Sri Lanka’s military has requested further time from the court to submit written opposition to a request made by a journalist against the army’s refusal to provide information about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam members who surrendered to the army in the last stages of the war.
The Tamil journalist has been seeking the information for the last five years.
The Attorney General’s Department on 28 March requested more time when the petition filed by the journalist in the Court of Appeal was taken up. The petition had been filed by B. Nirosh Kumar, who worked as a journalist for the Tamil Mirror newspaper, challenging a decision made by the Right to Information (RTI) Commission.
In a context where the Army had refused to provide information about surrendered LTTE members, Kumar had filed an appeal with the RTI Commission under the RTI Act requesting that the Army be ordered to provide that information.
On 3 November 2022, the RTI Commission took up an appeal against the army’s refusal to provide the information sought by Kumar. The army had stated that no person who surrendered to them in the final stages of the war in the north was registered.
On 4 April 2019 the journalist requested the following Information regarding members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam who surrendered to the Sri Lankan Army during the final war period.
“1. How many members of the above organization surrendered to the Army? (How many Male, Female, Children)
2. The places where the members of the above organization surrendered to the Army? Information related to this should be provided.
3. Details of the higher military officers, Army Regiments who took charge of surrendered members of the above organization, should be given.
4. What was the action taken against the above members who surrendered? If cases have been filed against them, the relevant information should be provided.
5. How many Generals (leaders) or high-ranking people from the above organization surrendered to the army during the final war? The information of Army Commanders and the Army unit to whom and to which they surrendered should be provided.
6. What was the action taken against the main members of the above said organization who surrendered? If cases have been filed against the surrenders or if they are being imprisoned, that information should be given.”
Journalist Nirosh Kumar says the RTI Commission judgement defends the army’s refusal to provide information about LTTE members who surrendered.
The RTI Commission was satisfied that the Sri Lanka military was not in ‘possession, custody and control’ of the information.
Led by Justice Upaly Abeyrathne (Rtd), Commissioners Justice Rohini Walgama (Rtd), Attorney at Law Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena (Attorney-at-Law), Jagath Liyana Arachchi (Attorney-at-Law) – Commissioner, and A. M. Nahiya delivered their decision on 8 November 2023.
The petition filed by the journalist against the RTI Commission’s judgement delivered was taken up on 28 March. The RTI Commission had requested that it be allowed to present the relevant documents to the court in order to appear as a party to the case.
Expressing opposition to the RTI Commission’s request, attorney Swastika Arulingam, who represented Kumar in the court, had argued that the RTI Commission should not be allowed to be such a party.
However, the Court of Appeal decided dates for the RTI Commission to submit the documents with regard to the latter’s request, and informed the journalist’s attorney that written opposition can be filed against the decision.
The Court of Appeal has decided to take up the case again on 21 May.
