By Anubhavananada
(Lanka-e-News -09.Sep.2026,11.30 AM) The Sri Lanka Police reportedly arrested lawyer Achala Seneviratne unlawfully in Trincomalee on September 4. According to reports, the arrest was the culmination of a prolonged conspiracy allegedly involving the Attorney General’s Department and the police. The alleged campaign against her began on January 27.
On that day, Achala Seneviratne appeared before the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court on behalf of a client. At the conclusion of the proceedings, a victim in the case questioned a police officer as to why he had allegedly misled the court. Angered by the incident, the police reportedly returned to court the following day and named lawyer Achala Seneviratne, who had appeared on behalf of the victim in the case, as a suspect. The allegation was that she had obstructed the police in the discharge of their duties. This was, allegedly, an unlawful measure intended to intimidate and inconvenience her and interfere with her professional activities.
CCTV footage showing the verbal exchange between the victim and the police officer was reportedly released on social media within 48 hours of the incident.
Who released the CCTV footage of the incident at the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court on social media? Who authorised or ordered the retrieval of footage preserved within the court’s CCTV system? The fact that internal CCTV footage from the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court was allegedly obtained and used in a manner that embarrassed lawyer Achala Seneviratne raises serious questions about whether senior judicial and police officials were involved. Achala Seneviratne subsequently lodged a complaint with the Trincomalee Harbour Police regarding the incident at the Magistrate’s Court and the conduct of the relevant police officer. She also complained to Mahinda Dissanayake, the Deputy Inspector General of Police responsible for the Trincomalee District.
Summons were issued requiring Achala Seneviratne and the victim she represented to appear before court on September 2 in connection with the Trincomalee incident. Accordingly, both appeared before the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court on that day.
The police informed the court that Achala Seneviratne and the victim should be arrested because they had obstructed the police in the performance of their duties. The police further informed the court that they had completed their investigation.
However, it emerged during the proceedings that the police had not even recorded statements from the suspects in connection with the incident. This is the kind of “remarkable” investigation for which the Sri Lanka Police has become notorious. The Acting Magistrate ordered that statements be recorded from Achala Seneviratne and the victim she represented concerning the incident.
Accordingly, on September 4, Achala Seneviratne and the victim appeared at the Trincomalee Police Station and submitted a written statement consisting of 13 pages. It was at that point that the Officer-in-Charge of the police station arrested both of them.
The police subsequently produced the two before court. Ultimately, the court granted them bail, allowing them to avoid being remanded in custody. Another extraordinary aspect of this case concerns the manner in which the court dealt with the complaint lodged by Achala Seneviratne with the Trincomalee Harbour Police. Without notifying the complainant, the police reportedly produced the relevant police officer before court, where he was released.
On February 6, Achala Seneviratne formally wrote to the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) regarding the unfortunate incident at the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court on January 27, in which she said her professional duties had been obstructed. She requested the BASL to intervene in the matter. However, the leadership of the BASL, including its President Rajiv Amarasuriya, remained silent on the incident. On Saturday, February 14, the BASL convened a special general meeting. Achala Seneviratne also addressed the meeting and explained the injustice she said she had suffered. She publicly questioned why President Rajiv Amarasuriya and the other officials of the BASL had failed to take any action regarding the incident and why the organisation had remained silent.
It was lawyer Gunaratne Wanninayake who intervened to prevent Achala Seneviratne from continuing to make her case. He reportedly called on the BASL leadership to switch off the microphone that had been given to Achala.
When Gunaratne Wanninayake allegedly created a disturbance at the Mount Lavinia court premises using obscene language, BASL President Rajiv Amarasuriya and other officials appeared at the court to support him. Yet when it came to the incident involving lawyer Achala Seneviratne, President Rajiv Amarasuriya did not even issue a ten-word statement. Seeking an explanation, Achala Seneviratne met a senior executive officer of the BASL and questioned him about the association’s failure to intervene appropriately in her case. In Achala’s presence, the executive officer telephoned a former secretary of the BASL and asked him about the matter. According to Achala Seneviratne, the former secretary responded: “Achala was carrying placards against the Attorney General. ”Achala later revealed at a media briefing that she clearly heard the former secretary make that statement.
Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe (Jr.), the head of the Attorney General’s Department, announced that no prosecution would be instituted against three accused persons in the Lasantha Wickrematunge assassination case who had faced allegations of concealing evidence, and steps were taken to have them released. Among those who benefited from the Attorney General’s decision were former military intelligence officer Premananda Udalagama, Sub-Inspector Tissasiri Sugathapala and retired Deputy Inspector General of Police Prasanna Nanayakkara, all of whom had been key suspects in the Lasantha assassination investigation. Former military intelligence officer Udalagama had been remanded in connection with allegations that he had abducted and threatened Lasantha’s driver, who was a crucial witness linking the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) to the assassination. Sub-Inspector Tissasiri Sugathapala had been accused of concealing a document that had been inside the vehicle driven by Lasantha Wickrematunge. Retired Deputy Inspector General Prasanna Nanayakkara, who had been responsible for the Southern Division of the Western Province, had been accused of the disappearance of the notebook belonging to the murdered journalist after it came into his custody.
For whose interests did former military intelligence officer Udalagama, Sub-Inspector Sugathapala and Deputy Inspector General Nanayakkara allegedly act? They acted in the interests of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was then Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. The evidence involving all three pointed towards Gotabaya Rajapaksa in relation to the assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge. It therefore claims that the Attorney General’s decision to release the principal suspects in the Lasantha murder case raises serious questions about the wider circumstances surrounding the case. When public opposition to Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe’s decision began to grow, it was reportedly politicians such as Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam, and lawyers aligned with the Rajapaksa camp who came forward to defend him.
They were joined by members of the BASL leadership whom being sympathetic to the Rajapaksa camp. When they argue that the independence of the Attorney General must be protected, it is difficult not to question the consistency of such a position. During the presidencies of Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the principal function of successive Attorneys General was to serve the interests of the Rajapaksa administration. The manner in which Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was removed from office has not been forgotten. A major public protest subsequently emerged against what many regarded as Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe’s decision in favour of the Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe camp. On January 21 this year, citizens protesting against the Attorney General demonstrated outside the Attorney General’s Department. Lawyer Achala Seneviratne also participated in the protest. She subsequently told the media that she had joined the demonstration as an independent citizen and that doing so was her democratic right.
The BASL, however, appears to believe that all of its members should follow the organisation’s political line. Its democratic approach appears to be to regard anyone who disagrees with its political agenda as an enemy. It has now been more than six months since Achala Seneviratne formally brought to the attention of the BASL the professional harassment she says she experienced at the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court in January. Yet BASL President Rajiv Amarasuriya has not made even a single public statement on the matter. Nearly a week has now passed since Achala Seneviratne was allegedly unlawfully arrested by the Trincomalee Police and produced before court. Yet BASL President Rajiv Amarasuriya has still been unable to issue even a ten-word statement concerning the incident. This is sufficient to demonstrate what it describes as the political bias and double standards of the BASL leadership. While Rajiv Amarasuriya and other BASL officials were reportedly quick to appear on behalf of Gunaratne Wanninayake and Rakitha Rajapaksa, the organisation has allegedly ignored Achala Seneviratne’s case for more than six months. The contrast exposes what it describes as their true double standards.
Achala Seneviratne is a lawyer of the people. Unlike Rajiv Amarasuriya and his associates, she has no political agenda. She is a courageous daughter of Sri Lanka who has refused to bend before Attorneys General or Ministers of Justice. She is a lawyer who has fought fearlessly against injustice. Her decade-long representation of the families of the eleven children who were abducted and forcibly disappeared is one example. Recently, she achieved a significant victory in that case, forcing Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe (Jr.) to reconsider his position. The parents of the eleven missing youths and their lawyer, Achala Seneviratne, had fought for years to have the decision to remove former Navy Commander Ravindra Wijegunaratne, the second accused in the case concerning the disappearance of the eleven young men, overturned. After the new NPP government came to power, the parents of the victims once again raised the matter with Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe (Jr.). He rejected their request and reportedly stated firmly that he would never reverse the decision taken by his predecessor, Sanjaya Rajaratnam. This represented the voice of the Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe camp. The victims’ families subsequently met Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara to inform him of the situation. Nanayakkara avoided the issue rather than taking meaningful action.
The final avenue available to the parents of the disappeared children and their lawyer, Achala Seneviratne, was to bring the matter once again before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court through a petition challenging the injustice they said had been done to them.
Fortunately, for them and for Sri Lankans seeking justice and fairness, the Magistrate of Colombo Fort at the time was Isuru Neththikumara. He was not the kind of magistrate who simply raises his hand and accepts every instruction issued by the Attorney General. On April 29, Magistrate Isuru Neththikumara delivered his ruling on the petition. According to the ruling, the court ordered the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to name former Navy Commander Ravindra Wijegunaratne as a suspect in connection with the abduction and disappearance of eleven young men.
In addition, Achala Seneviratne has filed several cases concerning what she alleges were improper interventions by the Attorney General and his Department. Against this backdrop, it is no secret that the Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe (Jr.), certain officials within his Department, and members of the BASL leadership had allegedly been looking for an opportunity to retaliate against her. They ultimately achieved that objective in Trincomalee. The presence of controversial Deputy Inspector General Mahinda Dissanayake as the senior police officer responsible for Trincomalee was allegedly an additional advantage. Mahinda Dissanayake has previously been accused of playing a key role in the alleged unlawful arrest and detention of Dr. Shafi.
Several ordinary police officers in Trincomalee allegedly told Achala Seneviratne privately that they were being subjected to pressure from above and had been compelled, against their wishes, to take these actions.
From whom did that pressure come? Was it from Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala, Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasuriya, or Deputy Inspector General Mahinda Dissanayake, who is responsible for Trincomalee? Or did the pressure come from the group comprising Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe (Jr.) and others?
These are questions that demand answers.
We do not believe that the NPP government is directly involved in the disgraceful campaign allegedly being waged against lawyer Achala Seneviratne. Nevertheless, it cannot escape responsibility for what has happened. In this case, Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala and Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasuriya must accept responsibility for the conduct of the police.
Ultimately, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara must bear responsibility for what is taking place within the Attorney General’s Department and the Trincomalee Magistrate’s Court. Achala Seneviratne has been a prominent figure who fought against the Rajapaksa regime for many years. During that period, she faced numerous threats and intimidation. Yet she was never subjected to arrests of this nature. The NPP government should be ashamed of what has happened. More importantly, it should be scary.
It should be scary because this episode raises the disturbing possibility that the deep state remains more powerful than the NPP government itself.
---------------------------
by (2026-09-09 18:11:49)
Read 42810 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news