In a detailed official press release, the Sri Lanka Army addresses and debunks false social media claims about unauthorized officer dismissals, defending its administrative process and reasserting its commitment to national security and institutional discipline.
The Sri Lanka Army Headquarters has issued a strong rebuttal to widespread disinformation circulating on social media, aimed at discrediting the military institution. In an official release signed by Brigadier W.S. Gamage RSP USP, Director of Media and Psychological Operations, the Army says that malicious campaigns are being orchestrated online to misrepresent standard administrative actions and foster public distrust.
The statement clarifies that the Army is compelled to respond publicly due to recurring attempts by certain digital platforms to distort military decision-making and falsely portray officer dismissals as unlawful or politically driven. “This clarification is being issued to convey the facts to the general public, especially since several social media narratives have irresponsibly misrepresented normal military administrative procedures,” Gamage noted.
Recent social media posts have alleged that a group of Army officers were fraudulently removed from service without presidential sanction, insinuating that these dismissals were either arbitrary or motivated by personal vendettas. The Army categorically denies these allegations and emphasizes that such claims reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how its administrative structure operates.
The statement outlines that the Army operates under a pyramidal officer composition, where only a limited number of officers can be promoted to higher ranks. As officers progress through the hierarchy, stricter eligibility criteria apply. Officers who do not meet these criteria are retired upon reaching the end of their Maximum in the Rank service period.
This structured retirement process is guided by the Officer Service Regulations, which are modeled on internationally accepted military standards. Each case is reviewed by Army Selection and Advisory Boards, comprising 10-15 senior officers who conduct a rigorous qualitative and quantitative assessment.
These assessments evaluate an officer’s competence, leadership, discipline, dedication, and professional merit. Only those meeting a defined benchmark score are recommended for promotion. Transparency is maintained by sharing the evaluation report with the officer in question, who is also invited to appeal before the Advisory Board if they believe their evaluation was unfair.
The Army explains that officers not meeting the criteria are offered two retirement pathways: compulsory retirement or, where possible, voluntary retirement. The latter ensures better civilian reintegration. These decisions, once documented, are submitted for approval to the President through the Ministry of Defence. However, social media misinterpretations have presented these official communications as fabricated or unauthorized, which the Army categorically refutes.
The statement also contextualizes the situation by noting that post-war humanitarian considerations led to relaxed enforcement of the regulations. Officers who had served during the conflict were allowed extended service terms despite being ineligible for promotions. However, this led to organizational stagnation and demoralization among younger, highly qualified officers, many of whom left the service due to blocked promotion opportunities.
Brigadier Gamage explains that the Army Advisory Boards recommended a return to strict regulation enforcement in the interest of efficiency and institutional quality. The process followed in recent cases aligns entirely with this recommendation.
“It is unfortunate that officers who were aware of their ineligibility to remain in service have resorted to slandering the Army through social media rather than accepting the outcome of a fair and transparent evaluation process,” Gamage wrote. The Army has chosen not to publicly disclose the disciplinary records or specific reasons behind each retirement to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
He cautioned that publicizing unverified allegations damages the morale of the military and erodes public trust. As the backbone of Sri Lanka’s national security, the Army must remain a disciplined and merit-based institution.
The press release concludes with a reminder that all decisions are made through collective governance: “All Army administrative decisions are the result of structured recommendations made by experienced officers and are approved through the appropriate constitutional channels, including the Commander of the Army and the Commander-in-Chief, the President of Sri Lanka.”
In an era where falsehoods can spread faster than facts, Brigadier Gamage’s statement serves as a necessary intervention to reaffirm the professionalism, legality, and transparency of the Sri Lanka Army.
