Batalanda Files Reopened: Will Sri Lanka Finally Expose the Political Torture Network?
Decades after the Batalanda Commission, Sri Lanka faces a historic test: will the NPP Government allow the Attorney General to follow the evidence wherever it leads — including into the corridors of political power?
COLOMBO — For years, the name Batalanda has remained one of the darkest and most politically explosive words in Sri Lankan politics.
It is a name associated with allegations of secret detention, torture, political intimidation and the abuse of State power during one of the bloodiest periods in the country's modern history.
A Presidential Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the allegations. Evidence was heard. Witnesses came forward. A report was produced.
But for the victims and their families, the fundamental question has never disappeared:
What happened at Batalanda, who knew about it, who was responsible, and why was there never a comprehensive judicial reckoning?
Now, as the NPP Government presents itself as an administration committed to breaking with the political culture of the past, the Batalanda files have once again become a test of whether Sri Lanka is prepared to confront its own history.
Batalanda cannot remain a political slogan
For decades, Batalanda has been repeatedly invoked by political parties during election campaigns.
Politicians have accused their opponents of responsibility.
Opponents have rejected the allegations.
Then elections end — and the issue disappears.
That cycle cannot continue indefinitely.
If there is credible evidence that individuals were unlawfully detained or tortured, those allegations deserve a proper investigation.
If senior political figures knew about unlawful activities, the evidence should establish what they knew and when they knew it.
If officials acted outside the law, they should be investigated.
And if allegations against particular individuals cannot be substantiated, they should not be allowed to remain permanently suspended over those individuals without a proper legal determination.
The answer cannot be another political argument. The answer must come from evidence and, where appropriate, the courts.
What exactly happened at Batalanda?
The allegations surrounding Batalanda emerged from the period of intense political violence associated with the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The Presidential Commission examined allegations concerning detention facilities and alleged torture associated with the Batalanda complex.
Its proceedings became a major national event.
The controversy was particularly explosive because it raised questions about whether State institutions had been used against political opponents and whether senior political authorities had knowledge of what was allegedly taking place.
The Commission's findings subsequently became the subject of intense political debate.
But a commission finding and a criminal conviction are not the same thing.
That distinction must now be respected.
If the Attorney General's Department is to revisit the matter, it must do so with one objective:
establish the truth through evidence capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.
Follow the chain of command
A serious investigation cannot stop with the person allegedly holding the keys to a detention facility.
The crucial question in any alleged State-sponsored abuse is the chain of command.
Who authorised the detention?
Who operated the facility?
Who had custody of detainees?
Who conducted interrogations?
Who received intelligence reports?
Who received complaints?
Who visited the premises?
Who had authority over the personnel involved?
Were senior officials informed?
Were political leaders informed?
And, if so, what did they do?
These questions must be answered through documentary evidence, witness testimony and corroborating material — not through political speeches.
If the evidence establishes criminal responsibility, the Attorney General should take whatever action the law permits.
The victims have waited long enough
The passage of thirty years does not erase a crime.
For a family whose relative disappeared, was allegedly tortured or was unlawfully detained, the calendar does not provide closure.
There is no statute of political convenience.
There is no election timetable for justice.
And there should be no rule that a sufficiently old allegation becomes too politically inconvenient to investigate.
The victims deserve an opportunity to be heard.
Former detainees who are still alive should be interviewed again where necessary.
Original witnesses should be traced.
Medical and documentary records should be reviewed.
Previous testimony should be examined against newly available evidence.
The investigation should determine whether evidence was ignored, lost, suppressed or inadequately examined.
The NPP Government's biggest test
This is where the NPP Government faces a historic test.
The Government has repeatedly presented itself as different from the political establishment that governed Sri Lanka for decades.
It has promised institutional reform and greater accountability.
But accountability cannot be selective.
If the NPP Government genuinely believes in the rule of law, it must allow investigators and the Attorney General to investigate allegations involving powerful figures regardless of their political history.
That means no protection for former presidents.
No protection for former ministers.
No protection for senior officials.
No protection for military or police personnel if credible evidence establishes individual wrongdoing.
But it also means no political prosecution.
The NPP cannot turn Batalanda into a mechanism for punishing political opponents.
The investigation must be independent.
The evidence must decide.
Batalanda is bigger than one political party
One of the dangers of the Batalanda debate is that it can be reduced to an argument about one political party or one former political leader.
That would be a mistake.
The real issue is whether the Sri Lankan State has ever developed sufficient institutional safeguards to prevent political power from being converted into unlawful coercive power.
That is the bigger question.
If Batalanda demonstrated anything, it is the danger created when political violence, security operations and partisan interests become intertwined.
Sri Lanka has experienced similar allegations during different periods and under different administrations.
Therefore, reopening Batalanda should not be about settling old political scores.
It should be about establishing a principle:
State power cannot be used as a licence to torture, unlawfully detain or intimidate political opponents.
And then there is the money
The same principle must apply to financial crime.
Sri Lanka has witnessed enormous financial scandals in which the alleged losses to the State have run into billions of rupees.
The infamous VAT fraud case is a stark example.
The case involving Mohammed Kamil Kuthubdeen became one of the country's largest financial-crime cases. His conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The significance of such cases goes beyond one individual.
Whenever a massive financial crime occurs, investigators must ask a much larger question:
Who else benefited?
Who facilitated the transactions?
Who approved the paperwork?
Who provided access to State systems?
Who moved the money?
Where did the money go?
Were public officials involved?
Were other individuals protected?
A financial-crime investigation that stops with one convenient defendant may leave the real network untouched.
The Attorney General must follow every trail
This is why the Attorney General's Department has such an important role.
Whether the case involves alleged torture, disappearance, corruption or financial fraud, the principle should be identical.
Follow the evidence.
Follow the documents.
Follow the money.
Follow the chain of command.
And follow the responsibility all the way to the top if the evidence leads there.
But equally, if the evidence stops at a particular point, the investigation must stop there.
That is the difference between justice and political persecution.
No one should be convicted by Colombowire
There is another principle that must be made absolutely clear.
A newspaper cannot convict anyone.
Neither can a political party.
Neither can a Presidential Commission.
A commission can investigate and make findings within its mandate. Prosecutors can assess evidence and institute proceedings where appropriate. Ultimately, a criminal court determines guilt.
That process must be respected.
The purpose of investigative journalism should therefore be to ask the questions that powerful institutions sometimes avoid — not to replace the courts.
And Batalanda raises questions that still demand answers.
Will the files finally be opened?
The most important question now is whether the State will be prepared to revisit the evidence without fear or favour.
Will the Attorney General examine the original Batalanda material?
Will investigators interview surviving witnesses?
Will previously overlooked evidence be reconsidered?
Will the authorities examine whether there was a wider political or institutional network behind the alleged abuses?
Will any person against whom credible evidence exists be brought before the courts?
And will those who are wrongly accused finally have the opportunity to clear their names?
These are not questions about the past alone.
They concern the future of Sri Lankan democracy.
A line must finally be drawn
Sri Lanka cannot continue to tell victims of political violence to wait while successive governments change.
Nor can the country allow historical allegations to become permanent political ammunition without determining what actually happened.
The Batalanda files should therefore be treated as a legal investigation, not an election slogan.
If crimes were committed, the perpetrators must face the law.
If senior officials enabled them, the evidence must establish their responsibility.
If political leaders were knowingly involved, the evidence must be examined.
If allegations cannot be proved, the accused must not be condemned without a trial.
There must be no political immunity.
But there must also be no political revenge.
The NPP has a historic opportunity
The NPP Government has an opportunity that previous administrations repeatedly failed to seize: to allow Sri Lanka's institutions to confront one of the country's most controversial chapters without political interference.
Batalanda should not be reopened because the NPP wants to attack the old political establishment.
It should be reopened because Sri Lanka needs the truth.
The same standard should apply to every unresolved financial scandal, every major corruption allegation, every disappearance and every credible allegation of abuse of State power.
The message should be simple:
No more files buried in government cupboards.
No more investigations abandoned when political circumstances change.
No more immunity because someone once held high office.
But equally:
No more guilt by political association.
Let the investigators investigate.
Let the Attorney General examine the evidence.
Let prosecutors prosecute where the law and evidence justify it.
And let the courts decide.
After decades of political accusations, Sri Lanka now has an opportunity to turn Batalanda from a weapon of political rhetoric into a genuine test of the rule of law.
The Batalanda files must finally answer the question Sri Lanka has been asking for decades: what really happened — and who was responsible?