“Why Was Chirantha Amarasinghe Arrested? Activist Demands Disclosure of Original Intelligence Report Behind CID Case”
A major legal and constitutional dispute has erupted in Sri Lanka after social activist Chirantha Amarasinghe accused the Sri Lanka Police and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of refusing to disclose the original information and intelligence documents allegedly used to justify his arrest in November 2020.
In a lengthy submission before the Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka, Amarasinghe argued that the authorities are attempting to block access to crucial documents connected to his arrest by improperly using exemptions under Sri Lanka’s Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016.
The dispute arises from an RTI appeal filed by Amarasinghe after the CID refused to release documents relating to the “initial information” that led to his arrest on November 17, 2020. The arrest later resulted in legal proceedings under case number B44106/1/2020 before the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court.
According to Amarasinghe, the CID itself has already admitted that such original documents exist. However, the police have refused to release them, claiming disclosure would violate Section 5(1) of the RTI Act, which permits authorities to withhold information if disclosure could obstruct criminal investigations or prosecutions.
Amarasinghe, however, contends that the police have failed to explain how releasing the documents to him — the suspect in the very same case — would prejudice any investigation.
He argues that Sri Lankan written law already grants him the right to access the material.
Citing Section 444(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 15 of 1979, Amarasinghe states that a suspect or accused person is legally entitled to obtain documents relating to the original complaint or information used against them.
“The CID is legally bound to provide those documents,” he argues in the submission, adding that the RTI Act cannot be used as a shield to prevent disclosure of documents that must already be released under criminal procedure law.
The activist further invokes constitutional protections under Articles 13(3) and 13(5) of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which guarantee the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
He argues that denying him access to the original information deprives him of the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the individuals or agencies behind the allegations against him.
“If the original information was false or malicious,” he states, “I have the right to confront those responsible and seek legal remedies.”
At the centre of the controversy are claims that Amarasinghe’s arrest was linked not to an ordinary criminal complaint, but to intelligence reports originating from Sri Lanka’s State Intelligence Service.
In documents filed before the Supreme Court in relation to Fundamental Rights petition SCFR 375/2021, a police officer reportedly admitted that Amarasinghe had been arrested based on information supplied by state intelligence agencies.
Amarasinghe also alleges that senior CID officials privately acknowledged to him that intelligence services were directly involved in the operation leading to his arrest.
The activist’s original comments related to the politically sensitive COVID-19 cremation controversy during the pandemic period.
At the time, sections of the government and security establishment were accused of targeting critics who questioned claims that COVID-19 could spread through groundwater or burial practices. Amarasinghe says he publicly challenged those narratives and was subsequently targeted by intelligence agencies.
He further claims that one of the factors behind his interrogation was his social media commentary questioning whether the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks had been politically exploited by the administration of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The submission also references a later Cabinet decision acknowledging that COVID-19 was not spreading through groundwater and apologising for the forced cremation policy imposed during the pandemic.
Against that backdrop, Amarasinghe alleges that the continuing prosecution against him is “malicious” and politically motivated.
In his appeal, he warns that the RTI Commission itself risks being drawn into what he describes as an attempt by state authorities to undermine constitutional rights and due process protections.
He has requested the Commission to order the immediate release of all documents connected to the “initial information” used to justify his arrest.
The case is increasingly being viewed as a major test of the scope of Sri Lanka’s Right to Information regime, particularly when it intersects with criminal investigations, intelligence operations and the rights of accused persons.
Legal observers say the Commission’s eventual ruling could establish an important precedent on whether law enforcement agencies can rely on RTI exemptions to withhold material from suspects who are otherwise entitled to disclosure under criminal law.
For Amarasinghe, however, the issue is larger than a procedural dispute.
He insists the documents may contain evidence linked to two matters of “national importance” — the use of intelligence agencies during the COVID-19 period and the broader political context surrounding post-Easter Sunday security operations in Sri Lanka.