Yesterday’s judgment against former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundera will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the most significant judicial decisions delivered since the Easter Sunday attacks of April 2019.
While the convictions are subject to appeal and the legal process is far from complete, the decision has already introduced a profound question into Sri Lanka’s constitutional and public life. Can those entrusted with the highest responsibilities of State be held criminally accountable not only for what they do, but for what they fail to do?
The answer given by the Trial-at-Bar is unmistakable. The Court has concluded that where public office carries a legal duty to act, and where a failure to discharge that duty contributes to catastrophic consequences, criminal responsibility may follow. That principle, if ultimately upheld through the appellate process, represents a significant development in Sri Lankan jurisprudence and one that extends well beyond the Easter Sunday attacks themselves.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Every government depends upon a chain of responsibility. Intelligence officers gather information. Police investigate. Defence officials coordinate. Ministers formulate policy. At every stage, decisions are expected to be taken promptly, lawfully and in the public interest. The effectiveness of government depends not upon the existence of institutions alone, but upon the willingness of those entrusted with authority to exercise it when circumstances demand.
The Easter Sunday attacks exposed serious weaknesses within that chain. Intelligence warnings existed.
Information was exchanged between agencies. Yet somewhere within the system the necessary decisions were either delayed, overlooked or not acted upon with the urgency the circumstances required. The consequences were measured in hundreds of innocent lives lost, countless families devastated and a nation left searching for answers that have taken years to emerge through investigations, commissions and the courts.
Yesterday’s judgment should therefore not be viewed simply as the conclusion of one criminal trial. It is part of a broader national effort to determine where responsibility lies when the machinery of government fails to perform its most fundamental obligation – the protection of its citizens. The law has now spoken in relation to two individuals. The country must now examine whether the institutions within which they served have themselves changed sufficiently to ensure that such failures are not repeated.
That examination cannot end with one verdict. It must include the manner in which intelligence is gathered and disseminated, the relationship between civilian and security leadership, the effectiveness of emergency decision-making, and the systems through which warnings are escalated to those capable of acting upon them. A nation cannot rely upon accountability after tragedy if it neglects prevention before tragedy.
This principle should not create fear among conscientious public servants. Decisions taken honestly, in good faith and on the information reasonably available should never be confused with wilful neglect or gross dereliction of duty. Democracies require public officials who are prepared to make difficult decisions without the constant apprehension that every error will become a criminal prosecution. Equally, democratic societies cannot accept that those occupying the highest offices are insulated from accountability when failures of the gravest nature occur.
The appellate courts will now examine the legal reasoning that underpins yesterday’s decision. They will consider the evidence, the applicable law and the principles governing criminal liability arising from omissions. That process is essential, for landmark judgments acquire their greatest strength when they withstand careful scrutiny at every judicial level. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the issues raised by this case will remain of lasting importance to Sri Lanka’s legal and constitutional development.
