Why Is BASL Hiding the Meeting Video with President Anura?
Questions are increasingly being raised about why the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has not released the complete video recordings of its recent meeting with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, despite reportedly receiving the unedited recordings from the Presidential Media Division.
The issue has attracted attention because the meeting involved the country’s legal profession and the President of Sri Lanka. When an organisation such as BASL engages directly with the Head of State on matters concerning the judiciary, the legal profession and the administration of justice, there is a legitimate public interest in knowing what was discussed and how the issues were presented.
The controversy appears to centre on a simple question: If BASL requested the complete, unedited video recordings and those recordings were subsequently provided, why have they not been made public?
What happened at the meeting?
According to the information surrounding the meeting, after the discussion between BASL representatives and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the Presidential side released the President’s remarks to the media.
However, the remarks made by the BASL President were reportedly not released to the media following a request from the BASL President himself.
That decision immediately creates an important transparency question.
If a meeting is conducted between a professional body representing the country's lawyers and the President of the Republic, why should the public be able to hear only one side of the conversation?
The public may reasonably want to know what BASL representatives told the President, what concerns they raised, what proposals they presented and how the President responded.
Instead, only part of the meeting was initially available to the public.
BASL reportedly requested the complete recordings
The situation became even more interesting when BASL subsequently requested the unedited video recordings from the Presidential Media Division.
According to the information provided, the Presidential Secretariat or the President’s media authorities proceeded to provide the available recordings to BASL.
This should have resolved the controversy.
If BASL believed that the public needed to see the complete context of the meeting, it had the opportunity to release the recordings itself after receiving them.
But the obvious question now is: Where is the video?
Why has BASL not released the complete, unedited recording to the public?
What is BASL trying to protect?
The absence of the video naturally creates speculation.
It would be unfair to assume that BASL is deliberately concealing something without hearing an explanation from the organisation. However, the circumstances justify legitimate questions about transparency.
If there is nothing controversial in the BASL President’s remarks, why not publish the recording?
If BASL representatives clearly explained their position to President Anura, why should the public not hear those arguments directly?
If the recording demonstrates that BASL acted professionally and transparently, releasing it would seemingly strengthen rather than weaken public confidence in the organisation.
The longer the video remains unpublished, however, the more questions are likely to emerge.
Why does this matter?
BASL is not an ordinary private organisation.
It represents the legal profession and frequently comments on issues concerning the judiciary, judicial independence, constitutional governance, the rule of law and democratic institutions.
Because of that role, BASL itself is expected to maintain high standards of transparency and accountability.
When BASL criticises government institutions or demands transparency from public authorities, the public is entitled to ask whether the same standard should apply to BASL.
Transparency cannot be a principle that applies only to politicians and government institutions.
If BASL believes that government authorities should explain their decisions and make relevant information available to the public, the same principle should arguably apply when BASL conducts an important meeting with the President.
Was the meeting fully represented to the public?
Another important question concerns the way the meeting was initially presented.
If only the President’s remarks were released while the BASL President’s remarks were withheld, the public received only one part of the discussion.
That creates the possibility of an incomplete public understanding of what actually took place.
The public may have heard what the President said, but not what was said to him.
That distinction is significant.
A meeting between BASL and the President cannot necessarily be understood simply by listening to one participant. The questions, arguments and concerns raised by BASL may provide the context necessary to understand the President’s response.
This is precisely why the complete recording could be important.
The “video mystery”
The situation can therefore be reduced to a straightforward sequence of events:
BASL representatives met President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
Following the meeting, the BASL President’s remarks were reportedly not released to the media at his request.
The President’s remarks were released.
BASL subsequently sought the unedited video recordings from the Presidential Media Division.
The recordings were reportedly provided.
And yet, according to the information available, BASL has still not published the complete recording.
That leaves one central unanswered question:
Why?
BASL should answer publicly
There is no need for speculation if BASL can provide a straightforward explanation.
BASL could simply clarify whether it received the complete recordings, whether the recordings are unedited, whether it intends to publish them and, if not, why it has decided against doing so.
If there are legal, privacy or other legitimate reasons preventing publication, BASL should explain those reasons.
But silence is unlikely to end the controversy.
In fact, silence may produce the opposite result.
The legal profession frequently emphasises the importance of public confidence in institutions. Public confidence depends not only on what organisations say, but also on whether their conduct is perceived as transparent and consistent.
The public deserves to see the full picture
The question is therefore not whether BASL should be embarrassed by anything contained in the recording. There is currently no basis to make such an allegation.
The question is much simpler: Why is a professional organisation that reportedly requested the complete video not releasing it after receiving it?
If the recording confirms BASL’s position and demonstrates the seriousness of its engagement with the President, publishing it would allow the public to judge the meeting for themselves.
If there is a legitimate reason for withholding it, BASL should tell the public what that reason is.
Until then, the “video mystery” surrounding the BASL–President Anura meeting remains unresolved.
For an organisation that plays such an important role in Sri Lanka’s legal and constitutional affairs, perhaps the simplest way to end the questions is also the most obvious one:
Release the complete video and let the public see exactly what happened.