WHO REALLY REQUESTED GONAWELA SUNIL’S PRESIDENTIAL PARDON? RANIL WICKREMESINGHE’S ROLE MUST BE EXAMINED
The controversial 1981 pardon raises unanswered questions about political influence, presidential clemency and the historical records that could reveal who made the request.
More than four decades after Gonawela Sunil received a presidential pardon from Sri Lanka’s then President, J.R. Jayewardene, a fundamental question remains: Was Ranil Wickremesinghe the person who requested the pardon, and, if so, what information was presented to the President to justify it?
The question deserves a serious answer based on documentary evidence, not political speculation.
The pardon, granted in 1981 during the period marking the golden jubilee of universal adult franchise in Sri Lanka, remains a controversial episode in the country’s political history. Gonawela Sunil had been convicted of the rape of a child and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment following legal proceedings and appeals, according to accounts of the case.
His subsequent release through presidential clemency raises questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision and whether the process was influenced by political connections.
But who actually initiated the request? Who approached the President? And what reasons were given to justify the pardon?
These are questions that the historical record should answer.
Was Ranil Wickremesinghe involved in the request?
One question that deserves particular attention concerns the possible role of Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was a rising United National Party politician during the Jayewardene administration.
Was Wickremesinghe involved in seeking clemency for Gonawela Sunil? Did he approach the President’s Secretary, Manik de Silva, or communicate with President Jayewardene directly? Was any written representation submitted on Sunil’s behalf?
These questions should not be treated as established facts without documentary confirmation. However, if historical accounts or archival references point towards possible involvement by Wickremesinghe, the appropriate response is to examine the evidence and establish precisely what happened.
The fact that Jayewardene was Wickremesinghe’s uncle adds historical context, but a family relationship alone does not establish that political influence was exercised improperly.
The public interest lies in discovering whether a request was made, by whom, and on what grounds the President decided to grant the pardon.
Why was Gonawela Sunil pardoned?
The circumstances surrounding Sunil’s pardon deserve particular scrutiny because of the seriousness of the offence for which he had been imprisoned.
Presidential clemency is an exceptional constitutional power. It can serve legitimate purposes, including correcting miscarriages of justice or recognising compelling humanitarian circumstances. However, where a pardon concerns a person convicted of a serious offence, the grounds for the decision are matters of legitimate public interest.
Was the pardon connected to the golden jubilee celebrations? Was it based on humanitarian considerations, a recommendation from officials, or representations from political figures?
Most importantly, what evidence persuaded President Jayewardene that Gonawela Sunil should be released before completing his sentence?
Without the original records, it would be premature to attribute a particular motive to the President or to any politician who may have supported the request.
What did the President’s office receive?
The role of the President’s Secretary, Manik de Silva, is potentially important in reconstructing the events of 1981.
If a request was made through the President’s office, the relevant correspondence and administrative files may identify the person who submitted it, the arguments advanced and any supporting material provided.
Was there a formal letter? Was a medical report, character reference or legal representation submitted? Did the President receive advice from government officials? Were any representations made concerning Sunil’s conduct, circumstances or prospects of rehabilitation?
These questions can be addressed through an examination of surviving presidential records, prison documentation and other contemporary sources.
If the documents establish that materially misleading information was deliberately supplied, the relevant authorities could consider whether further investigation is warranted. But no individual should be accused of fabricating documents without reliable evidence demonstrating what was submitted and whether it was knowingly false.
The distinction between asking legitimate questions and asserting unproven allegations is essential to responsible journalism.
Did political intimidation play any part?
Gonawela Sunil’s name has also been associated in public accounts with political violence and intimidation during the era of United National Party dominance.
That history raises another question: did his political connections have any bearing on the pardon, or was the decision made for reasons unrelated to party politics?
Any suggestion that Sunil was used to intimidate political opponents, or that political protection influenced his treatment by the authorities, would require specific evidence.
If such evidence exists, it should be examined alongside the pardon records. If it does not, allegations should not be presented as fact.
The purpose of a historical investigation is to establish whether political patronage played a role, rather than assume that it did.
Sri Lanka must scrutinise presidential pardons
The broader issue is the accountability of presidential clemency.
The controversy surrounding the pardon granted to Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero, which was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, demonstrates that the exercise of presidential powers can be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Although the facts and legal circumstances of that case differ from those surrounding Gonawela Sunil, the principle remains relevant: the exercise of executive power must comply with the Constitution and the law.
Presidential pardons should not be beyond public scrutiny simply because they were granted decades ago. Where historical records survive, they can help explain whether decisions were based on legitimate considerations and whether the constitutional process was properly followed.
The archive must provide the answers
The immediate task is to establish whether the original 1981 presidential pardon file, correspondence and supporting documents remain available.
The relevant authorities should clarify who requested the pardon, what reasons were advanced, what material was placed before President Jayewardene and what official advice informed the decision.
If Ranil Wickremesinghe played a role, the documentary record should establish the nature and extent of that involvement. If another individual initiated the request, the evidence should identify that person instead.
If credible evidence of unlawful conduct emerges, the competent authorities can determine whether further action is legally justified. Any inquiry must respect the rights of those concerned and distinguish between historical controversy and evidence of an offence.
More than forty years later, the public should not have to rely on rumour or political interpretation to understand a significant episode in Sri Lanka’s history.
The questions remain clear: Was Ranil Wickremesinghe involved in requesting Gonawela Sunil’s presidential pardon? What information was submitted to President J.R. Jayewardene? And what were the actual grounds for the decision?
The answers must come from the historical record. It is time for the documents to speak.