Welisara Magistrate Thusitha Dhammika Uduwavidana expressed surprise over the Attorney General’s decision to close the case file related to the killing of 11 inmates at Mahara Prison in 2020, despite what he described as sufficient evidence to arrest the suspects involved.
Lawyers representing the aggrieved party argued that the central issue in this case is whether the public should adhere to court orders or the Attorney General’s directives.
The incident occurred on November 29, 2020, when 11 inmates of Mahara Prison were killed after the Police Special Task Force (STF) opened fire during a protest. The inmates were reportedly demanding PCR tests to determine if they had contracted COVID-19.
During the proceedings at the Welisara Magistrate’s Court, it was revealed that all 11 detainees had succumbed to gunshot wounds to the head, chest, and stomach. Magistrate Uduwavidana stated that the nature of the wounds indicated a clear crime, adding that the shooting could not be classified as the use of minimal force. Consequently, the court had previously ordered the immediate arrest of the suspects involved in the incident.
However, on September 26, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) submitted a letter from the Attorney General’s Department requesting the closure of the case file. Despite the request, the Magistrate refused to dismiss the case outright and reconvened the hearing to inform the aggrieved party about the Attorney General’s instructions.
Reflecting on the matter, Magistrate Uduwavidana recalled earlier attempts by the complainant to cremate the bodies of the deceased inmates, which were prevented by the aggrieved party’s lawyers. “The post-mortem revealed gunshot wounds to the upper abdomen of all 11 individuals, negating the argument of minimal force. That is why this court ordered the arrest of those responsible. However, the Attorney General’s instructions claim the STF and prison officers acted lawfully, which is surprising,” the Magistrate noted.
“This case demonstrates a conflict between the court’s orders and the Attorney General’s opinion. It cannot be considered a matter without grounds. The deaths align with charges under Section 296 of the Penal Code for murder or Section 298 for causing death by negligence. However, this court lacks the authority to overrule the Attorney General. The only recourse is to petition the Court of Appeal,” the Magistrate added.
Attorney-at-Law Senaka Perera, representing the aggrieved party, raised strong objections in open court. He argued that the Attorney General’s conduct was questionable and contrary to the law.
“Your Honor, under Section 77 of the Prisons Ordinance, the use of firearms by prison officers is permitted only when prisoners attempt to escape. There is no evidence that the inmates were trying to escape—they were merely protesting for PCR tests. Moreover, even in such cases, the use of firearms cannot result in death. The law requires a warning shot to be fired first, and there is no evidence that this protocol was followed. How can such actions be deemed lawful?”
Perera further emphasized the dangerous precedent the Attorney General’s decision could set. “Should the public trust the court’s ruling or the Attorney General’s opinion? The Attorney General must act within the framework of justice and the law. In this case, their directive significantly prejudices the aggrieved party,” he stated.
After hearing the submissions, Magistrate Uduwavidana scheduled the case for December 13, when an appropriate order will be delivered.
