M.A. Sumanthiran Under US State Department Scrutiny Following Complaint Over Alleged Remarks on 1990 Jaffna Muslim Expulsion
By Staff Correspondent
Reports circulating in diplomatic, legal, and human rights advocacy circles indicate that a formal complaint has been lodged with the United States Department of State, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and several other governments concerning alleged remarks attributed to Sri Lankan former parliamentarian and senior Tamil political figure M.A. Sumanthiran, currently practicing as a lawyer. The complaint relates to his purported views on the 1990 forcible expulsion of Muslims from the Jaffna district by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an episode widely recognised by international observers as an act of ethnic cleansing.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the complaint is based on an audio recording that is alleged to contain comments by Sumanthiran which appear to rationalise or support the LTTE’s decision to expel the Muslim population from Jaffna during the height of the civil conflict. The recording has not yet been independently authenticated, and no official investigative findings have been made public by any government authority at the time of writing.
Nevertheless, the submission of the complaint has reportedly triggered preliminary reviews within multiple jurisdictions. Petitioners argue that if the recording is verified and the comments are found to amount to endorsement of ethnic cleansing, such views could engage international human rights norms relating to crimes against humanity. The 1990 expulsion, which displaced tens of thousands of Muslims with little more than hours’ notice, has long been cited by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and other organisations as a grave violation of humanitarian principles.
Diplomatic sources stress that a complaint being received does not equate to a formal investigation or a determination of wrongdoing. However, under US law and allied sanctions and visa regimes, individuals found to have supported or justified serious human rights abuses may face consequences including visa restrictions or entry bans. Similar legal frameworks exist within the European Union and the United Kingdom, while several Middle Eastern states maintain strict policies against individuals associated with advocacy of ethnic or religious persecution.
Advocacy groups behind the complaint contend that endorsement of ethnic cleansing, even decades after the event, cannot be treated as a historical opinion devoid of consequence. “The expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna was not a policy disagreement; it was the collective punishment of an entire community,” one complainant stated. “Any contemporary political leader who frames that crime as beneficial or justified crosses a red line under international law.”
Within Sri Lanka, the controversy has reopened painful memories for the Muslim community, many of whom have never been able to return to their homes in the Northern Province. Community leaders argue that, should the alleged remarks be proven accurate, an unequivocal public apology would be the minimum ethical response. They note that even the LTTE, in later statements, acknowledged wrongdoing for the 1990 expulsions, underscoring the severity of the act.
Legal commentators point out that Sri Lankan law, including constitutional provisions and criminal statutes relating to communal harmony and incitement, could potentially be engaged if a public figure is found to have promoted or justified ethnic cleansing. Several civil society organisations have called on the current NPP-led government to determine whether a domestic criminal investigation is warranted, emphasising that any inquiry must be evidence-based and adhere strictly to due process.
At the same time, analysts caution against trial by allegation. Sumanthiran, a senior lawyer by training and a long-standing advocate in international legal forums, has not publicly responded to the specific claims surrounding the alleged recording. His supporters argue that selective leaks and unauthenticated audio clips have become tools of political weaponisation and warn against drawing conclusions before verification.
Officials in Washington, Brussels, London, and Abu Dhabi have not publicly confirmed the existence or status of any investigation. Standard diplomatic practice dictates that complaints of this nature are assessed confidentially, particularly where authentication of evidence is pending. Any decision regarding travel restrictions or other measures would follow internal legal review processes and, in most cases, would not be publicly disclosed in detail.
The broader implications of the case extend beyond one individual. The episode highlights the enduring international sensitivity surrounding Sri Lanka’s unresolved wartime legacies and the continued scrutiny applied to political narratives about past atrocities. For many observers, the central issue is not geopolitics but moral clarity: whether political expediency can ever justify the defence of actions that forcibly erased a community from its homeland.
As the matter stands, the allegations remain unproven, the recording unauthenticated, and the outcome uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the 1990 expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna remains a deeply traumatic chapter in Sri Lanka’s history, and any contemporary discourse perceived as minimising that suffering is likely to attract both domestic outrage and international attention in the months ahead.