Why Shani and Ravi Seneviratne Were Not Wrongdoers
The Colombo three-member High Court recently sentenced former Defense Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Police Chief Pujith Jayasundara to death for failing to prevent the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks and for criminally neglecting their duties. Despite this, a very small minority who have properly understood the situation—along with corrupt rulers and fraudsters from the past—continue to circulate misleading posts on social media. In particular, they are spreading various opinions about how the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) operated during this incident and why Shani Abeysekara, who was then the CID Director, and Deputy Police Chief Ravi Seneviratne, who oversaw the CID, are not accountable before the law. Observing these false campaigns, it is essential to clearly demonstrate the true legal and logical reality, hence this note.
The Legal Basis for the Verdict
The primary legal foundation for the death sentence being imposed solely on the Defense Secretary and the Police Chief is institutional leadership and ultimate responsibility.
The executive powers to oversee national security and the entire police mechanism of the state were vested in the Secretary to the Ministry of Defense and the Police Chief. The prior intelligence warning received was not information about an isolated crime, but a massive terrorist threat to the very existence of the state and hundreds of public lives. The direct authority to deploy security to churches and hotels by immediately activating all police stations across the island, the Special Task Force (STF), and Deputy Inspectors General of Police in charge of areas rested with the Police Chief—not with the Deputy Inspectors General who acted as departmental heads, nor with Shani or Ravi from the Criminal Investigation Department.
The CID's Role
Logically and legally viewed, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is an investigative body, not an operational force providing security for the entire country. The primary role assigned to the CID is to conduct investigations into complex crimes that have occurred or are occurring. The CID does not possess the human resources or field operational authority to provide field security by setting up roadblocks at hundreds of Catholic churches, luxury hotels, and public gathering places across the island.
Both former Defense Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Police Chief Pujith Jayasundara were well aware of this. The fact that neither Hemasiri Fernando nor Pujith Jayasundara pointed fingers at Shani Abeysekara or Ravi Seneviratne at any point—before their death sentences or throughout the trial—was because they knew well the serious dereliction of duty and wrongdoing that had occurred on their own part.
Distinguishing Responsibilities
However, former Defense Secretary Hemasiri Fernando strongly leveled allegations against former President Maithripala Sirisena and then-State Intelligence Chief Nilantha Jayawardena. During this, it was revealed that Nilantha Jayawardena was a key stakeholder in the conspiracy related to this attack, and that a subtle conspiracy had been operating from the very beginning with Maithripala Sirisena's knowledge to implicate him and the former Police Chief.
Nevertheless, no charges were brought against any CID officers at the time or other heads of police investigation departments as being responsible for this, because those officers had committed no wrongdoing within their legal boundaries, and it was fully clear where the true executive and operational powers resided.
The "FNA" Issue
Furthermore, when the former Police Chief forwarded the letter containing intelligence information to the CID and several other departments marked "FNA" (For Necessary Action), his legal responsibility did not end there. "FNA" is merely an administrative notation used in routine document exchanges.
The court recognized that instead of immediately summoning relevant chiefs and issuing special operational orders to deploy a security cordon across the country during an emergency national security threat like a suicide bombing attack, remaining silent after forwarding a letter constituted criminal dereliction of duty.
Ultimately, what becomes clear is that this historic verdict is not merely a punishment for two individuals, but a lesson to the entire country about how serious "command responsibility" is within the state mechanism.
In the face of specific intelligence received, failing to take steps to protect public lives using full operational authority, while merely passing documents and wasting time, was logically established before the court as criminal dereliction of duty.
Therefore, the failed attempts to mislead the public by leveling false allegations against investigative officers who lack security operational authority completely collapse before the reality of the law.
This serves as a powerful precedent that, eliminating all avenues that previously existed for wrongdoers to escape the law through political patronage, even the highest authorities who neglect their responsibilities must bow before the law. With this historic verdict, public trust in the country's justice and fairness is further strengthened, and all paths for the guilty to escape the law have been closed.