Sri Lankan Attorney General's Department Faces Scrutiny Over Fair Hearing Concerns
A UK Solicitor Challenges Supreme Court Proceedings
By Legal Correspondent
10th July 2026
In a significant development that raises fundamental questions about judicial process and natural justice in Sri Lanka, UK Solicitor Nagananda Kodituwakku has formally challenged the Attorney General's Department over the handling of disciplinary proceedings that led to his permanent removal from the legal profession.
The case, which has now drawn international attention, centres on allegations that basic principles of procedural fairness were compromised in proceedings before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
The Core Dispute
Mr. Kodituwakku, a Solicitor of England and Wales and General Secretary of the Vinivida Foundation, has raised concerns about the Supreme Court's decision in SC/Rule/3/2017, which resulted in his removal from the office of Attorney-at-Law on 29th February 2024.
The disciplinary action stemmed from written submissions made in a 2015 affidavit concerning election fraud allegations, in which Mr. Kodituwakku requested the recusal of certain judges from a case involving alleged judicial corruption. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a Rule against him in 2018, leading to proceedings that culminated in his disbarment.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularity
Central to Mr. Kodituwakku's concerns is the assertion that serious allegations made against him by the Attorney General and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka were accepted without affording him a proper opportunity to respond. The judgment relied significantly upon submissions that included the statement:
"...Statements that judges are charged with judicial corruption where no semblance of proof is tendered is not the conduct of a lawyer, and he cannot be a lawyer of good repute referred to in Section 41 of the Judicature Act..."
Mr. Kodituwakku maintains that these findings were made without any hearing being afforded to him on the allegations advanced, representing what he describes as a denial of natural justice.
Conflict of Interest Concerns
A further dimension of the case concerns the composition of the bench that ultimately heard the matter. The panel comprised Justices Padman Surasena, Priyantha Jayawardena, and S. Thurairaja.
Significantly, Mr. Kodituwakku has highlighted that he had previously named these same judges as respondents in SC/Writ/2/2022 concerning allegations of judicial corruption. Prior to the hearing, he made several requests under Article 13(3) of the Constitution seeking a hearing before a competent and impartial court, citing apparent conflict of interest. These requests were refused.
Legal Principles at Stake
Mr. Kodituwakku has invoked established principles of natural justice, referencing Supreme Court authorities including:
Jayatillake v. Kaleel (1994) 1 SLR 319, which mandates that an individual be provided a fair statement of charges and an adequate opportunity to defend themselves
Ameer Ali v. SLMC (2006) 1 SLR 190, which requires that serious issues raised by an affected party be properly considered before a decision is made
Plyadasa v. Kurukulasuriya (1997) 2 SLR 410, concerning the impartiality of the judiciary
Broader Implications
Beyond the individual circumstances of Mr. Kodituwakku, the case has raised concerns about the wider health of Sri Lanka's justice system. The Asian Human Rights Commission has previously documented concerns about the undermining of the Attorney General's Department and the independence of the judiciary.
Mr. Kodituwakku's appeal to the UN Human Rights Council has alleged multiple fundamental rights violations, including denial of due process, judicial conflict of interest, and delivery of judgment without proper notice. The matter concerns not merely personal hardship but the protection of due process, the independence and integrity of the legal profession and judiciary, and public confidence that serious allegations affecting professional standing will be determined only after a fair hearing consistent with principles of natural justice.
Current Status
Mr. Kodituwakku's Revision Application (SC/Rule/3/2017) has reportedly not yet been listed for hearing. He has expressed concern that the continued failure to list the application raises questions regarding procedural fairness, particularly given that the present Chief Justice, Padman Surasena, participated in the impugned judgment.
He has called upon both the Attorney General and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka to reconsider their position and take appropriate steps to remedy what he describes as serious prejudice resulting from the proceedings.