Easter Sunday attacks:

Interview with Dhara Wijayatilake,
Attorney-at-Law,
Chairperson,
The Office for Reparations,
on disbursements from the Easter Attack Victim Fund.

by Saman Indrajith

Q: How did the Office for Reparations set about making compensation payments to victims of the Easter Attack?

A: We don’t like to call these grants “compensation” because you can never really compensate victims in such tragic circumstances. We refer to these grants as monetary relief and in the context of the concept of “reparations”, monies are granted to assist victims in the process of restoring their normal lives.

In 2019, soon after the Easter Bomb attack, monies were paid out to victims from funds made available by the Government through the Consolidated Fund, in compliance with government circulars that were applicable to all such situations. The Cabinet had decided how much should be paid to each category of victims. There were two categories – Next of kin of those who had died, and those who had suffered injuries. These payments were made speedily and completed by about October 2019.

Thereafter, on an order of the Supreme Court in January 2023, the “Easter Attack 2019 Victim Fund” was established by the OR to receive monies ordered to be paid by respondents in certain Fundamental Rights applications. In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, the OR formulated a scheme to grant monies from this Fund.

The sums ordered to be paid by the respondents did not come in all at once. The remittances came in stages. So, each time we received a sum that was adequate to disburse, we identified the most vulnerable victim category and made grants as per our priority policy. So, families of deceased and those permanently totally disabled, and severely injured, received grants on a priority basis.

When more money came in, we had enough to expand the grants to wider categories. We then formulated a Disbursement Policy to make grants.

The OR believes in transparency and in making relevant information available to the public, so all these schemes and the Policy and sums disbursed to the different categories were uploaded to our website in real time. We did not however reveal the identity and amounts disbursed to individuals to safeguard their privacy.

Q: How did you publicise the fact that grants were being given?

A: We did not need to publicise it because we were dealing with victims who were already in our database. We reached out to them. Everyone who was a victim and claimed compensation had submitted applications soon after the attack. There was wide publicity given at that time and the victims were identified also by the Divisional Secretaries. There were victims who had opted not to claim grants at the outset, and we did not pursue them.

Our database is not confined to one church or geographic location, but includes all victims including those affected by the attack at the Zion church in Batticaloa.

Q: Can you describe some of the features of your disbursement policy?

A: It is uploaded on our website but let me summarise. We identified the following support schemes to those who are victims due to the death of a parent or sibling or due to injury suffered by either a parent or is a direct victim of an injury –

· Grants to next of kin of deceased

· Grants to injured persons. We gave grants to those who had been medically certified to be permanently injured based on the degree of incapacity. We also wrote to all those temporarily injured to inquire if they had continuing medical needs. These requests supported by current medical reports are evaluated by a team of medical doctors who will recommend to us the degree of disability and the OR will make payments as per the scale we have identified.

· Grants to support secondary school education – 50 children were given grants to assist in defraying expenses to complete secondary school. All children are those who lost one or both parents or were direct victims who suffered serious injuries themselves.

· Grants to support Tertiary education – we have given grants to applicants who requested support. The OR is monitoring these grantees to ensure they stay on course and to provide support where needed. These grantees were also those who had lost one or both parents.

· Elders support – there are some elderly people who need support because someone they were dependent on, died in the attack. These are being considered.

· Entrepreneurship support – We will look at the feasibility of the identified project, the commitment to sustain a project and other relevant factors.

Q: There were other organisations that provided assistance. Did the OR consult those and take into account the relief provided by them?

A: No, we did not, for several reasons. Firstly, we proceeded on a needs-based approach and sought the information direct from each victim to assess their individual needs. We designed an Application Form for each scheme and distributed those. Also, no Organisation that has helped victims would have been willing to share that information with outside sources.

However, we worked closely with the office of His Eminence the Cardinal to share information that was useful to them and to us, to assess needs. They were also engaged in providing financial and other needs and so were we. So, we have an ongoing working arrangement and readily use each other’s information to ensure that the funds available are distributed in the most meaningful way to those most in need. That continues. They also know details of the circumstances of each victim engaged with their church and we find that information useful.

Q: Did the OR discuss the schemes with any other respondents?

A: Yes. We had a special meeting in January, 2025 to discuss these matters with representatives of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and representatives of His Eminence the Cardinal. This meeting was held on an order given by the Supreme Court. Both parties were represented at that meeting and we had a detailed discussion at which documents containing our Disbursement Policy, the Schemes, the methodology adopted, and a summary of disbursements as at that time were shared with them. In our documents submitted to the Hon. Attorney General to be filed in court we reported that fact that the meeting was held. Both parties expressed their complete satisfaction with the manner in which we were handling the disbursements.

Q: How much money came into the Victim Fund and how much has been paid out?

A: A total of Rs. 311 million came into the Fund from the respondents. The sum of Rs. 245 million that was referred to in court was the sum paid out as at January 31, 2025 which was the date by which we submitted our reports to the Hon. Attorney General. We have paid out a larger sum now.

As at the end of February we have made grants amounting to Rs. 250,633,000 million which is 80 % of the Fund. We’re currently finalizing the payments to the injured in consultation with the team of doctors, and also looking at payments to elders who need support. We plan to complete all grants by the end of March, 2025.

Q: An issue that came up at the hearing on the 27^th was that two counsel were not given copies of the detailed lists. Any comments on that?

A: Anything that will help them represent their clients best can be shared. I believe the Additional Solicitor General will now act on the court order.

Although the two counsel did not receive the lists, all details of the schemes, the manner of reaching out to victims and obtaining applications, etc., were discussed in detail at the January 2025 meeting attended by their juniors. There was plenty of opportunity to seek further clarifications if any were required.

It’s the policy of the OR to safeguard the privacy of the beneficiary. I’m sure Counsel will respect that, so we have no issue.