News
RTI Commission directs AG to disclose information on abduction of Lasantha’s driver
View(s):By Ranjith Padmasiri
The Right to Information Commission (RTI Commission) has directed the Attorney General to release certified copies of letters dated January 27, 2025, and February 12, 2025 (Department File Reference CR1/40/2020), relating to advice given in case No. B 92/2009 on the abduction of Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge’s driver and the destruction of evidence linked to the murder probe of the assassinated editor.
The two letters relate to the initial advice by the Attorney General to discharge three suspects, including an army intelligence officer and a former DIG, and later reversing that decision.
The directive was issued by the Commission, constituting Chair Daya Lankapura and Commissioners (Rtd) Justice of the Court of Appeal D.N. Samarakoon, senior attorney-at-law Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and former senior public servant A.M. Nahiya. This was following an appeal filed at the Commission by lawyer-activist Nagananda Kodithuwakku late last year against the refusal of the Public Authority (the Attorney General) to release the letters.
Delivering the decision on Wednesday (February 25, 2026), uploaded on the website of the RTI Commission (www.rticommission.lk), the RTI Commission declined to accept the grounds relied upon by the Attorney General for non-disclosure. Examining Section 5 (1) (f), which permits ‘communications’ between the Attorney General and a Public Authority (‘professional privilege’) to be withheld on the basis of ‘any written law’, the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance were found to be inapplicable to the circumstances of the case.
It was also opined that Section 5 (1)(g), which allows information to be refused on the basis of a fiduciary relationship, was inapplicable to refuse the information on the basis that the Attorney General’s fiduciary relationship is with his ‘client’, namely the Sovereign, the People of the Republic. Therefore, there is a difference in the position and responsibilities of the Attorney General as compared to an ordinary lawyer, it was emphasised.
Section 5 (1)(h) (i) and (ii), relating to non-disclosure of information relevant to the detection of crime, apprehension of offenders and the exposing of a confidential source of information, were held to be similarly inapplicable.
The Commission observed that, ‘when three persons found suitable to be prosecuted before a court of law for the murder of Mr Wickremathunge, after 16 years from the date of the murder were directed to be released, and, moreover, within a short period of time it was again directed to go back to the original position of charging them, it is in the interest of the Sovereign People of this country that they should know the form and the content of those directions.’
The Commission noted that the element of public interest in disclosure is predominant, adding that ‘there will be no harm to the public or the prosecution of criminal proceedings’ in ‘divulging his reasons for his direction to discharge certain accused and then to reverse that decision.’ The definition of ‘information’ under Section 43 of the Right to Information Act includes ‘an opinion too’, it was clarified.
The Public Authority (the Attorney General) was directed to release the information within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Commission further decided that, if the Public Authority fails to comply with the said decision of the Commission before the said date, the Information Officer and the Public Authority shall be prosecuted before the relevant Magistrate’s Court under Section 39 of the RTI Act No. 12 of 2016.
The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!