DID THE BASL AND JAYANTHA JAYASURIYA CONSPIRE TO REMOVE NAGANANDA
KODITHUWAKKU FROM THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY-AT-LAW?
The silencing of
Sri Lanka’s most persistent legal maverick raises uncomfortable questions about
the establishment closing ranks
By our Legal
Affairs Correspondent
It was, by any
measure, a chilling verdict. On 29 February 2024, the Supreme Court of Sri
Lanka struck Nagananda Kodithuwakku from the roll of attorneys-at-law, a
punishment that effectively ended the career of a man who had made a name—and,
perhaps, a nuisance of himself—by taking on the powerful in the name of public
interest .
The three-judge
bench, comprising Justices Priyantha Jayawardena, Preethi Padman Surasena, and
S. Thurairaja, ruled that this was Kodithuwakku’s second finding of
professional misconduct, and the nature of the offence was grave enough to
warrant his removal . But the order went further: it expressly barred him
from filing public interest litigation even in his personal capacity, a
prohibition the court said was necessary to prevent him from nullifying its
decision .
For a man who had
styled himself as a crusader against corruption—who had exposed deforestation
in Wilpattu, questioned the asset declarations of MPs, and even filed cases
against Supreme Court judges—it was a devastating blow . But the real
question now circulating in Colombo’s legal circles is whether Kodithuwakku was
brought down by his own professional failings, or by a concerted campaign by
the very institutions he had spent years antagonising.
The Waters Edge
Connection
According to multiple
sources, speculation is now rife about a crucial meeting held at Waters Edge,
the sprawling complex in Battaramulla that has long served as a venue for
discreet political and corporate gatherings . The gathering, it is said,
brought together several lawyers, two prominent businessmen, and a coordinator
of a leading politician. The agenda? To discuss ways to submit an application
to remove Kodithuwakku from the office of attorney-at-law.
Such a meeting, if
proven, would represent an extraordinary intervention by extra-judicial forces
into the disciplinary processes of the legal profession. Waters Edge has played
host to political meetings and corporate events, but rarely has it been
whispered as the venue for a legal assassination . The fact that the venue
is now being mentioned in the same breath as Kodithuwakku’s removal only adds
to the sense that Sri Lanka’s legal establishment may have closed ranks against
its most vocal critic.
The BASL’s Role:
Defender of the Profession or Gatekeeper?
The Bar Association
of Sri Lanka (BASL) has vigorously denied any impropriety. BASL President, who
has himself been the target of Kodithuwakku’s complaints, dismissed the
allegations as “false, malicious and intended to serve collateral
purposes” . He has pointed out that Kodithuwakku had publicly claimed that
his Vinivida Foundation had lodged a corruption complaint against him—a
complaint the BASL President insists relates to his professional work as
counsel, nothing more .
But here is where
the story takes a darker turn. The Supreme Court’s Rule against Kodithuwakku
(SC/Rule/3/2017) was framed by the Attorney General, with the Bar Association
playing a supporting role . Documents now emerging suggest that the BASL
and the Attorney General submitted remarkably similar versions of letters to
the Supreme Court—a coincidence that has not gone unnoticed by legal observers.
The BASL President
has also noted that Kodithuwakku had himself appeared in earlier stages of the
same proceedings that gave rise to the complaints, but had ceased to do so
after being struck off . This is presented as evidence that Kodithuwakku
was, at the very least, inconsistent in his own conduct.
A Pattern of
Silence
Perhaps the most
troubling aspect of this case is the Supreme Court’s extraordinary attempt to
silence Kodithuwakku not just as a lawyer, but as a citizen. The ruling that he
is “restrained from filing public interest litigation in his personal
capacity” effectively means that even if he finds an injustice, he
cannot bring it before a court. In a country where the judiciary is often the
last refuge for the powerless, this is a profound restriction on access to
justice.
Kodithuwakku has
taken his case to the United Nations, seeking the intervention of Margaret
Satterthwaite, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and
Lawyers . He has argued that the process against him was flawed and that
the real agenda was to neutralise a persistent critic of the legal and political
establishment.
The Broader
Implications
This is not a
matter of one lawyer’s career. It is about whether Sri Lanka’s legal
establishment—the BASL, the Attorney General’s Department, and the Supreme
Court—can act as a check on power, or whether it is becoming a mechanism for
protecting the powerful from scrutiny.
Kodithuwakku was
never a conventional figure. He was combative, theatrical, and often
exasperating. He once declared that the Attorney General’s Department was “one
of the most corrupt bodies in the country” . He had the audacity to file a
writ of mandamus against a Supreme Court judge . He was, in short, the
kind of lawyer that establishment figures find deeply inconvenient.
But if the legal
profession is to have any credibility, it must tolerate—indeed, protect—the
troublemakers. The real question is not whether Kodithuwakku was guilty of
professional misconduct. It is whether the process that removed him was fair,
transparent, and free from the influence of those he had crossed.
A Call for Transparency
The meeting at
Waters Edge, the identical letters from the BASL and the Attorney General, and
the Supreme Court’s unusually punitive order—all point to a system that may
have lost its capacity for self-correction. If Sri Lanka’s legal institutions
are to retain public confidence, they must answer these questions openly.
Until then, the story of Nagananda Kodithuwakku
will serve as a cautionary tale: in a country where the rule of law is fragile,
the most dangerous thing a lawyer can do is to hold power to account.