Sallay’s case:

Attorney-at-law Udaya Gammanpila yesterday (27) said a lawyer could not be deprived of his or her right to represent a client.

The former Minister and leader of Pivuthuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Gammanpila said so addressing the media at the party headoffice at Pita Kotte. Gammanpila was responding to recent media reports that he had been prohibited from representing retired State Intelligence Service (SIS) Chief Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay. Therefore, there was absolutely no basis for claims that he had been barred from meeting the retired officer, now named the third suspect in the Easter Sunday case, the ex-parliamentarian said.

Gammanpila emphasised that in terms of the Constitution a suspect’s right to be represented by a lawyer was recognised as a fundamental right. The Criminal procedure Code, too, guaranteed the suspect’s right to consult a lawyer, the ex-lawmaker said, pointing out that the Judicial Organisation Act underscored the same.

Declaring that the retired officer’s wife had named him as Sallay’s lawyer in a letter addressed to Director, CID, Gammanpila said that the courts, police and the Attorney General’s Department couldn’t under any circumstances interfere with his right to represent Sallay.

The CID arrested Sallay on 25 February and detained him under Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for a period of 90 days. Sallay has filed a writ petition before the Court of Appeal through his lawyers, challenging his arrest and detention by the CID under the PTA.

Former Minister Gammanpila said that even if a Magistrate had the power to prohibit a lawyer from representing a particular suspect, such a course of action couldn’t be resorted to without giving the lawyer concern an opportunity to explain his/her actions.

Declaring that in case of misconduct on the part of a lawyer only the Supreme Court could take disciplinary action, the PHU leader said, adding that he sought a certified copy of the proceedings of the day when a section of the media reported the Magistrate’s declaration of the purported ban. Gammapila said that he was really keen to know what happened during the proceedings on that day.

Sallay served as Director, Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) from 2012 to 2016 and received the appointment as head of SIS following the 2019 presidential election. Sallay held that appointment till early October, 2024.

Gammanpila said that he couldn’t be barred for speaking to the media after meeting Sallay, currently held under PTA, or for authoring a book on the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. According to Gammanpila as long as the suspect had no objections to his lawyer sharing some information with the media it shouldn’t be an issue for Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Police investigating the thwarted a bid made by 22 Buddhist monks to smuggle in narcotics, with a street value of Rs 660 mn via BIA, from Thailand, over the weekend, believe the monks who organised the clandestine operation had sent groups of monks to Thailand before.

Sources said that they had brought in narcotics on earlier occasions.

Police have seized the mobile phones used by the suspects and sought INTERPOL assistance.

Earlier, the Negombo Magistrate’s Court remanded those 22 monks, arrested in connection with the largest drug bust in the airport’s history.

The monks were produced before the Negombo Magistrate’s Court and ordered to be held in custody until 02 May, as investigations continue into the alleged smuggling operation and any wider networks involved.

However, other sources said that more than 110 kilogrammes of suspected Kush and Hashish, with an estimated street value exceeding Rs 1.1 billion, had been found, concealed in false-bottoms of their suitcases. The bags reportedly packed with school supplies and sweets are said to have contained over five kilogrammes of narcotics per individual.

The arrests followed a raid by the Police Narcotics Bureau on Saturday night. Investigators have also recovered mobile phone evidence indicating that the group had travelled to Bangkok on 22 April using airline tickets allegedly given by a sponsor. Authorities allege that the suspects were photographed in civilian clothing, while overseas, engaging in activities deemed suspicious.

Police say this marks the first reported instance of a large-scale narcotics operation via the airport involving Buddhist monks. The suspects are young monks from different parts of the country.

By Norman Palihawadana

The death of “Sujeewa,” a female elephant held under state custody for nearly a decade, has ignited renewed calls for accountability, transparency, and urgent reform in Sri Lanka’s handling of wildlife crime—particularly the shadowy networks behind elephant smuggling.

Environmental conservationist and researcher Supun Lahiru Prakash has urged authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), to launch an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the elephant’s death. His concerns echo a growing unease among conservationists who see the incident not as an isolated tragedy, but as part of a troubling pattern.

Sujeewa was taken into custody in February 2016 by the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) in connection with a high-profile case involving the illegal capture and trade of wild elephants. For years, she remained under state supervision at a holding facility in Udawalawe, where she later gave birth to a calf—offering a rare glimmer of hope amid an otherwise grim narrative of exploitation.

However, that hope soon gave way to controversy. In 2021, a move by the then-government to release both mother and calf back to individuals linked to the smuggling case—via Gazette Notification No. 2241/41—sparked widespread public outrage. Many viewed the decision as a dangerous precedent that could legitimize illegal wildlife trade. Following legal intervention by environmental groups, the courts halted the release, ensuring the elephants remained under DWC custody.

Today, Sujeewa’s sudden and reportedly “suspicious” death has reopened old wounds and raised pressing questions.

“We now have a serious issue that cannot be ignored—why did this elephant die under state custody?” Supun said. “If an adult elephant, held for years by the authorities, dies without a clear and justifiable explanation, it points to systemic lapses. Either there was negligence, or something far more concerning.”

According to claims circulating among individuals allegedly connected to elephant smuggling networks, Sujeewa had been ill for months and may not have received adequate veterinary attention. While these claims remain unverified, they add another layer of complexity—and suspicion—to an already sensitive case.

Supun warns that the implications go beyond mere negligence. “There is also a risk that this death could be used strategically,” he noted. “If custodial animals begin to die under state care, it could strengthen arguments by suspects to reclaim such animals, claiming they would be ‘safer’ in private custody. This is a dangerous narrative.”

He further raised the possibility—however uncomfortable—that foul play cannot be ruled out. “We must consider whether any party with vested interests may have intentionally caused harm, with the aim of discrediting the Department of Wildlife Conservation,” he said.

Disturbingly, Sujeewa’s case is not without precedent. The death of another elephant, “Siewali,” a juvenile taken into custody from Gannoruwa in Kandy in connection with a similar smuggling investigation, also remains shrouded in controversy. Reports now indicate that yet another elephant under similar custodial conditions is suffering from severe health complications.

“These recurring incidents point to a systemic issue,” Supun stressed. “We cannot treat them as isolated events. There must be a transparent, independent inquiry into all such cases, and those responsible—whether through action or inaction—must be held accountable.”

Beyond the immediate tragedy lies a deeper, more entrenched problem: the illegal wildlife trade, which continues to threaten Sri Lanka’s biodiversity.

Supun, who has extensively researched the subject, revealed that between 2008 and 2018, at least 55 cases of illegal elephant trade were documented in Sri Lanka. The data, compiled through court records, archives, and stakeholder interviews, likely represents only a fraction of the true scale.

“The actual numbers are almost certainly higher,” he explained. “Many elephants die during capture operations, and this is a highly organized illicit trade where data is difficult to obtain.”

The research uncovered alarming trends, including spikes in elephant seizures during 2014–2015, evidence of illegal captures from protected areas, and, most troublingly, indications of corruption within enforcement agencies.

“We found credible evidence pointing to the involvement of wildlife officers, politicians, and other influential individuals,” Prakash said. “This is not just an environmental issue—it is a governance issue.”

Asian elephants, long revered in Sri Lankan culture for their religious, cultural, and economic value, have increasingly become commodities in a lucrative black market. With limited focus on structured captive breeding programs, demand continues to be met through the illegal capture of wild animals.

“The demand for captive elephants—whether for religious pageantry, tourism, or private ownership—remains high,” Supun noted. “Until we address this demand and strengthen enforcement, these crimes will persist.”

He emphasized that Sujeewa’s death should serve as a turning point rather than just another statistic.

“This is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate seriousness in tackling wildlife crime,” he said. “We need stronger legal frameworks, faster court proceedings, better veterinary care for seized animals, and above all, zero tolerance for corruption.”

Supun also called for prioritizing ongoing court cases related to elephant smuggling, warning that prolonged legal delays only embolden perpetrators.

“Justice delayed is justice denied—not just for people, but for wildlife as well,” he said.

As the nation reflects on the life and death of Sujeewa, the broader question remains: will this tragedy finally compel decisive action, or will it fade into the long list of unresolved wildlife crimes?

By Ifham Nizam