Did Yasantha Kodagoda Hide the Batalanda Evidence from the Sri Lankan Public?

A 1996 Commission transcript raises disturbing questions about secrecy, restricted access and the handling of crucial evidence

The proceedings of Sri Lanka’s Presidential Commission of Inquiry into disappearances, unlawful arrests and alleged detention centres at the Batalanda Housing Scheme provide a revealing insight into how some of the most sensitive evidence surrounding the Batalanda allegations was handled.

A Commission record dated 25 July 1996 at 2.20 p.m., recorded by K. Sumanasekara, identifies then State Counsel Yasantha Kodagoda, together with President’s Counsel R. I. Obeyesekere and State Counsel Sarath Jayamanne, as appearing to assist the Commission.

What emerges from the transcript is particularly significant: the proceedings concerning a witness were deliberately placed behind closed doors, members of the public and media were excluded, and restrictions were imposed on the copying or release of the evidence recorded that day.

A hearing closed to the public

Before the evidence was taken, Kodagoda informed the Commission that, in accordance with an earlier decision, the day’s proceedings would not be open to the media or the public.

He requested that only the commissioners, essential staff, lawyers assisting the Commission and lawyers formally representing parties remain inside the courtroom.

Justice Jayawickrama subsequently ordered everyone else to leave while the witness’s evidence was recorded confidentially. The transcript specifically indicates that even police officers present in the courtroom were instructed to leave.

The record goes further.

The doors of the courtroom were closed, apart from one door that had to remain open because of inadequate electric lighting. Instructions were reportedly given to prevent people outside from listening to the proceedings.

This was not merely a hearing conducted away from television cameras. The transcript describes an environment in which access to the proceedings was deliberately restricted.

Cover Up

Government officials and legal professionals are increasingly asking whether there is an attempt to shield Ranil Wickremesinghe from scrutiny by withholding or concealing evidence relevant to the Parliamentary Commission from the public. This has raised serious concerns about transparency and accountability. Questions are also being raised about the credibility and role of Yasantha Kodagoda, particularly given his previous position as a government lawyer and his current position as a Supreme Court Justice. The public is entitled to know whether all relevant evidence is being disclosed and whether the process is being conducted without political or institutional interference

What happened to the recording?

The most significant part of the transcript concerns the handling of the witness’s recorded evidence.

Kodagoda requested that the cassette recording of the proceedings not be released to any party—and that copies or transcripts should not be issued—without the Commission’s specific permission.

Justice Jayawickrama accepted the request and ordered that the original cassette be handed to the Commission’s secretary for secure custody after the day’s proceedings.

The Commission also directed that copying, duplication or transcription should not take place without its authority.

For anyone examining the historical record of the Batalanda Commission today, this raises an obvious question:

Why was such strict control placed over the evidence?

There may have been legitimate legal or investigative reasons for protecting a witness and restricting access to sensitive evidence. Confidential proceedings can be necessary in investigations involving allegations of disappearances, illegal detention and serious human-rights violations.

But the historical record also makes clear that the public was excluded and that the recording was placed under strict restrictions.

That distinction matters.

Who was the witness?

The witness who subsequently gave evidence was Reginald Sylvester Vincent Fernando, aged 35 and resident in Wellampitiya.

During preliminary questioning, he stated that he was born on 14 October 1961. He identified his father as Vincent Fernando and his mother as Ariyawathi Subhasinghe. He said he had three brothers and five sisters and had attended St. Joseph’s College in Trincomalee, studying up to the G.C.E. Ordinary Level.

The transcript therefore establishes that a witness was ready to give evidence to the Commission—but that the circumstances surrounding the recording of that evidence were unusually restrictive.

Did the public lose access to important evidence?

This is where the historical record deserves renewed scrutiny.

It would be inaccurate to state, solely from this transcript, that Yasantha Kodagoda personally “hid” evidence from the public. The decision to conduct the proceedings privately and to restrict access to the recording was formally made by the Commission.

However, the transcript clearly records Kodagoda requesting these restrictions, followed by the Commission making corresponding orders.

That creates a legitimate historical question: did the restrictions ultimately prevent the Sri Lankan public from obtaining access to evidence that was relevant to understanding what happened at Batalanda?

The answer requires examination of the Commission’s complete records, subsequent publication or non-publication of the evidence, and the legal basis upon which particular testimony and recordings remained restricted.

The phrase “Yasantha Kodagoda hid the Batalanda evidence from the Sri Lankan public” is therefore an allegation or editorial conclusion—not something established as a factual finding by this particular transcript.

But the document unquestionably demonstrates that, on 25 July 1996, Kodagoda sought strict confidentiality surrounding the witness proceedings and restrictions on the release, copying and transcription of the recording.

More than three decades later, that historical record deserves public examination.

The central issue is not whether a lawyer was entitled to request confidentiality. The deeper democratic question is whether evidence concerning allegations of disappearances, unlawful arrests and detention should remain inaccessible to the public indefinitely.

If the Batalanda Commission was established to uncover the truth, Sri Lankan citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing what evidence was collected, what conclusions were reached, and what evidence—if any—remained hidden from public scrutiny.