A viral Facebook allegation has now escalated into a high stakes legal battle, with Deputy Minister and Attorney-at-Law Sunil Watagala demanding Rs.10 billion in damages, calling the claims against him false, malicious, and politically motivated.
Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Attorney-at-Law Sunil Watagala has filed a defamation lawsuit seeking Rs.10 billion in compensation against Mahinda Pathirana, an activist affiliated with the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna.
The case has been filed before the Kaduwela District Court under case number 8892/M. In his petition, Deputy Minister Attorney-at-Law Sunil Watagala alleges that he was defamed by a false public statement recently made by Mahinda Pathirana, which he claims has caused serious damage to his personal reputation and political standing.
According to the complaint submitted to court, Sunil Watagala has requested that Mahinda Pathirana pay Rs.10 billion as compensation for what he describes as a deliberate and malicious attempt to defame him and discredit his political movement. The Deputy Minister states that the statements were made with full knowledge of their falsity and were intended to mislead the public.
The case centers on a Facebook post published in September 2025, in which Mahinda Pathirana allegedly claimed that Deputy Minister Attorney-at-Law Sunil Watagala owned a luxury residence at the Cinnamon Life housing complex in Colombo. The post further suggested that the funds used to purchase the property were suspicious and could constitute a bribe. In his court filing, Watagala has categorically denied these claims, stating that they are completely false, inaccurate, and without any factual basis.
The complaint further notes that Mahinda Pathirana made the statement by quoting a Facebook account belonging to an individual named Sachin Ratwatte, raising serious doubts about the authenticity and credibility of that account.
Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala has informed the court that the post went viral across social media platforms, causing significant reputational harm. He also states that Mahinda Pathirana failed to respond to a formal letter requesting a correction of facts or payment of compensation, prompting him to pursue legal action.
