The Unanswered Question: Who Betrayed Prageeth Ekneligoda?
A Disappearance That Still Haunts Sri Lanka
On the evening of 24 January 2010, just two days before a decisive presidential election, Prageeth Ekneligoda walked out wearing a plain white T-shirt—borrowed, his wife would later recall, from their elder son—and vanished without a trace. What followed would become one of the most emblematic enforced disappearance cases in Sri Lanka.
For over a decade, his wife, Sandhya Ekneligoda, has pursued truth through courts, commissions, and public advocacy. Yet the most fundamental question remains unresolved: who tipped off the abductors?
The Timeline of a Vanishing
Ekneligoda was not an unknown figure. A political analyst and cartoonist, he was known for his critical writings during a politically charged period. Reports later suggested that he had been investigating sensitive issues, potentially involving state actors.
On that January evening, his movements were not random. Like any journalist, meetings, sources, and contacts shaped his schedule. This raises a critical inference: his abduction was unlikely to have been a matter of chance. It required knowledge—specific, timely, and actionable.
The Insider Question
At the centre of this case lies a troubling possibility: that the information enabling the abduction came from within Ekneligoda’s own circle.
The hypothesis is not without basis. In targeted disappearances, operational success often depends on insider intelligence—someone who knows routines, meeting points, or last-minute changes. This could be a colleague, a professional associate, or an individual with personal access.
Several lines of speculation have emerged over the years:
- Professional rivalry: Journalism, particularly in politically sensitive environments, is not immune to internal competition and friction.
- Personal or financial disputes: There have been persistent questions regarding funds allegedly collected by individuals or groups in Ekneligoda’s name after his disappearance.
- Informant networks: In conflict-era Sri Lanka, overlapping networks of media, intelligence, and political actors created environments where information could be traded or leaked.
While none of these theories have been conclusively proven, they converge on a single point: someone knew where he would be.
The Money Trail
Another unresolved dimension concerns financial collections made in the aftermath of Ekneligoda’s disappearance. Various individuals and organisations reportedly raised funds—ostensibly to support his family or campaign for justice.
Yet questions linger:
- Who managed these funds?
- Were they fully accounted for?
- Did the family receive the intended support?
For investigators, financial flows can reveal networks of influence and association. If mishandled, they may also point to individuals who positioned themselves close to the case—raising further questions about their role before and after the disappearance.
Allegations of State Involvement
Multiple investigations, particularly during the post-2015 period, explored the possibility that Ekneligoda’s abduction involved elements linked to military intelligence networks operating at the time, under the administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Court proceedings and witness testimonies suggested the existence of covert units capable of carrying out such operations. However, even within this framework, the insider question remains critical: how did those actors obtain precise information about Ekneligoda’s location that night?
State capability alone does not negate the need for a source. If anything, it reinforces it.
Investigations That Stalled
Successive governments—including the reformist administration that came to power in 2015—pledged to uncover the truth. Yet progress has been uneven.
Witnesses were examined, arrests were made, and legal proceedings initiated. But the process repeatedly stalled, entangled in legal complexities, political sensitivities, and institutional inertia.
The result is a case that remains suspended—neither resolved nor forgotten.
The Role of the Current Government
With the rise of the National People’s Power (NPP), there is renewed public expectation that unresolved cases of the past will be revisited.
The Ekneligoda disappearance presents a test case. Reopening the investigation would require:
- Re-examining witness testimonies with fresh scrutiny
- Conducting forensic analysis of communication records, including phone data
- Investigating financial transactions linked to the case
- Identifying and questioning individuals with direct knowledge of his movements
Crucially, it would require political will to pursue uncomfortable truths—wherever they may lead.
The Limits of Public Speculation
It is widely suggested, in journalistic and legal circles, that one individual in particular had precise knowledge of Ekneligoda’s movements on the day of his disappearance. However, without judicial findings or admissible evidence, such claims remain speculative.
Responsible investigation demands restraint. Naming individuals without proof risks undermining due process and contaminating potential legal proceedings.
Yet the existence of such suspicion underscores the central issue: the answer may lie not in distant conspiracies, but in close proximity.
A Family Still Waiting
For Sandhya Ekneligoda, the passage of time has not diminished the urgency of the question. Her campaign has become a symbol of resilience in the face of institutional delay.
But beyond symbolism lies a simple demand: truth.
Not theory, not speculation—but a clear account of what happened, who was involved, and who enabled it.
The Question That Defines the Case
The disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda is not merely a story of abduction. It is a case defined by a missing link—the moment when information changed hands.
Who knew where he would be?
Who communicated that knowledge?
And why?
Until these questions are answered, the case will remain incomplete.
Reopening the investigation is not just a legal necessity—it is a moral one. Because in cases like this, justice does not begin with identifying the perpetrators alone. It begins with uncovering the truth about betrayal.