A serious debate has erupted following a postmortem examination conducted on the body of Ranga Rajapakshe, who was found dead in his garden.

The controversy has arisen as Rajapakshe, an Assistant Director in the Finance Ministry, had been suspended over the diversion of 2.5 million dollars to a fraudulent account. Although the cause of death (COD) is obviously cardiorespiratory failure due to severe haemorrhage (loss of blood), whether the two cut wounds on his legs and on his left wrist were self-inflicted or caused by an external agency is what has led to this raging controversy.

A four-member ‘regional’ expert forensic panel (EFP) was appointed supposedly by the Secretary, Ministry of Health. The Judicial post mortem report was submitted within 24 hours. Many questions have risen as a result. Whether the expert forensic panel looked into all aspects of the death – and not only the injuries in the body of the deceased — has become a moot point.

Was the death due to self-inflicted cut injuries, i. e. suicide? Or, were they inflicted by another or others? If so, it becomes homicide or murder. If there have been any deficiencies in the procedure adopted by the expert forensic panel, whether they are errors, negligence or deliberate is what is reverberating on the social media and the public spaces.

One important point has to be mentioned at the outset. The JPM Report is still not in the public domain. Whether it would remain a privileged communication limited to the judiciary remains to be seen. Hence, none can come to definitive conclusions on the JPM findings – except judicious, informed speculation.

Judicial Post Mortem Examinations: Are they prone to error, negligence or deliberate falsification?

History tells us that all three of the above are possible. The fourth possibility is that it is none of the three above, but a legitimate, academically defensible difference of opinion. Neither medicine, nor forensics is an exact science.

Error

A cursory glance at information on the Internet gives us a reasonable overview of the issue of error. Of them, I quote only those that may be relevant to the issue at hand.

(1) Errors in post-mortem examinations can arise from procedural oversights, misinterpretation of findings, or lack of expertise, with major diagnostic error rates ranging from 8% to 24%.

(2) Common mistakes include misinterpreting postmortem changes as injuries, missing findings due to incomplete examination, and failing to secure the chain of custody.

(3) Incomplete Examination: Failing to examine all necessary body cavities or failing to perform histology/toxicology.

(4) Misclassification of Death Manner: Incorrectly labelling a death as natural vs. unnatural (e.g., suicide vs. homicide) due to overlooking evidence or biased interpretation.

Causes of Errors

(1) Systemic Issues: Heavy workloads, lack of specialised training, inadequate equipment, or poor communication between investigators and pathologists.

(2) External Pressure: Influences from law enforcement, media, or families that can bias the investigation.

(3) Inefficient Techniques: Relying on delegated assistants for vital dissections or conducting superficial examinations.

The above would suffice to give us an idea about lacunae and deficiency in JPM examinations that could lead to error. Those interested could go into the plethora of academic articles on this subject of error in JPMs.

Did any of the above lead to an outcome of error in the conclusions of the JMP Report by the expert panel?

Negligence

Negligence involves critical and serious errors that are inexcusable. These include inadequate body examination, failed scene investigations, missed evidence and speculative, premature reporting. These shortcomings can hinder legal proceedings, obscure causes of death, and lead to wrongful conclusions, with studies identifying major procedural errors, including failure to identify injuries or misinterpreting pathological findings.

We have no information whether the EFP had done a detailed site visit.

Deliberate falsification

Deliberate falsification or fraudulent autopsy reporting involves the intentional alteration of findings, documentation, or conclusions to misrepresent the cause or manner of death.

This misconduct can take many forms, including covering up homicide, misrepresenting police actions, or protecting influential individuals.

Forms of Deliberate Falsification include modification of Conclusions due to Forensic pathologists facing coercion from police, politicians, or families to change a homicide to an accidental death or natural causes. Intentional Neglect of Evidence: Failing to document injuries like strangulation marks or bruises to support a fabricated narrative of natural death. Issuing misleading or untrue post-mortem reports constitutes “serious” professional misconduct that is punishable by law.

There is absolutely no evidence that deliberate falsification has occurred in this case. But what I have attempted to inform the readers of is that such situations are well known.

The celebrated Sathasivam case illustrates the earliest instance in Sri Lanka, in which there was conflicting forensic evidence from two highly eminent forensic professors. Professor GSW de Saram, the first professor of forensic medicine, faculty of medicine, of the then University of Ceylon and JMO, Colombo was the most pre-eminent forensic expert in Ceylon who gave evidence for the prosecution and Sir (Prof.) Sydney Smith, world renowned professor of forensic medicine, University of Edinburgh who gave contrary forensic evidence on behalf of the defence. This conflict in the forensic evidence was a key factor that resulted in Sathasivam’s acquittal

I list below, a few JPM discrepancies and conflicting JPM reports that are now in the public domain in the recent past in Sri Lanka:

1. The death of a student at the University of Ruhuna raped and killed on the Matara beach, considered a suicide when circumstantial evidence indicated thugs of a well-known politician were involved in the incident. I was on the academic staff of the faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna at that time and came to know several details that had not come into the public domain.

2. The conflicting PM reports on the “disappearance” of the kidneys of a child at LRH, which was originally given as a medical death and later judgement given as a homicide. The child’s good kidney had been removed when the nephrectomy had to be done on the damaged kidney.

3. The infamous JPM report first given on Wasim Thajudeen’s killing. This falsification was done by a very senior JMO.

4. Lasantha Wickrematunga’s death, which was originally attributed to shooting but subsequently found to be due to stabbing with a sharp implement.

5. The RTA death of a policeman on a motorcycle (his wife and children were also seriously injured) in Boralesgamuwa due to the drunk driving by a female specialist doctor. The first JMO report stated that the doctor had not been under the influence of alcohol until CCTV evidence was presented to the Court that showed her drinking in a club that night. The police informed Court that the breathalyser test had confirmed that the doctor was under the influence of alcohol.

These are some of the well-known instances that there had been conflicting JMO reports. Furthermore, there have been several JMO reports where death in police custody was falsely documented in the JPM or JMO reports to safeguard the police involved in torture.

I know of one case personally, where a doctor from Nagoda Hospital, Kalutara was hauled up by the Sri Lanka Medical Council (of which I was a member for 10 years) for falsifying his JPM report of a death of a young man in police custody to safeguard the policemen concerned.

Why do JMOs falsify JMO reports?

Based on reports and studies, primarily focusing on the context of Sri Lanka, allegations of false or misleading judicial medical reports by Judicial Medical Officers (JMOs) arise from a combination of systemic, ethical, and external pressures rather than a single cause.

Reports indicate that instances of faulty reporting often stem from several factors. The main factor being political and external influence. These are likely in high-profile cases; JMOs may face pressure to tailor reports to suit the interests of powerful individuals or to minimize the culpability of suspects.

It has been seen that some reports are deemed erroneous or contradictory due to negligence, improper reporting procedures, or a lack of understanding of the ethical responsibilities of their role as JMOs. The police sometimes exert influence to speed up investigations, leading to “shortcuts”, where evidence is not properly scrutinised, or reports are tailored to support a premeditated narrative rather than scientific findings.

To be fair by JMOs, it must be said that false history or narratives given by victims and or perpetrators mislead the JMO. Victims or suspects may provide false history during the medical examination to protect themselves or to misdirect investigations.

The dearth of experienced forensic specialists can lead to inexperienced officers handling complex forensic cases. It has been the practice in many instances that Magistrates make specific requests that the PM examination be transferred to an experienced and senior forensic expert.

The subversion of justice is not limited to our part of the world. It happens everywhere. The judiciary, the legal and medical professions can work together to deliver justice to the impoverished and unempowered masses.

by Prof. Susirith Mendis
susmend2610@gmail.com

Sri Lanka today stands at a sensitive crossroads where national security, economic recovery, and intercommunal trust intersect. Recent developments including heightened security measures around areas popular with Israeli tourists and the arrest of local youth under suspicion have sparked understandable concern, especially within the Muslim community. These reactions are not mere emotional outbursts. They reflect deeper anxieties about fairness, dignity, and equal treatment under the law.

At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to ignore the broader security environment. In the post-Easter Sunday attack reality, intelligence-led policing often operates in a preventive mode. Locations associated with foreign nationals, including Israeli visitors, have featured in past threat assessments as potential soft targets. In such circumstances, even routine inquiries can appear intrusive. This is the uncomfortable truth of modern counter-terrorism: it is cautious, sometimes heavy-handed, and frequently misunderstood by the very communities it seeks to protect.

Yet, security effectiveness ultimately depends on legitimacy. When segments of the population begin to believe that certain groups are being disproportionately scrutinised whether that perception is accurate or not public confidence erodes. A dangerous narrative is quietly taking root in parts of the Muslim community: that Israeli visitors are receiving heightened protection while local citizens, particularly Muslims, face heightened suspicion. Whether this reflects operational reality or perception alone, it must be addressed with urgency and transparency. In matters of security and social cohesion, perception often carries as much weight as fact.

Equally troubling is the risk of politicisation. Isolated incidents are already being amplified, reframed, and at times distorted to serve narrow political interests. Islamophobia remains a potent and dangerous weapon in the hands of opportunistic actors. When legitimate security concerns are conflated with communal targeting, or when routine policing is portrayed as systemic discrimination, the result is a toxic cycle of mistrust that benefits no one except those who wish to see Sri Lanka divided.

Sri Lanka cannot afford this trajectory.

Tourism remains a vital pillar of our economic recovery. Israeli tourists, like visitors from every other nation, contribute meaningfully to local economies, especially in Arugam Bay, Weligama, and the southern coast. Ensuring their safety is not a political concession; it is a basic sovereign responsibility. However, that responsibility must never be implemented in a manner that undermines the rights and dignity of Sri Lankan citizens.

The way forward demands balance, discipline, and foresight. Here are five practical steps that can help restore both security and trust;

First, strengthen communication.

When arrests or detentions occur under security-related suspicion, law enforcement agencies must explain the basis within legal limits, clearly and promptly. Silence creates a vacuum that speculation quickly fills. In the age of social media, every unexplained action becomes fertile ground for rumours. A short, factual statement can prevent days of damaging speculation.

Second, ensure operational professionalism.

Security operations must remain intelligence-driven rather than perception-driven. Officers on the ground need proper sensitisation training on the broader societal impact of their conduct. A question asked in the wrong tone, a stop conducted without explanation, or a detention perceived as arbitrary can damage community relations for years. Professionalism is not a weakness, it is the hallmark of effective policing in a diverse society.

Third, institutionalise community engagement.

Trust cannot be built reactively after tensions flare. It must be cultivated continuously through structured dialogue. The Muslim community has historically played a vital role in supporting national security efforts. That partnership must be nurtured, not weakened by avoidable missteps. Regular meetings between security agencies, community leaders, and civil society organisations can help identify problems early and prevent misunderstandings from escalating.

Fourth, craft a clear national narrative.

Sri Lanka must consistently and publicly reaffirm one simple principle: we protect all citizens and visitors alike equally under the law. Security is not selective; it is universal. Political leaders, religious figures, and media outlets must reinforce this message without ambiguity. Mixed signals only fuel suspicion.

Fifth, exercise political and media restraint.

Exploiting security incidents for short-term political gain whether by inflaming communal fears or by painting the state as either weak or biased is deeply irresponsible. Leadership at this moment requires maturity, not rhetoric.

The media, too, must resist the temptation to sensationalise. Responsible reporting is a national duty, not an optional extra.

Sri Lanka’s greatest strength has always been its remarkable ability to absorb

complexity without fracturing. We have emerged from a brutal civil war, survived the Easter Sunday tragedy, and navigated multiple economic crises. But this strength is not automatic. It must be actively maintained through wise policy, honest communication, and genuine inclusivity.

The current situation is not yet a crisis. It is, however, a clear warning. Handled with wisdom and fairness, it can become an opportunity to strengthen security practices, rebuild trust, and reinforce social cohesion. Mishandled, it risks deepening divides that both domestic extremists and external actors would be quick to exploit.

The real test before us is not whether we prioritise security or rights. The true challenge is whether we are capable of safeguarding both with fairness, clarity, and quiet confidence.

Sri Lanka has faced far greater tests in its history. What we need now is not more division, but renewed commitment to the values that have held this nation together: justice, equality, and mutual respect.

The choice is ours. Let us choose wisely.

By Mahil Dole SSP Rtd

Mahil Dole, SSP (Retired), is the former Head of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka, and has served as Head of the Sri Lankan Delegation at three BIMSTEC Security Conferences. With over 40 years of experience in policing and intelligence, he writes on regional security, interfaith relations, and geopolitical strategy.

The central part of Africa was privately owned by King Leopold II of Belgium. It was 76 times the size of Belgium, established in 1885, and called the ‘Free state of Congo’. All sorts of expatriate Belgian, South African and other European white folk ran the colony whose people, it was said, were treated as children at best and animals at worst. They were whipped, maimed and killed, at the drop of a hat. Many had their right arms cut off as punishment. There were also many white missionaries who were outraged. Initially, the natives were never taught to read or write. Then, there were also Arab slave dealers running a roaring slave trade, by raiding and decimating villages to capture the natives. It was literally the law of the jungle. There were over 250 tribes within the Congo.!

While many European countries were limiting their operations to the coastal areas of Africa, King Leopold’s minions, led by a Welsh -American agent called Henry Morton Stanley (of “Livingston I presume” fame), worked at the King’s behest to find the source of the Congo River and there discovered 200 miles of turbulent ‘Rapids’ after which there were miles and miles of calm water. So, it was Stanley who suggested that steamboats be dismantled and carried by cart roads upriver to be re-assembled and used for transportation. Many trading posts were established along the river. A railway line was also built. There was a French team of explorers, too.

Initially, the main products from Congo were Ivory and Rubber. Rubber sap came from vines and not from trees. After the pneumatic tire was invented by John Boyd Dunlop, in 1888, the demand for Rubber was even greater. The Congo Free State, now nicknamed the ‘Dark Continent’ by many writers who experienced the appalling conditions that the natives (savages) had to work under. In 1889, at the Paris Exhibition, commemorating hundred years after the French revolution, they even had a human Zoo from the colonies, displaying people, including from the Congo, in a so-called ‘natural’ or ‘primitive’ state. Writers such as Stanley himself and Joseph Conrad of ‘Lord Jim’ fame, wrote about the Congo and imperialism in The Heart of Darkness.

Although King Leopold never set foot in Congo, it was big money for him. There were a few others like the UK educated Frenchman Edward Dene Morel, a shipping clerk and a surveyor/activist named Roger Casement who noticed that trade was only one way from Congo. Goods from Antwerp, Belgium, to Congo, Africa, consisted mainly of arms, ammunition and manacles (handcuffs). That seemed rather odd. They wrote a report about it in 1904. The phrase ‘Human Rights’ was first used in these writings. Arthur Conan Doyl and the American writer, Mark Twain, too, commented about the appalling conditions that prevailed. It was then that the world suspected that all was not well in the dark continent and brutality of the King’s regime. The King then appointed a Commission of inquiry into the affairs of the Congo Free State. (Sounds familiar?)

Eventually, under international pressure, in 1908 the Belgian Government took over its running and the Congo ceased to be ‘private property’ of the King. The State of Free Congo became Belgian Congo. Interestingly, in 1915, high grade (65% pure) Uranium was discovered in the Shinkolobwe Mines in the Katanga Province in the Congo. It was from here that Uranium was supplied for the two Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA to end WWII. The world discovered that Congo was also mineral rich in Copper, Cobalt and Diamonds. The western world and the USA cast their greedy eyes on them.

In Belgian Congo, living conditions of the natives slightly improved as in a ‘normal’ colony. Now there were missionary schools which gave rise to educated elites who then started clamouring for independence from Belgium.

On 30^th June,1960, Belgium, without much warning (lead time), granted independence to the country. It was now called the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A Congolese activist Joseph Kasavubu was elected as President, while another charismatic young activist, by the name of Patrice Emery Lumumba, a one-time postal clerk from a rival political party, was elected as Prime Minister. Since they could not individually form a government, they had to go for a ‘Coalition’. At the Independence Day ceremony King Boudouin (a kinsman of King Leopold II) was in attendance.

He said, “The Independence of the Congo is formed by the outcome of the work of King Leopold II’s genius, undertaken by him with tenacious and continuous courage with Belgium’s perseverance.”

President Kasavubu made it a point to acknowledge and thank the Belgian Authorities for all they had done in the past.

Then Prime Minister Lumumba, who was not even scheduled to speak, stood up and recalled all the atrocities carried out by agents of Belgium. How the natives were controlled and impoverished. He spoke about white supremacy and exploitation. (An estimated 15 million were killed in the process while Belgium got rich.) He was only 35 years old.

He said “Although this independence was proclaimed today by agreement with Belgium, no Congolese will ever forget that independence was won in struggle. We are deeply proud of our struggle and our wounds are too fresh, too painful to be forgotten.”

“We have experienced forced labour in exchange for pay that did not allow us to satisfy our hunger, to clothe ourselves, to have decent lodgings or to bring up our children as dearly loved ones. Morning, noon and night, we were subjected to jeers, insults and blows because we were ‘Negroes’. We have not forgotten that the law was never the same for the White and the Black. That it was lenient to the one and cruel and inhuman to the other. Our lot was worse than death itself.”

Lumumba’s speech did not go down with the King and Belgian nation and the Western world. They were furious. From that day he became a marked man among the CIA and Belgian Intelligence. They plotted to assassinate him as he spoke up for the whole of Africa and not only Congo.

It seemed that independence was only on paper. Almost immediately afterwards the army, expecting quick changes, mutinied. Their leaders were still Belgian Officers with no change in their attitudes towards the natives. Many white Belgians fled the country and Belgium claimed that Belgians were at risk. Then the Belgian army moved, in without the permission of the new government. Almost simultaneously, the mineral rich Katanga, instigated by the mining companies, declared independence under the leadership of a pro Belgian Congolese politician Moise Tshombe as their head. Obviously, Belgium and the western world wanted to retain control of the mines which were the economic heart of DRC.

Lumumba appealed to the UN to intervene and send UN troops to get the Belgian forces to leave. The UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, under pressure of Western powers and the USA, refused such action. UN peacekeeping troops were sent with strict instructions to not interfere. Nikita, Krucheve of the USSR, called for the resignation of the Secretary General Hammarskjold, saying that he was pro Belgium. Lumumba had no alternative but to turn to Soviet Union for help.

This was during the height of the cold war. In the eyes of the USA, and the western world, Lumumba was confirmed to be a communist which he was not. He was only a nationalist. Looking at the declassified information, Allen Dulles, head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was authorised by President Eisenhower, for Lumumba to be eliminated. Lumumba’s CIA code name was ‘Satan’.

The country was in chaos. The rift between President Kasavubu and Prime Minister Lumumba widened. In early September, 1960, Kasavubu announced on radio that Lumumba had been sacked by him. A few days later Lumumba announced on radio that Kasavubu was sacked! However, there was a coup carried out by the army head Col. Mobutu, on14 September, 1960, to neutralise both politicians. It is now known that Mobutu was a CIA agent and was a secret supporter of President Kasavubu, the ‘Belgian puppet’.

Prime Minister Lumumba was put under house arrest. While the UN forces watched. He attempted to escape one night with his family, but was located by CIA and Belgian intelligence, captured by Mobutu’s forces, brutally beaten up in front of his wife and son and then imprisoned. A few days later he and two others were flown to an airfield in Katanga and killed by a firing squad. His body parts were subsequently dissolved in Sulfuric acid and destroyed, lest the Congolese rally round his burial place and make it a sort of mausoleum. He was still very popular among the people. Killed on 17 January, 1961, at the age of 36, two or three days before John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) took oaths as the 35^th President of the United States of America.

The declassified secret CIA documents and investigations by the Parliament of Brussels in 2001/2002 that the above action was planned in Washington and Brussels and executed in Africa. The incumbent police Commissioner, Gerrard Soete, who had been present at Lumumba’s execution and destruction had kept a tooth as a souvenir. This was returned to the family and buried with full honours.

One wonders where Congo and the rest of Africa would have been if Lumumba survived till JFK, another Charismatic young leader was appointed. Today, there are statues and roads named after Patrice Emery Lumumba in Congo and other parts of Africa and Brussels, Belgium. Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University Moscow, to help nations to assist countries that had recently achieved independence from colonial powers was also established in 1960.

Col. Mobutu Sese Seko, ruled as a dictator for 32 long years. The name of Congo was changed to Zire (River), on 27^th October 1971. After his overthrow in 1997, the country was known again as Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

What a shame!

God Bless America and no one else!

by Guwan Seeya