Why Didn't the British Government Act Against Gotabaya Rajapaksa Over the Karuna Passport Affair?
Nearly 20 years later, Britain still owes the public an explanation over the alleged role of Sri Lanka's Defence Secretary in helping Karuna Amman enter the UK on a fraudulent diplomatic passport
In November 2007, British authorities arrested one of Sri Lanka's most controversial former Tamil militant commanders after he entered the United Kingdom using a diplomatic passport issued in another person's name.
The man was Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, better known as Karuna Amman.
What makes the case extraordinary is not simply that Karuna entered Britain using false documentation. It is the allegation that the documentation was supplied through the Sri Lankan Government and that Gotabaya Rajapaksa, then Sri Lanka's Defence Secretary, personally organised the arrangements.
That allegation was placed before a British court.
Yet almost two decades later, one fundamental question remains:
Why did the British Government prosecute the man who travelled on the fraudulent passport, but apparently never prosecute—or publicly explain its decision regarding—the senior foreign government official who was alleged to have facilitated it?
The 2007 arrest
Karuna was arrested in London in November 2007 following a joint operation involving British police and immigration authorities. He had entered Britain using a Sri Lankan diplomatic passport carrying his photograph but a different name. Contemporary reporting identified the false identity as Kokila Dushmantha Gunawardena, described as a Director of Wildlife Conservation.
The British authorities treated the matter as a serious immigration and identity-document offence.
Karuna eventually pleaded guilty and, in January 2008, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
But during the court proceedings, the circumstances surrounding his passport became a matter of much greater significance.
What was said in the British court?
According to contemporary reporting of the Isleworth Crown Court proceedings, Karuna's lawyer, David Phillips, told the court that his client had entered the United Kingdom using a diplomatic passport and a six-month multiple-entry visa issued by the British High Commission in Colombo.
More significantly, Phillips stated that the Sri Lankan Government had given Karuna the passport and sent him to Britain, and that the Sri Lankan Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, had organised the arrangements.
Karuna's own account was also reported as implicating the Sri Lankan Government.
This is not a minor allegation.
If true, it would mean that a senior foreign government official had facilitated the use of false identity documentation to enable a person to enter the United Kingdom.
But there is an essential qualification.
The allegation was not a judicial finding against Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The Sri Lankan Government denied that it had supplied the fraudulent documentation, and contemporary reporting records that denial.
Therefore, the allegation should not be presented today as an established fact.
But neither should it simply disappear from the historical record.
Britain knew there was a bigger story
The British Government clearly recognised that the case involved more than an ordinary immigration offence.
The Guardian reported in December 2007 that Sri Lanka's High Commissioner had been called to the Foreign Office to explain how Karuna had entered Britain on a forged diplomatic passport.
At the same time, British authorities were investigating allegations of serious human-rights violations connected with Karuna.
The Metropolitan Police investigated allegations of war crimes, while human-rights organisations urged the British authorities to pursue further charges. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually concluded that the evidence submitted did not provide a realistic prospect of conviction against Karuna for further criminal offences.
Karuna subsequently left Britain and returned to Sri Lanka in July 2008.
But that still leaves a separate question.
What happened to the allegation concerning the passport itself?
Who organised the passport?
This is the central unanswered issue.
British authorities knew that Karuna had entered the country on a fraudulent diplomatic passport.
They knew that the passport purported to identify him as somebody else.
They knew that the British High Commission in Colombo had issued a visa connected with that documentation.
They knew that Karuna's lawyer had told the court that the Sri Lankan Government had supplied the passport.
And they knew that the lawyer specifically named the then Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, as the person who allegedly organised it.
So what happened next?
Was Gotabaya Rajapaksa interviewed?
Were Sri Lankan Government officials questioned?
Were the passport records examined?
Were the diplomatic notes submitted to the British High Commission investigated?
Was the visa application examined?
Was the allegation referred to the Crown Prosecution Service?
Was the Foreign Office involved?
And if the British authorities concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Rajapaksa, where is that conclusion documented?
These are legitimate questions—not accusations.
The later British relationship with Gotabaya
The issue becomes even more significant because Britain's relationship with Gotabaya Rajapaksa did not end with the controversy.
Gotabaya subsequently became President of Sri Lanka in 2019.
In November 2021, he travelled to the United Kingdom for the COP26 World Leaders' Summit in Glasgow, at a conference hosted by Britain that brought together heads of government and senior international leaders.
That fact does not establish that Britain considered the passport allegation to be true or false.
But it raises a legitimate question about whether British authorities had ever resolved the matter.
If the allegation had been investigated and rejected because there was insufficient evidence, that should be capable of being explained.
If it had never been properly investigated, that is arguably an even more important question.
Is it time for Parliament to ask?
Britain has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the rule of law, immigration control and accountability.
Those principles should apply regardless of whether the individual concerned is a British citizen, a foreign national, a political leader or a senior government official.
The British Government should therefore be asked to clarify the historical record.
A Member of Parliament could reasonably ask the Government:
Did British law-enforcement authorities investigate the allegation that Gotabaya Rajapaksa arranged Karuna Amman's fraudulent diplomatic passport?
If yes:
What was the outcome of that investigation?
If no:
Why was an allegation involving a senior foreign government official apparently not investigated?
And if the relevant records still exist, should they now be reviewed?
What about sanctions?
The question of sanctions is separate from the original criminal investigation.
A historical allegation should not automatically result in sanctions, and sanctions require an appropriate legal basis and evidence under the relevant UK regime.
However, if new credible evidence demonstrates that an individual knowingly facilitated fraudulent entry into Britain—or engaged in other conduct falling within a current UK sanctions framework—the Government should explain whether that evidence has been assessed.
The issue is therefore not about demanding punishment without due process.
It is about demanding due process itself.
Britain should not leave this question unanswered
Almost 20 years have passed since Karuna Amman walked into Britain using a diplomatic passport carrying a false identity.
He was arrested.
He was prosecuted.
He pleaded guilty.
He was imprisoned.
He eventually left Britain.
But the alleged official who, according to statements reported from the court proceedings, was said to have organised the passport was never brought before a British court in connection with that allegation.
That does not prove that Gotabaya Rajapaksa committed an offence.
It does, however, leave a question that deserves an answer.
The British Government should now tell the public what happened.
If the allegation was investigated and the evidence was insufficient, say so.
If the allegation was investigated and dismissed, explain why.
If it was never investigated, explain why a senior foreign government official was not investigated when the alleged involvement was placed before a British court.
And if credible evidence still exists, the appropriate British authorities should examine it under the law as it stands today.
This is not a demand for a political verdict. It is a demand for the truth of what the British authorities knew, what they investigated, what they decided—and why.
For almost two decades, Britain has had the opportunity to close the chapter on the Karuna passport affair.
Instead, one question remains hanging over the case:
Who arranged the passport that brought Karuna Amman into Britain—and why was the alleged facilitator never held to account?
It is time for the British Government to answer.