During the 1987-1990 insurrection, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) engaged in widespread violence, targeting political opponents and security forces. In response, the United National Party (UNP) government at the time implemented harsh countermeasures, resulting in extrajudicial killings and disappearances. Secret detention centers, commonly referred to as torture chambers, were allegedly used for interrogations and executions. Among them, Batalanda became infamous.
What is Batalanda?
Batalanda refers to a housing complex that reportedly housed an illegal detention center during the late 1980s. Within this complex, there was a house belonging to the Ministry of Industries, at a time when Ranil Wickremesinghe served as the Minister of Industries. This connection has fueled allegations of his involvement, although no direct evidence has ever proven his personal role in the abuses.
The Batalanda Commission and Its Findings
During Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, a commission was appointed to investigate human rights violations at Batalanda. Many believed the investigation was politically motivated, aiming to weaken Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, ahead of the 1999 presidential election.
On September 3, 1997, Ranil was summoned and questioned before the commission, where he denied all accusations. The final report, submitted to President Chandrika on April 12, 1998, did not find direct evidence implicating him in any crimes. After legal review, no charges were filed, and Chandrika’s administration chose not to pursue further action against him.
Can the Malima Government Imprison Ranil?
With the Malima government now revisiting the Batalanda Commission report, Deputy Minister Watagala has stated that action may be taken against Ranil Wickremesinghe. The government has suggested the possibility of abolishing his civil rights. However, legal experts argue that such actions face significant obstacles:
- Legal Basis of the Report
- The report was prepared under the Commission of Inquiry Act No. 17 of 1948, which does not grant the government power to abolish civil rights.
- To legally strip someone of their civil rights, the report should have been issued under the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act No. 07 of 1978.
- Burden of Proof
- Any attempt to imprison Ranil would require filing a criminal case in court.
- Prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he directly or indirectly supported human rights violations. Given the commission’s previous findings, this would be legally challenging.
Political Implications
If the Malima government is leveraging the Batalanda report as a political tool—to prevent Ranil Wickremesinghe’s return to Parliament or to gain an advantage in the upcoming local government elections—then it serves a strategic political purpose. However, if the government genuinely believes it can imprison or detain him based on the existing legal framework, it risks political embarrassment and legal failure.
In the end, while Ranil cannot be fully absolved of Batalanda allegations, imprisoning him remains highly unlikely under the current legal system.
