maithripala Sirisena issued an extraordinary order: the release of Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara, the general secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS)—or “Buddhist Power Force”—and arguably the most controversial monk in Sri Lanka’s modern political history.
The presidential secretariat offered no legal justification, no humanitarian grounds, and no accompanying report explaining why a man convicted by the courts for contempt and known nationwide for inciting communal tensions was being freed.
Instead, officials merely confirmed the pardon, leaving the public—and the judiciary—stunned.
Human rights groups immediately condemned the move. One respected security think tank described the pardon as “a blow to Sri Lanka’s battered rule of law”, warning that releasing an individual widely accused of stoking anti-Muslim sentiment could further destabilise a nation already on edge.
The timing was particularly alarming. The pardon came just one week after mobs attacked Muslim-owned homes, shops and mosques, resulting in the death of one man and widespread property damage. Although the attacks were officially labelled “reprisals” for the Easter bombings, Muslim leaders and government ministers at the time openly accused extremist Buddhist monks—including Gnanasara—of fanning the flames of communal hatred.
Gnanasara’s record is long and deeply polarising. Over the years, he has been accused of—and in some cases charged with—offences ranging from:
drink driving,
racial harassment,
inciting communal violence,
issuing threats,
leading mobs into minority neighbourhoods,
and creating fear among Muslims and Tamils.
His BBS movement has been repeatedly linked to ultra-nationalist groups in Myanmar, including extremist monk Ashin Wirathu, who once described himself proudly as “the Burmese bin Laden”. In 2014, Gnanasara and Wirathu signed a public “agreement” pledging to counter what they claimed were “Islamist conversion efforts”. For many observers, this alignment alone raised serious security concerns.
In court, Gnanasara’s behaviour has been equally contentious. His most notable conviction was for contempt of court, after he stormed a courtroom during a hearing involving a missing journalist and aggressively confronted a magistrate. The incident shocked the legal establishment and led to a six-year sentence after an intense public debate over clerical accountability.
Legal analysts now point to that conviction to underscore the argument that pardoning Gnanasara was not only politically reckless but constitutionally questionable.
Calls to overturn Gnanasara’s pardon have grown sharply louder after two groundbreaking rulings by the Supreme Court in 2024 and 2025.
1. The Duminda Silva Case
Last year, a three-judge bench overturned former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s pardon of Duminda Silva, convicted in 2016 for the murder of politician Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra. The Court concluded that the pardon was issued “contrary to the rule of law” and violated the fundamental rights of citizens.
2. The Jude Shramantha Jayamaha Case
Just five months later, the Court delivered another unprecedented ruling: the nullification of Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Jude Shramantha Jayamaha, the man convicted in the notorious “Royal Park” murder of 2005.
Sirisena defended the pardon by claiming senior Buddhist monks had vouched for Jayamaha and that the killing was merely “an incident of impatience”. The Court emphatically disagreed.
In its ruling, it stated that Sirisena had:
deliberately violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners,
acted without due process,
and breached the public trust doctrine embedded in Sri Lanka’s Constitution.
The judgment was hailed as a landmark. It signalled that presidential pardons—once seen as nearly untouchable—were now subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when issued arbitrarily or for political gain.
As Sri Lanka grapples with rising inter-communal tensions, economic grievances, and a political culture still deeply shaped by competing ethnic narratives, legal scholars argue that the pardon of Gnanasara remains one of the most glaring and unresolved abuses of executive authority.
Lack of Legal Basis
The Constitutional requirement for a presidential pardon includes:
clear documentation,
a review of the prisoner’s conduct,
recommendations from the Justice Ministry,
and reasons that satisfy public interest or humanitarian need.
None of these elements were present in Gnanasara’s release. Legal experts say this mirrors the same procedural flaws seen in the Jayamaha and Duminda Silva cases—both of which the Supreme Court has now overturned.
Political Motivation
Critics contend that Sirisena pardoned Gnanasara at a time when his own political standing was deteriorating rapidly. Facing internal challenges, dwindling support, and a turbulent coalition, Sirisena was widely believed to be courting Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist sentiment in preparation for upcoming elections.
“This pardon was not about mercy. It was about votes,” said one senior academic at the University of Colombo’s Faculty of Law. “And when a president uses the justice system as a personal political bargaining chip, it undermines every pillar of democratic governance.”
Threat to Minority Rights
Muslim and Christian leaders argue that Gnanasara’s release emboldened extremist groups at a time when the country desperately needed reassurance and protection for vulnerable communities.
His speeches, rallies and processions have often targeted:
halal certification,
Muslim marriage law,
Islamic dress,
and the economic role of Muslim traders.
While Gnanasara denies instigating violence, his presence and messaging have frequently coincided with mob attacks.
“This is not a religious issue. This is about safety,” said a prominent Muslim civil rights activist in Colombo. “The pardon sent a message that if you target minorities, you will be protected by the highest office in the land.”
The renewed debate over Gnanasara’s pardon has gained momentum following the Supreme Court’s recent willingness to invalidate improper presidential pardons. A coalition of legal reform advocates, civil society organisations, and minority religious groups is now preparing to file a fundamental rights petition arguing that the 2019 pardon:
violated Article 12 of the Constitution (equality before the law),
breached the public trust doctrine,
and was issued without lawful process.
Several former judges—speaking under conditions of anonymity—have indicated that the Court would likely consider such a petition seriously, given the precedents set in 2024 and 2025.
Sri Lanka has long struggled to reconcile its rich Buddhist heritage with the political instrumentalisation of religious identity by nationalist actors. From the civil war to post-war governance, Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarian politics has shaped electoral narratives, legislation, and the behaviour of successive governments.
Gnanasara’s rise—and the presidential intervention that freed him—symbolises this complex relationship between religion, politics, and ethnic tension.
Yet legal experts argue that the courts now have a historic opportunity to restore balance.
“The question is not about Buddhism or monks,” said one constitutional scholar. “It is about legality. When a pardon is granted unlawfully, it must be undone regardless of who benefits.”
If a petition against Gnanasara’s pardon is filed, the Supreme Court will again face a difficult but defining choice: whether to extend its recent doctrine of accountability to one of the most explosive figures in Sri Lanka’s ethnic politics.
Overturning the pardon would:
reaffirm the judiciary’s role as a check on presidential power,
signal that extremist behaviour will not be condoned,
and help restore confidence in a legal system often accused of political bias.
Maintaining the pardon, however, risks reopening wounds from the anti-Muslim violence of the past decade and reinforcing perceptions that Sri Lanka has one standard of justice for politicians and clergy, and another for ordinary citizens.
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has already demonstrated extraordinary independence in its recent rulings. But the Gnanasara case would be its most politically sensitive challenge yet.
For many, it is a test of whether the promise of constitutional democracy can withstand the weight of populist politics and religious nationalism.
As calls grow louder for accountability, one thing has become clear: the debate over Gnanasara’s pardon is no longer just about a monk. It is about the future of the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
Whether the judiciary will rise again to meet that moment remains to be seen.
-By LeN Legal Affairs Correspondent
---------------------------
by (2025-11-20 17:25:07)
Read 19236 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news