Lalith-Kugan case : Gotabaya willing to testify in any court except Jaffna Magistrate’s Court
Former President of Sri Lanka, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has expressed his willingness to provide testimony in any court in the country, except the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court, regarding the disappearance of two human rights activists in 2011. This statement was made through his lawyer, Romesh de Silva, during a hearing at the Supreme Court today (October 22).
The case pertains to the abduction of Lalith Weeraraj and Kugan Muruganandan, two activists who went missing in Jaffna in 2011. Rajapaksa, who was then the Defense Secretary, was initially summoned to testify in the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court. However, he argued that due to security concerns, he could not appear there.
Rajapaksa’s lawyer informed the Supreme Court that while the former president cannot attend proceedings in the Jaffna court, he is prepared to present evidence in any other court in Sri Lanka.
The court was informed of the former President’s security concerns, when a petition filed by the relatives of the disappeared, challenging a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal was taken up today. The earlier decision had stated that Rajapaksa could not be summoned as a witness while serving as president.
The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices Preethi Padman Surasena, Shiran Gunaratne, and Achala Wengappuli, heard the arguments. The petitioners sought an order to compel Rajapaksa to testify, as he is no longer serving as president. The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 18, 2025, for further consideration of the matter.
The initial incident led to a habeas corpus petition filed by the families of the missing activists in Jaffna, with the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court issuing a summons to Rajapaksa in 2019. At the time, he argued that threats to his life prevented him from traveling to Jaffna, seeking to have the summons dismissed.
With his presidency now ended, the Supreme Court will determine whether Rajapaksa can be called upon to testify in the case, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases involving former officials
