Appeals Court postpones consideration of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s writ petition to June 24
19-Jun-2026.
The Court of Appeal on June 18 ordered that further proceedings on the writ petition filed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, seeking an order preventing his arrest in connection with investigations into the Easter Sunday attacks, be postponed to June 24.
The matter was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rohana Abeysuriya and Justice Sarath Dissanayake.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva submitted that delivering justice to victims of the Easter Sunday attacks does not mean arresting and detaining individuals without reasonable grounds. He argued that remand custody should not be used as a form of punishment.
Counsel further stated that his client had not been summoned for any inquiry and had not been accused of influencing witnesses. He added that despite this, the respondents had obtained a foreign travel ban against the petitioner through the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court without valid justification. He noted that the present application was filed as the petitioner fears arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which could affect his ability to seek bail.
He also informed court that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the Easter Sunday attacks, headed by Justice Janak de Silva, had recorded statements from 257 individuals over 214 days and submitted a six-volume report, none of which contained allegations against the petitioner.
He further pointed out that the Ziyad Alwis Commission had recommended action under criminal law against former CID Director Shani Abeysekara and former DIG Ravi Seneviratne for alleged failure to prevent the attacks. He also noted that earlier investigations had indicated possible involvement of a foreign terrorist organization in the 2018 Mawanella Buddha statue vandalism incident, but no follow-up international investigation was pursued.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing for the respondents, countered that the opposing counsel was attempting to portray the Attorney General’s Department in a misleading manner, allegedly targeting media attention.
After considering submissions from both sides, the bench postponed further consideration of the petition to June 24.
