Connect with us






by Sanjiva Senanayake


(continued from last week)


Three additional suspects were originally produced before the Chief Magistrate of Colombo, when hearings started on December 14, 1959. They were F.R. (Dickie) de Zoysa, Mrs. Wimala Wijewardene and Carolis Amarasinghe who provided different perspectives on Somarama’s involvement.

Dickie de Zoysa was a close associate of Buddharakkitha and a long-standing personal friend of the deceased PM. He was the elder brother of both the Minister of Finance, Stanley de Zoysa, and DIG Sidney de Zoysa. He was apparently involved in Buddharakkitha’s brother’s unsuccessful shipping venture, and was annoyed with the PM when it was rejected in August 1958.

Shockingly, there was no valid evidence against him. Justice Alles’ book included this cryptic passage, pregnant with meaning, about his arrest –

“In view of the political implications of the assassination case, it was inevitable that interested parties, particularly politicians, should have interfered with the police investigations. Pressure was brought on the police to arrest Dickie de Zoysa, a factor that would necessarily have embarrassed his brother, the Minister of Finance. The police, however, were of the view that the admissible evidence against him was too slender to warrant his arrest, but as a result of political pressure, particularly by some Ministers, the Inspector-General of Police gave a written order to ASP Iyer to arrest Dickie de Zoysa. Iyer had Dickie de Zoysa arrested in November 1959, just before plaint was filed. He was brought to court and discharged and no charges were framed against him at any stage.”

(Alles p. 158)

The only mention of Dickie de Zoysa in connection with this case was in Somarama’s ‘confession’ made on November 14, 1959. De Zoysa was arrested on November 19, five days later. One can speculate about how and why de Zoysa featured in it at all, even as an insignificant, minor character. His alleged ‘involvement’ resulted in political pressure and led to the early resignation of the Minister of Finance. Somarama’s ‘confession’ is dealt with later.

Wimala Wijewardene, had been the Minister of Health in the MEP Cabinet until she was forced to quit after the assassination. It was publicly known that she was in an intimate relationship with Buddharakkitha, and it was clear from the evidence of many during the SC trial that he conducted all of his personal and political discussions in Colombo at her residence. It was effectively his Colombo office. She was arrested on the same date as de Zoysa but there was insufficient evidence against her and she was discharged by the magistrate.

Carolis Amarasinghe, ended up as the prosecution’s star, opening witness in the Supreme Court (SC). He was a practitioner of Ayurveda, a father of seven and Jayawardena’s family physician. He was also the Chairman of the Kolonnawa Urban Council and a die-hard supporter of the PM. His close association with Buddharakkitha was via the College of Indigenous Medicine.

Amarasinghe was remanded on October 15, 1959, and was effectively treated as a co-conspirator throughout. He made three statements to the police prior to his arrest but did not say anything about the alleged conspirators. But on October 21, one week after his arrest, he gave an elaborate account of secret meetings and plans discussed at his house by the accused. He followed up the very next day by making a statement to a Magistrate, which was admissible as evidence in a court under the Law of Evidence. As a quid pro quo, he was promised a conditional pardon by the prosecution, and was officially made a Crown Witness on January 12, 1960 in the middle of the magisterial inquiry. Since the pardon depended on the evidence he would give, he was held in remand custody even during the SC trial in 1961 and was brought to court under prison guard.

In an article written in 2008, Mr. R.J.N. Jordan, Superintendent of the Magazine Prison at that time, provides some interesting insight into Amarasinghe’s mental state before he made the statement –

“Some days after being on remand, suspect Dr. Amerasinghe complained of an uncontrollable diarrhoea to me on my daily visits to his place of location (cell). Dr. B.T. Jayasekera the Senior Prison Medical Officer who treated him mentioned to me, that it was a condition induced by fright and medication alone would not arrest the condition.”


The question arises – did the information in the statement come gushing out all of a sudden, or was it fleshed out and flushed out?

The ploy of suspects turning Crown Witness and escaping punishment was quite current at the time due to sensational cases such as the Turf Club Robbery (1949) and the Sathasivam murder case (1951). During cross-examination of Amarasinghe by counsel for Newton Perera, it was established that a discussion between Amarasinghe and Newton Perera took place regarding conditions to be negotiated for pardons. This had taken place during a three-week period preceding Amarasinghe being officially given a conditional pardon, when the two were held in the Magazine prison. It is clear that Perera, who was arrested on October 22, also considered turning Crown Witness but that did not happen for reasons unknown.

A key part of Amarasinghe’s wide-ranging statement, as far as Somarama was concerned, recounts a few meetings at his house about six weeks prior to the assassination during which there was talk by Buddharakkitha of “shooting practice”, presumably for Somarama with Perera as the trainer.

It is incredibly strange that almost all of Buddharakkitha’s meetings in Colombo were held at the home of his confidante and partner Wimala Wijewardene but, when it came to the most critical decision of his life, he chose Amarasinghe’s place. It is especially so if, as stated by Amarasinghe, he was never part of the ‘plot’.

On the first visit (fixed as August 14 by Newton Perera) Buddharakkitha, Jayawardena, Somarama and Newton Perera visited him. Perera had allegedly obtained a revolver and some bullets for Buddharakkitha’s personal protection several weeks earlier, but the latter complained that the bullets were not firing. Buddharakkitha gave some money to Perera to procure better bullets and asked Amarasinghe to provide his car. A few minutes after Perera left, the others departed leaving a message for Perera to get in touch with Buddharakkitha. The car returned later without Perera.

Two days later, the same foursome arrived separately in the afternoon, with Perera getting dropped off in a police car, wearing police uniform. Buddharakkitha again asked for Amarasinghe’s car for Perera, who left and came back, wearing the national dress. When the visitors wanted to leave immediately, Amarasinghe asked where they were bound and was told they were off to Muthurajawela for some shooting practice. Muthurajawela in 1959 was a vast, sparsely inhabited marshland a few miles north of Colombo. Amarasinghe declined an invitation to join them.

Then two days later Somarama came alone in the morning. He was not a close associate and had not visited alone before. When questioned about the shooting practice, Somarama told him categorically that it was in preparation to murder the PM. Amarasinghe was horrified that such dastardly deeds were being discussed in his house and told Somarama that he didn’t want them to visit any more. Just then Buddharakkitha and Jayawardena arrived and took Somarama away. Despite all this, Amarasinghe could not explain why he did not go promptly to the police and save the life of the PM, whom he ardently admired.

Newton Perera in his evidence mentioned the visit on August 14 but said there were no other visits. Instead. he said that on the next day, August 15, Buddharakkita called him still complaining about his revolver not firing. Jayawardena then came for him, picked up Somarama and went to Buddharakkitha’s temple. After Perera cleaned the gun, Buddharakkitha suggested going to Muthurajawela to test it. Where Buddharakkitha had tested the gun to discover that it was not working was unknown.

When they got to a desolate spot Perera fired a few shots in the air and returned the revolver to Buddharakkitha. As Perera was getting into the car, he saw Somarama run out and fire a few more shots in the air. It seemed such a waste of precious, hard-to-find ammunition, when one shot would have proved that the revolver worked. Anyway, there were no available targets and no training in marksmanship took place. Perera said that he did not meet any of the accused thereafter till after the assassination.

Amarasinghe and Perera were both considered co-conspirators and, therefore, could not legally corroborate each other’s evidence – corroboration had to come from an independent source. In effect, their accounts about the visits to Amarasinghe’s house and Muthurajawela stood alone, unconfirmed by other, independent evidence.

There is an interesting and controversial interpretation of this aspect in the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal –

“Amarasinghe’s evidence that he said that he practised firing with a revolver to shoot the Prime Minister is corroborated by the fact that he shot the deceased with a powerful revolver. No more corroboration need be looked for as his act provides corroboration in the most material particular. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss further the charge of conspiracy against the 4th accused.”

Readers who wish to check further can access the text of the judgement at



The writer can be contacted on this subject at


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Lives of journalists increasingly on the firing line



Since the year 2000 some 45 journalists have been killed in the conflict-ridden regions of Palestine and senior Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was the latest such victim. She was killed recently in a hail of bullets during an Israeli military raid in the contested West Bank. She was killed in cold blood even as she donned her jacket with the word ‘PRESS’ emblazoned on it.

While claims and counter-claims are being made on the Akleh killing among some of the main parties to the Middle East conflict, the Israeli police did not do their state any good by brutally assaulting scores of funeral mourners who were carrying the body of Akleh from the hospital where she was being treated to the location where her last rites were to be conducted in East Jerusalem.

The impartial observer could agree with the assessment that ‘disproportionate force’ was used on the mourning civilians. If the Israeli government’s position is that strong-arm tactics are not usually favoured by it in the resolution conflictual situations, the attack on the mourners tended to strongly belie such claims. TV footage of the incident made it plain that brazen, unprovoked force was used on the mourners. Such use of force is decried by the impartial commentator.

As for the killing of Akleh, the position taken by the UN Security Council could be accepted that “an immediate, thorough, transparent and impartial investigation” must be conducted on it. Hopefully, an international body acceptable to the Palestinian side and other relevant stakeholders would be entrusted this responsibility and the wrong-doers swiftly brought to justice.

Among other things, the relevant institution, may be the International Criminal Court, should aim at taking urgent steps to end the culture of impunity that has grown around the unleashing of state terror over the years. Journalists around the world are chief among those who have been killed in cold blood by state terrorists and other criminal elements who fear the truth.

The more a journalist is committed to revealing the truth on matters of crucial importance to publics, the more is she or he feared by those sections that have a vested interest in concealing such vital disclosures. This accounts for the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, for instance.

Such killings are of course not unfamiliar to us in Sri Lanka. Over the decades quite a few local journalists have been killed or been caused to disappear by criminal elements usually acting in league with governments. The whole truth behind these killings is yet to be brought to light while the killers have been allowed to go scot-free and roam at large. These killings are further proof that Sri Lanka is at best a façade democracy.

It is doubtful whether the true value of a committed journalist has been fully realized by states and publics the world over. It cannot be stressed enough that the journalist on the spot, and she alone, writes ‘the first draft of history’. Commentaries that follow from other quarters on a crisis situation, for example, are usually elaborations that build on the foundational factual information revealed by the journalist. Minus the principal facts reported by the journalist no formal history-writing is ever possible.

Over the decades the journalists’ death toll has been increasingly staggering. Over the last 30 years, 2150 journalists and media workers have been killed in the world’s conflict and war zones. International media reports indicate that this figure includes the killing of 23 journalists in Ukraine, since the Russian invasion began, and the slaying of 11 journalists, reporting on the doings of drug cartels in Mexico.

Unfortunately, there has been no notable international public outcry against these killings of journalists. It is little realized that the world is the poorer for the killing of these truth-seekers who are putting their lives on the firing line for the greater good of peoples everywhere. It is inadequately realized that the public-spirited journalist too helps in saving lives; inasmuch as a duty-conscious physician does.

For example, when a journalist blows the lid off corrupt deals in public institutions, she contributes immeasurably towards the general good by helping to rid the public sector of irregularities, since the latter sector, when effectively operational, has a huge bearing on the wellbeing of the people. Accordingly, a public would be disempowering itself by turning a blind eye on the killing of journalists. Essentially, journalists everywhere need to be increasingly empowered and the world community is conscience-bound to consider ways of achieving this. Bringing offending states to justice is a pressing need that could no longer be neglected.

The Akleh killing cannot be focused on in isolation from the wasting Middle East conflict. The latter has grown in brutality and inhumanity over the years and the cold-blooded slaying of the journalist needs to be seen as a disquieting by-product of this larger conflict. The need to turn Spears into Ploughshares in the Middle East is long overdue and unless and until ways are worked out by the principal antagonists to the conflict and the international community to better manage the conflict, the bloodletting in the region is unlikely to abate any time soon.

The perspective to be placed on the conflict is to view the principal parties to the problem, the Palestinians and the Israelis, as both having been wronged in the course of history. The Palestinians are a dispossessed and displaced community and so are the Israelis. The need is considerable to fine-hone the two-state solution. There is need for a new round of serious negotiations and the UN is duty-bound to initiate this process.

Meanwhile, Israel is doing well to normalize relations with some states of the Arab world and this is the way to go. Ostracization of Israel by Arab states and their backers has clearly failed to produce any positive results on the ground and the players concerned will be helping to ease the conflict by placing their relations on a pragmatic footing.

The US is duty-bound to enter into a closer rapport with Israel on the need for the latter to act with greater restraint in its treatment of the Palestinian community. A tough law and order approach by Israel, for instance, to issues in the Palestinian territories is clearly proving counter-productive. The central problem in the Middle East is political in nature and it calls for a negotiated political solution. This, Israel and the US would need to bear in mind.

Continue Reading


Doing it differently, as a dancer



Dancing is an art, they say, and this could be developed further, only by an artist with a real artistic mind-set. He must be of an innovative mind – find new ways of doing things, and doing it differently

According to Stephanie Kothalawala – an extremely talented dancer herself – Haski Iddagoda, who has won the hearts of dance enthusiasts, could be introduced as a dancer right on top of this field.


had a chat with Haski, last week, and sent us the following interview:

* How did you start your dancing career?

Believe me, it was a girl, working with me, at office, who persuaded me to take to dancing, in a big way, and got me involved in events, connected with dancing. At the beginning, I never had an idea of what dancing, on stage, is all about. I was a bit shy, but I decided to take up the challenge, and I made my debut at an event, held at Bishop’s College.

* Did you attend dancing classes in order to fine-tune your movements?

Yes, of course, and the start was in 2010 – at dancing classes held at the Colombo Aesthetic Resort.

* What made you chose dancing as a career?

It all came to mind when I checked out the dancing programmes, on TV. After my first dancing programme, on a TV reality show, dancing became my passion. It gave me happiness, and freedom. Also, I got to know so many important people, around the country, via dancing.

* How is your dancing schedule progressing these days?

Due to the current situation, in the country, everything has been curtailed. However, we do a few programmes, and when the scene is back to normal, I’m sure there will be lots of dance happenings.

* What are your achievements, in the dancing scene, so far?

I have won a Sarasavi Award. I believe my top achievement is the repertoire of movements I have as a dancer. To be a top class dancer is not easy…it’s hard work. Let’s say my best achievement is that I’ve have made a name, for myself, as a dancer.

* What is your opinion about reality programmes?

Well, reality programmes give you the opportunity to showcase your talents – as a dancer, singer, etc. It’s an opportunity for you to hit the big time, but you’ve got to be talented, to be recognised. I danced with actress Chatu Rajapaksa at the Hiru Mega Star Season 3, on TV.

* Do you have your own dancing team?

Not yet, but I have performed with many dance troupes.

* What is your favourite dancing style?

I like the style of my first trainer, Sanjeewa Sampath, who was seen in Derana City of Dance. His style is called lyrical hip-hop. You need body flexibility for that type of dance.

* Why do you like this type of dancing?

I like to present a nice dancing act, something different, after studying it.

* How would you describe dancing?

To me, dancing is a valuable exercise for the body, and for giving happiness to your mind. I’m not referring to the kind of dance one does at a wedding, or party, but if you properly learn the art of dancing, it will certainly bring you lots of fun and excitement, and happiness, as well. I love dancing.

* Have you taught your dancing skills to others?

Yes, I have given my expertise to others and they have benefited a great deal. However, some of them seem to have forgotten my contribution towards their success.

* As a dancer, what has been your biggest weakness?

Let’s say, trusting people too much. In the end, I’m faced with obstacles and I cannot fulfill the end product.

* Are you a professional dancer?

Yes, I work as a professional dancer, but due to the current situation in the country, I want to now concentrate on my own fashion design and costume business.

* If you had not taken to dancing, what would have been your career now?

I followed a hotel management course, so, probably, I would have been involved in the hotel trade.

* What are your future plans where dancing is concerned?

To be Sri Lanka’s No.1 dancer, and to share my experience with the young generation.

Continue Reading


Responding to our energy addiction



by Ranil Senanayake

Sri Lanka today is in the throes of addiction withdrawal. Reliant on fossil fuels to maintain the economy and basic living comforts, the sudden withdrawal of oil, coal and gas deliveries has exposed the weakness and the danger of this path of ‘development’ driven by fossil energy. This was a result of some poorly educated aspirants to political power who became dazzled by the advancement of western industrial technology and equated it with ‘Development’. They continue with this blind faith even today.

Thus, on December 20th 1979, an official communiqué was issued by the Government and displayed in the nation’s newspapers stating, “No oil means no development, and less oil, less development. It is oil that keeps the wheels of development moving”. This defined with clarity what was to be considered development by the policy-makers of that time. This fateful decision cast a deadly policy framework for the nation. The energy source that was to drive the national economy would be fossil-based. Even today, that same policy framework and its adherents continue. Everything, from electricity to cooking fuel, was based on fossil energy.

The economics of development, allows externalizing all the negative effects of ‘development’ into the environment, this being justified because, “industrialisation alleviates poverty”. The argument, is that economies need to industrialise in order to reduce poverty; but industrialisation leads to ‘unavoidable emissions. Statements like, ‘reduction in poverty leads to an increase in emissions’ is often trotted out as dogma. Tragically, these views preclude a vision of development based on high tech, non-fossil fuel driven, low consumptive lifestyles. Indeed, one indicator of current ‘development’ is the per capita consumption of power, without addressing the source of that power.

A nation dependent on fossil fuel is very much like an addict dependent on drugs. The demand is small, at first, but grows swiftly, until all available resources are given. In the end, when there is nothing else left to pawn, even the future of their children will be pawned and finally the children themselves! Today, with power cuts and fuel shortages, the pain of addiction begins to manifest.

The creation of desire

This perspective of ‘development’, the extension of so-called ‘civilised living’ is not new to us in Sri Lanka, Farrer, writing in 1920, had this to say when visiting Colombo:

“Modern, indeed, is all this, civilised and refined to a notable degree. All the resources of modern culture are thick about you, and you feel that the world was only born yesterday, so far as right-thinking people are concerned.

And, up and down in the shade of glare, runs furiously the unresting tide of life. The main street is walled in by high, barrack like structures, fiercely western in the heart of the holy East, and the big hotels upon its frontage extend their uncompromising European facades. Within them there is a perpetual twilight, and meek puss-faced Sinhalese take perpetually the drink orders of prosperous planters and white-whiskered old fat gentlemen in sun hats lined with green. At night these places are visible realisation of earthly pleasure to the poor toiling souls from the farthest lonely heights of the mountains and the jungle.” The process goes on still …

Develop we must, but cautiously – with the full awareness of the long-term consequences of each process. Development must be determined by empowering the fundamental rights of the people and of the future generations. Clean air, clean water, access to food and freedom from intoxication, are some of these fundamental rights. Any process that claims to be part of a development process must address these, among other social and legal fundamental rights.

One problem has been that, the movement of a country with traditional non-consumptive values, into a consumerist society based on fossil energy tends to erode these values rapidly. Often, we are told that this is a necessary prerequisite to become a ‘developed country’, but this need not be so. We need to address that fundamental flaw stated in 1979. We need to wean ourselves away from the hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. Which means moving from a fossil fuel-based economy to a renewable energy-based economy.

Fossil Fuels or fossil hydrocarbons are the repository of excess carbon dioxide that is constantly being injected into the atmosphere by volcanic action for over the last 200 million years. Hydrocarbons are substances that were created to lock up that excess Carbon Dioxide, sustaining the stable, Oxygen rich atmosphere we enjoy today. Burning this fossil stock of hydrocarbons is the principal driver of modern society as well as climate change. It is now very clear that the stability of planetary climate cycles is in jeopardy and a very large contributory factor to this crisis are the profligate activities of modern human society.

As a response to the growing public concern that fossil fuels are destroying our future, the fossil industry developed a ‘placating’ strategy. Plant a tree, they say, the tree will absorb the carbon we emit and take it out of the atmosphere, through this action we become Carbon neutral. When one considers that the Carbon which lay dormant for 200 million years was put into the atmosphere today, can never be locked up for an equal amount of time by planting a tree. A tree can hold the Carbon for 500 years at best and when it dies its Carbon will be released into the atmosphere again as Carbon Dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide is extracted from the atmosphere by plants and converted into a solid form through the action of photosynthesis. Photosynthetic biomass performs the act of primary production, the initial step in the manifestation of life. This material has the ability to increase in mass by the absorption of solar or other electromagnetic radiation, while releasing oxygen and water vapor into the atmosphere. It is only photosynthetic biomass that powers carbon sequestration, carbohydrate production, oxygen generation and water transformation, i.e., all actions essential for the sustainability of the life support system of the planet.

Yet currently, it is only one product of this photosynthetic biomass, sequestered carbon, usually represented by wood/timber, that is recognized as having commercial value in the market for mitigating climate change. The ephemeral part, the leaves, are generally ignored, yet the photosynthetic biomass in terrestrial ecosystems are largely composed of leaves, this component needs a value placed on it for its critical ‘environmental services’

With growth in photosynthetic biomass, we will see more Oxygen, Carbon sequestering and water cleansing, throughout the planet. As much of the biomass to be gained is in degraded ecosystems around the planet and as these areas are also home to the world’s rural poor, these degraded ecosystems have great growth potential for generating photosynthetic biomass of high value. If the restoration of these degraded ecosystems to achieve optimal photosynthetic biomass cover becomes a global goal, the amazing magic of photosynthesis could indeed help change our current dire course, create a new paradigm of growth and make the planet more benign for our children.

Instead of flogging the dead horse of fossil energy-based growth as ‘Economic Development’, instead of getting the population addicted to fossil energy, will we have the commonsense to appreciate the value of photosynthetic biomass and encourage businesses that obtain value for the nations Primary Ecosystem Services (PES)? The realization of which, will enrich not only our rural population but rural people the world over!

Continue Reading