Nagalanda Issues Defamation Legal Proceedings Against- (Ponna) Iraj
Vinivida Foundation Leader Takes Legal Action Over Alleged False YouTube Broadcast
In a significant legal development, Attorney-at-Law Chula Adikari, representing Mr. Nagananda Kodithuwakku, has issued a formal letter of demand to Iraj Weeraratne and his production company regarding a YouTube broadcast. The legal action stems from an episode of the "Bai Thaksalawa" program aired on August 9, 2026, which allegedly contained defamatory content.
The Basis of the Legal Complaint
The letter, dated August 10, 2026, addresses claims made during the program featuring Milinda Rajapaksa. According to the document, the broadcast falsely labeled Mr. Nagananda Kodithuwakku as a "Casino thief" and presented a narrative that his character was being assassinated. The episode reportedly referred to a "casino-related conspiracy" involving Nagananda.
The legal notice asserts that these allegations are entirely baseless. It specifically highlights the broadcast's claim that Nagananda misappropriated millions of rupees from the public by falsely promising to contest the 2019 Presidential Election.
Detailed Rebuttals of Allegations
Regarding the 2019 Presidential Campaign
The legal document clarifies that Nagananda had indeed prepared to contest the 2019 Presidential Election. The political party he intended to represent, "Okkoma Rajawaru Okkoma Wasayo" (later renamed "Abhinawa Nidahals Peramuna"), was secured through the then-Chairman of the Election Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya.
The letter states that Kapila Thambimulla, the party secretary, officially selected Nagananda as the candidate. However, on October 4, 2024, the party unexpectedly rejected his nomination. Consequently, Nagananda filed a fraud case against Kapila Thambimulla (Case MC 28608/2020). Additionally, a compensation case for Rs. 10 million was filed in the Colombo High Court against six others. A copy of the Court of Appeal judgment from February 5, 2026 (marked as X6), is attached to the letter to prove these facts [citation:1].
The "Casino" Allegation
The letter vehemently denies the portrayal of Nagananda as a "casino thief." It suggests that the broadcast team deliberately misrepresented a children's "Poker Game" set found in Nagananda's house as a "casino set." It emphasizes that Nagananda has no connection to the casino industry [citation:1].
The BMW Tax Evasion Case
The document provides a detailed timeline of the BMW tax evasion litigation involving Prestige Automobile. It claims:
CA/Writ/108/2018: The initial writ petition.
BMW Invoices: Records showing that invoices for 1,675 BMW vehicles were submitted to Customs to expose tax evasion worth billions [citation:2].
CA/Writ/415/2022: A subsequent case filed by Prestige Automobile using allegedly forged invoices.
SC/Spl/172/2024: A Supreme Court case filed by Prestige challenging the Court of Appeal decision.
The letter alleges that President's Counsel Rajiva Amarasuriya, representing Prestige Automobile, along with Judge Janak De Silva and Additional Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardena, were implicated in these proceedings. It states that complaints have been filed before the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) against these individuals [citation:2].
The Demand and Legal Consequences
The letter of demand sets a strict timeline for the recipients:
Public Apology: The accused are required to take full responsibility for the broadcast and issue a public apology through the "Bai Thaksalawa" YouTube channel within seven (7) days of receiving the notice.
Criminal Proceedings: If the demand is not met, legal action will be initiated against both individuals under the Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024.
Civil Suit: A civil case will be filed in the District Court seeking Rs. 10 million in damages for the client.
Attorney Chula Adikari confirms that he has been instructed to proceed with legal action if the broadcasters fail to comply with the demands. This case underscores the growing tensions surrounding freedom of expression, public accountability, and the legal recourse available to individuals facing what they consider defamatory content online.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a legal letter of demand and presents the claims made by the plaintiff's legal team.