COLOMBO — Attorney Nayantha Wijesundara’s reflections on allegedly fabricated prosecutions revive questions about investigative integrity, prosecutorial oversight and the lives damaged when criminal cases collapse.
A social media reflection attributed to attorney Nayantha Wijesundara has drawn attention to a troubling question within Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system: what happens when the people entrusted with investigating and prosecuting crime become responsible for accusations against innocent people?
The remarks, reproduced in a commentary circulating online, describe the anguish of a defence lawyer who believes that some criminal proceedings are driven by fabricated allegations, professional ambition and a desire for publicity rather than credible evidence.
Although the original social media post has not been independently authenticated for this report, the concerns expressed in the supplied text echo documented instances in which Sri Lankan courts have rejected criminal accusations, found violations of fundamental rights or ordered compensation following unlawful police conduct.
An acquittal does not, by itself, establish that investigators fabricated evidence. Nor does an unsuccessful prosecution necessarily mean that prosecutors acted dishonestly.
Nevertheless, where courts identify deliberate falsehoods, unlawful arrests or the misuse of investigative powers, the consequences can extend far beyond the individual case.
For someone wrongfully accused, the damage may begin long before a court delivers its judgment.
The Lawyer’s Warning: When the Process Becomes the Punishment
The statement attributed to Wijesundara offers an unusually personal account of the moral burden associated with defending people who may have been unjustly accused.
The supplied text quotes him as saying:
There are some cases where the crime has not been committed by the accused.
In those, the crime has been committed by the investigators and the prosecutors. They have fabricated false cases looking at their own prestige and publicity.
Something I feel is that the accused in such cases are paying for a sin from a previous life, nothing else. Those people must have fabricated false cases in previous lives and crushed and tortured innocent people.
Those investigators and prosecutors mentioned earlier are now creating, before our very eyes, a karmic path for them to be paid back over several future lives.
Then what about me? Why am I, the defence attorney, suffering watching these sins? I think I too am a sinner.
In a previous life, I must have seen injustice and looked away saying it was not my problem. I am paying for those sins now.
Hell is not after death. Hell is not beneath this earth.
The passage is not a judicial finding. It is an expression of professional and personal distress that makes serious allegations about the conduct of some investigators and prosecutors.
Its central argument, however, is clear.
When a criminal case is brought without a sound evidential foundation, the accused may experience years of punishment even if ultimately acquitted.
Detention, public suspicion, legal expenses and prolonged uncertainty can destroy livelihoods and family relationships before the justice system reaches a final decision.
Criminal Cases That Exposed Failures in Investigation
Sri Lanka’s judicial history contains examples in which early investigative conclusions were later challenged by forensic evidence, rejected at trial or found insufficient to establish guilt.
Several cases illustrate why the distinction between suspicion and proof is fundamental.
1. The Sewanagala Senaka Kumarasinghe Case
The source commentary refers to a man identified as Senaka Kumarasinghe from Sewanagala, alleging that he spent more than 16 years in prison after being sentenced to death for a murder he did not commit.
According to that account, the Court of Appeal eventually overturned the conviction after weaknesses or alleged fabrication in the investigation came to light.
The commentary maintains that his imprisonment caused irreparable damage to his personal and family life.
These specific details, including the identity of the accused, duration of imprisonment and asserted findings of evidence fabrication, have not been independently verified against a judgment or reliable contemporaneous court report.
They should therefore be treated as claims requiring documentary confirmation, rather than established judicial findings.
2. The Kotakethana Murders and Acquitted Suspects
The series of murders associated with Kotakethana and Kahawatta subjected investigators to intense public scrutiny.
In one case concerning the 2012 murders of a mother and daughter, three accused persons were acquitted by the Colombo High Court in May 2015 because the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Other proceedings arising from the wider series also resulted in acquittals.
Forensic evidence subsequently played an important role in identifying perpetrators in separate Kotakethana murder cases.
These outcomes demonstrate the value of independent scientific examination and the danger of treating an early suspect as a confirmed offender.
They do not, without additional findings, prove that every unsuccessful prosecution in the series resulted from deliberately manufactured evidence.
3. The Seya Sadewmi Murder Investigation
The 2015 murder of five-year-old Seya Sadewmi in Kotadeniyawa provides another example of the damage that can arise when suspects are publicly associated with a serious crime before the investigation is complete.
A 17-year-old schoolboy and another man were initially arrested.
Both were subsequently released after DNA evidence failed to connect them to the offence.
Another suspect, Dunesh Priyashantha, widely known as “Kondaya,” was also cleared in relation to the murder after forensic testing did not match his DNA with the evidence recovered.
Investigators eventually arrested his elder brother, Saman Jayalath, whose DNA was reported to match the forensic evidence.
Jayalath was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death.
The sequence illustrates why scientific evidence, careful investigative procedures and restraint in publicly identifying suspects are essential.
The release of an innocent suspect may correct an investigative error in legal terms. It cannot necessarily erase the reputational damage caused by public accusations.
4. Political and Counter-Terrorism Proceedings
The source commentary also alleges that some investigations conducted under national security and counter-terrorism legislation have involved prolonged detention, inadequate evidence and politically influenced accusations.
Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) has long attracted scrutiny over detention powers and procedural safeguards.
Separately, offences under Section 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act carry restrictive bail provisions, with the High Court empowered to grant bail in exceptional circumstances.
The two laws have distinct purposes and legal requirements. Their use must therefore be assessed according to the facts of each case and the applicable statutory provisions.
The suggestion that thousands of particular prosecutions were knowingly fabricated cannot be established from the supplied material.
Nevertheless, prolonged detention and restrictive bail procedures heighten the importance of accurate investigations and effective judicial oversight.
How False Criminal Cases Can Be Constructed
The commentary describes what it considers a recurring pattern: investigators allegedly identify a person they wish to prosecute and then attempt to make the evidence support that conclusion.
This reverses the fundamental investigative obligation to follow credible evidence towards a suspect.
The alleged practices described in the source include several distinct forms of misconduct.
1. Planting Evidence
The commentary alleges that some suspects may be falsely implicated through claims that illegal drugs, illicit liquor or prohibited weapons were discovered in their possession.
Such allegations are serious because a fabricated seizure record can influence an arrest, remand proceedings and subsequent prosecution.
Importantly, deliberate fabrication by police officers is not merely a theoretical concern.
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has previously found fundamental rights violations in cases involving false charges and unlawful arrest.
Those judicial findings establish misconduct in the particular cases concerned. They should not be extrapolated into an unsupported claim that evidence planting is routine across all police investigations.
2. Misleading the Court Through B-Reports
A B-report is used to place relevant investigative information before a Magistrate’s Court.
The source alleges that some officers exaggerate facts or include misleading assertions to strengthen an application for continued detention or oppose bail.
Any deliberate presentation of false information to a court would undermine the administration of justice.
At the same time, a B-report generally reflects the information available at a particular stage of an investigation. Later changes in the evidence do not automatically establish that the original report was dishonest.
The distinction between an evolving investigation and intentional deception must be determined through evidence.
3. Misuse of Restrictive Criminal Legislation
The commentary raises concerns that investigators may sometimes invoke legislation carrying more restrictive bail conditions when the available evidence would not support a stronger ordinary criminal charge.
Such an allegation requires examination of the legal basis for the particular offence and the evidence supporting it.
The PTA and ICCPR Act do not operate identically, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that either removes all judicial powers relating to bail in every circumstance.
Nonetheless, the possibility of prolonged detention creates a compelling need for courts to examine whether arrests and charges satisfy the requirements of the law.
4. Publicity, Professional Prestige and Investigative Pressure
The writer identifies the pursuit of recognition and publicity as possible incentives for misconduct.
Two concerns are highlighted:
- Media-driven investigations: Following a sensational crime, investigators may face pressure to announce arrests quickly. The commentary warns that such pressure can encourage premature conclusions and excessive publicity surrounding suspects.
- Promotions and performance incentives: The source suggests that professional rewards linked to investigative success could create incentives to prioritise case statistics over evidential quality. No specific police promotion policy or documented quota system establishing that allegation has been supplied.
Public confidence is not strengthened merely because an arrest is announced promptly.
It depends on whether the resulting investigation is fair, lawful and capable of withstanding scrutiny in court.
Responsibility Extends Beyond the Arresting Officer
The source commentary argues that weaknesses in criminal proceedings may arise at several stages.
It identifies three institutional responsibilities.
1. Local Police Stations and Officers-in-Charge
Officers responsible for arrests, preliminary investigations and the recording of evidence must ensure that their actions comply with the law.
Any allegation that evidence was planted, records were falsified or an arrest was made for an improper purpose should be examined through a credible and independent process.
Where misconduct is proved, appropriate disciplinary, civil or criminal consequences should follow.
2. Specialised Investigative Units
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) and Colombo Crime Division (CCD) handle investigations that may involve substantial legal, political or public interest.
Their responsibilities make evidential integrity especially important.
The commentary alleges that politically sensitive investigations can become vulnerable to outside influence.
Such claims must be investigated on their individual merits. The involvement of a specialised unit does not itself establish improper influence or investigative misconduct.
3. Prosecutors and the Attorney General’s Department
Prosecutors have a responsibility to assess the evidence and applicable law before proceeding with criminal charges.
The commentary argues that prosecutors should not treat investigative findings as unquestionable merely because they appear in an official police file.
Evidence must be tested against the legal requirements of the alleged offence.
A prosecution may fail despite being brought in good faith. Conversely, deliberately pursuing charges known to be false would raise profoundly different questions of professional and legal accountability.
The distinction is central to any credible discussion of prosecutorial reform.
The Human Cost of a Wrongful Prosecution
Criminal proceedings are often discussed in terms of statutes, charges, hearings and judgments.
For the person accused, the experience can be far more personal.
The source commentary identifies three forms of harm.
1. Reputational and Social Damage
A suspect may become publicly associated with a serious offence before a court has determined guilt.
Even if the accused is later released or acquitted, the original allegations may continue to circulate online.
Employment prospects, relationships and standing within the community can suffer as a result.
2. The Trial Itself Becomes a Punishment
Lengthy criminal proceedings may require repeated court appearances, legal representation and periods of detention.
The commentary suggests that some High Court proceedings can continue for eight to fifteen years.
That range has not been verified as a representative national average, but prolonged litigation is a legitimate concern wherever delay prevents timely resolution.
For a person eventually acquitted, years spent defending a charge cannot simply be restored.
3. Financial Devastation
Legal representation, travel, lost income and other litigation-related expenses can place substantial pressure on accused persons and their families.
Some may sell property or incur debt to meet those costs.
A verdict of not guilty can end a prosecution without necessarily compensating the person for the financial and personal losses suffered along the way.
These consequences explain why procedural fairness matters from the moment an investigation begins, rather than only when the final judgment is delivered.
What Sri Lanka Must Do to Strengthen Criminal Justice
The commentary concludes with demands for structural reforms intended to prevent deliberate evidence fabrication and improve accountability.
Four proposals warrant serious consideration.
1. Personal Accountability for Investigators and Prosecutors
Where deliberate evidence fabrication, unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution is established, the responsible individuals should face consequences under the applicable law.
Those consequences must follow proper investigation and due process.
An unsuccessful prosecution alone should not expose an investigator or prosecutor to punishment.
2. Compensation for Proven Rights Violations
Sri Lanka already has judicial precedents in which public officers have been ordered to pay compensation from their personal funds following findings of fundamental rights violations.
The Supreme Court has exercised its constitutional powers to order such payments in appropriate cases.
The policy question is whether existing remedies are sufficiently accessible, consistent and effective for people harmed by serious investigative misconduct.
Any proposal to expand personal financial liability would need to distinguish deliberate wrongdoing from reasonable decisions made in good faith.
3. Stronger Independent Review of Prosecutions
The source calls for an independent prosecution service capable of evaluating evidence without political or improper investigative influence.
Such a reform would require careful consideration of the constitutional role of the Attorney General, prosecutorial independence and institutional accountability.
Whatever model is adopted, decisions to prosecute should be grounded in admissible evidence and the applicable legal threshold.
4. Greater Reliance on Reliable Forensic Evidence
Scientific methods, including DNA analysis, forensic pathology, digital evidence and properly documented chains of custody, can strengthen criminal investigations.
The Seya Sadewmi proceedings illustrate the importance of forensic evidence in distinguishing an initial suspect from the person eventually convicted.
Nevertheless, scientific evidence cannot be made an absolute prerequisite for every criminal prosecution. Credible witness testimony and other admissible forms of evidence remain important under criminal law.
The necessary reform is to improve the quality, preservation, disclosure and independent testing of evidence, rather than excluding entire categories of otherwise lawful proof.
Justice Must Be Measured by More Than Conviction Rates
A criminal justice system must investigate offences effectively and hold offenders accountable.
It must also protect innocent people from being prosecuted through dishonesty, improper pressure or evidence that cannot withstand lawful scrutiny.
Sri Lanka’s courts have demonstrated that unlawful police conduct can attract judicial remedies, including personal compensation orders against responsible officers.
The larger challenge is ensuring that those principles operate consistently throughout the investigative process.
The warning attributed to Wijesundara is ultimately about more than the conduct of any single police officer or prosecutor.
It concerns the obligation of every institution involved in criminal justice to recognise that the accused is a person whose liberty, reputation and future may depend on the integrity of the evidence presented.
Where wrongdoing is proved, accountability must follow. Where an accusation remains unproven, the presumption of innocence must prevail.
A justice system earns public trust not simply by securing convictions, but by ensuring that innocent people are not made to suffer for crimes they did not commit.
