After nearly seven years of legal drama, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the high-profile petition against MP Rishad Bathiudeen over Wilpattu resettlement, leaving critics to wonder whether it was about justice or just headlines.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the writ petition filed in 2018 by Nagananda Kodithuwakku and Malinda Seneviratne over the controversial resettlement issue in the Northern Province linked to Wilpattu. The petition, which lingered for almost seven years in the legal system, was finally concluded on the 15th when the court ruled that there was no basis to continue the case.
Attorney Hejaz Hizbullah, appearing on behalf of MP Rishad Bathiudeen, strongly argued that the petition had no legal foundation and was being dragged on primarily for media attention. Hizbullah emphasized that despite years of court orders and repeated hearings, the petitioners failed to pursue the matter with diligence. As a result, he requested the Court of Appeal to dismiss the case entirely.
The judges, after carefully reviewing the facts and the lack of consistent action from the petitioners, agreed with the defense and dismissed the petition. This decision marked the end of a case that had become more about public perception and political posturing than legal merit. For Bathiudeen, who has faced years of criticism over Wilpattu resettlement, the ruling offered a clear legal victory that reinforces his stance that the allegations were unfounded.
Representing the petitioners was Advocate Ms. Suganthika, who attempted to sustain the case despite mounting difficulties. On the side of the state, Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe appeared for the first three respondents. MP Bathiudeen was represented by Advocate Hejaz Hizbullah along with Shifan Maharoof, while former Minister Basil Rajapaksa was represented by Advocate Ruwantha Cooray.
The Wilpattu resettlement controversy has long been a flashpoint in Sri Lanka’s political debate, with environmentalists, activists, and politicians clashing over land use, minority rights, and ecological protection. The dismissal of the case now raises new questions about whether genuine concerns over Wilpattu were overshadowed by political agendas and media spectacles. For many, the long-delayed resolution illustrates both the weakness of legal follow-through and the difficulty of sustaining high-profile public interest litigation in Sri Lanka’s judicial system.
While the legal chapter of this petition has closed, the larger debate surrounding Wilpattu, resettlement policies, and environmental accountability remains unresolved. The judgment highlights the reality that legal battles, no matter how sensational, risk losing their force when consistency and evidence fail to match the rhetoric.
