Court holds former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former IGP Pujith Jayasundera criminally liable over Easter Sunday security failures
COLOMBO, Saturday – Yesterday’s conviction and sentencing of former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundera has become one of the most consequential judicial decisions in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history, placing the principle of public accountability at the centre of one of the country’s darkest national tragedies.
The Trial-at-Bar found both men guilty over their failure to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them in the period leading up to the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks of 21 April 2019, when coordinated suicide bombings claimed the lives of more than 260 people and injured hundreds more.
The attacks targeted churches crowded with worshippers celebrating Easter Sunday and several luxury hotels in Colombo, sending shockwaves throughout Sri Lanka and drawing worldwide condemnation. For years, the central question has remained the same.
How could such a devastating attack have occurred despite repeated intelligence warnings indicating that extremist elements were preparing to strike?
Yesterday, the Trial-at-Bar answered that question, at least in part.
The Court concluded that the country’s two most senior civilian officials responsible for national security failed to take the action expected of them despite intelligence available before the attacks.
The convictions represent a significant departure from the manner in which responsibility has traditionally been viewed in Sri Lanka’s public administration.
Historically, failures of governance have frequently resulted in commissions of inquiry, parliamentary investigations or disciplinary proceedings. Criminal liability imposed upon senior State officials for failures associated with the discharge of official duties has been comparatively rare.
The judgment therefore establishes an important legal precedent, recognising that those entrusted with statutory responsibility may, under certain circumstances, be held criminally accountable where failures in the discharge of those responsibilities produce catastrophic consequences.
Throughout the proceedings, the prosecution maintained that intelligence received before Easter Sunday pointed to a credible and imminent terrorist threat.
The Court accepted that the information available required a coordinated and urgent response from those occupying the highest levels of the national security structure.
It found that response to have been inadequate. The judgment does not suggest that either Hemasiri Fernando or Pujith Jayasundera participated in the planning or execution of the attacks.
Nor does it conclude that they shared responsibility with those who carried out the bombings in the conventional criminal sense.
Instead, the Court determined that their failure to perform the duties imposed upon them by virtue of the offices they held amounted to criminal conduct. That distinction is likely to become one of the defining legal questions arising from the case.
Senior lawyers observing the proceedings noted that the juduties may attract criminal liability where the consequences are sufficiently grave. The sentences imposed yesterday are expected to be challenged through the appellate process.dgment reinforces an established principle recognised in many legal systems – that certain public offices carry positive legal duties, and that failure to discharge those
Appeals are likely to examine both the factual findings reached by the Trial-at-Bar and the legal principles governing criminal responsibility arising from omission rather than affirmative acts.
Consequently, yesterday’s decision should not be regarded as the conclusion of the judicial process. The legal debate now moves to the appellate courts, where broader constitutional and criminal law questions are expected to receive detailed consideration. Outside the courtroom, however, the impact of the judgment was immediate.
Families of victims who have spent years seeking accountability described the decision as another significant step in a long and painful journey for justice. Others cautioned that while accountability for public officials is essential, broader questions surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks remain unresolved and continue to be the subject of investigation and public debate.
Those questions extend beyond individual responsibility. They encompass the effectiveness of intelligence sharing, coordination between security agencies, the relationship between political authority and operational decisionmaking, and the institutional reforms introduced since 2019 to reduce the likelihood of similar failures occurring again.
Yesterday’s judgment inevitably returns those issues to the forefront of national discussion. The convictions also place renewed attention upon the offices once occupied by the two accused. The Defence Secretary occupies one of the most influential positions within Sri Lanka’s national security architecture, coordinating defence policy and the functioning of key security institutions.
The Inspector General of Police serves as the country’s highest-ranking police officer, responsible for directing law enforcement operations and ensuring that intelligence requiring police intervention is acted upon promptly. The Court’s findings therefore extend beyond the actions of two individuals.
They examine the responsibilities inherent in those offices and the legal consequences which may arise where those responsibilities are not fulfilled. For Sri Lanka’s public service, the judgment is likely to become required reading.
Every Secretary to a Ministry, every head of a statutory authority, every Commander and every senior official entrusted with responsibilities affecting public safety will inevitably study both the reasoning of the Trial-at-Bar and the decisions of the appellate courts that follow.
Whether yesterday’s convictions are ultimately affirmed or overturned, the case has already altered the conversation surrounding accountability in public office. The events of Easter Sunday have always been remembered for the horror they inflicted upon innocent victims.
Yesterday’s judgment ensures they will also be remembered for redefining the legal expectations placed upon those entrusted with protecting the nation.
