A controversy has erupted over the alleged secret release of a prisoner from Anuradhapura Prison under the guise of a presidential pardon, prompting the Presidential Secretariat to lodge a formal complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The incident is now under investigation, with officials warning that disciplinary action will be taken against those responsible for any wrongdoing.
The prisoner in question, W.H. Athula Thilakaratne, was reportedly released during the 2025 Vesak festival as part of the annual presidential pardon granted to selected inmates. However, according to government sources, there is no record of Thilakaratne’s name on the official list of prisoners who were approved by the President for release.
Under Article 34(1) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to grant general pardons to convicted individuals. This process typically involves prison superintendents forwarding a list of eligible inmates to the Ministry of Justice, which then reviews the list before submitting it to the Presidential Secretariat. Upon approval by the President, pardons are granted to the verified names.
In this instance, a list dated May 6, 2025, bearing the reference number 06/01/Yojitha/J.P.Sama/Var:/05-12/2025, was submitted by the Commissioner General of Prisons. It included 388 names of prisoners recommended for pardon during Vesak. However, sources at the Presidential Secretariat confirmed that W.H. Athula Thilakaratne’s name was not among them.
Thilakaratne had been convicted of financial fraud and was serving his sentence at the Anuradhapura Prison at the time of his release. His sudden freedom, without formal approval under the presidential pardon system, raised alarm within the Secretariat, leading to an immediate internal inquiry.
Upon confirming that the pardon had not been officially sanctioned, the Presidential Secretariat filed a complaint with the CID on June 6 under the title, “Regarding the release of a prisoner who was not approved under the Presidential Pardon.” Officials stated that this action was necessary to protect the integrity of the presidential pardon process and to ensure public trust in state institutions.
According to senior administrative sources, a full investigation is now underway to determine how Thilakaratne was released without being included in the approved list and to identify those who facilitated or failed to prevent the unauthorized release.
The Presidential Secretariat emphasized that disciplinary measures will be taken against any officer found to have acted negligently or unlawfully. The incident has drawn renewed attention to the safeguards — or lack thereof — in the execution of presidential pardons, with some calling for increased transparency and external oversight.
As the CID continues its probe, political observers and legal experts are watching closely to see whether this case will lead to broader reforms or remain a one-off scandal buried in bureaucratic blame-shifting. Either way, the unauthorized release has now become a symbol of the systemic vulnerabilities that continue to challenge Sri Lanka’s governance and rule of law.
