A Sri Lankan court has sentenced former police chief Pujith Jayasundara and former Defense Ministry secretary Hemasiri Fernando to death for criminal negligence before the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings. A majority of a three-judge High Court panel found that the two officials failed to act on advance intelligence about an imminent attack.
The sentences are severe, but they do not mean executions are expected soon. Sri Lanka has maintained a moratorium on executions since 1976, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake supports keeping it, and both defendants may appeal. The decision nevertheless marks the most consequential criminal judgment yet against senior officials accused of failing to prevent the attacks.
A divided verdict assigns responsibility at the top
The near-simultaneous suicide bombings struck three churches and three luxury hotels on April 21, 2019. More than 260 people were killed, including 42 foreign nationals, and hundreds were injured. Local militants inspired by Islamic State carried out the attacks.
The prosecution argued that repeated intelligence warnings reached senior security officials before Easter Sunday. News 1st reported before judgment that the cases alleged criminal negligence and dereliction of duty despite prior warning of an imminent threat.
On July 31, two judges voted to convict and impose death sentences. The third judge dissented and argued that both defendants should be acquitted, according to Associated Press reporting. The split matters because it gives the defense a clear point to raise on appeal and shows that the evidence and legal responsibility were contested even within the panel.
The ruling follows a separate accountability track. In 2023, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court found that former president Maithripala Sirisena and several senior officials had violated victims’ fundamental rights by failing to act on intelligence. The Supreme Court judgment ordered compensation, while the present cases concern criminal liability.
Accountability does not answer every question
For many victims and members of Sri Lanka’s Catholic community, convictions for negligence are not the same as identifying everyone responsible for planning or enabling the attacks. The Catholic Church has repeatedly argued that the known suicide bombers do not fully explain the operation and has demanded a wider investigation.
At the seventh anniversary observance in April, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith said investigators were closer to the truth but still faced obstacles, according to Fides reporting. That position leaves room to welcome accountability for ignored warnings while also questioning whether the full chain of responsibility has been established.
The case also revives debate about how responsibility should be distributed inside a fragmented security system. A parliamentary inquiry found that police and intelligence agencies failed to act on repeated warnings. The dissenting judge’s position, and defenses raised on behalf of the officials, point toward disagreement over whether these two men alone had the practical authority and information needed to prevent the attacks.
Sinhala-language discussion following the judgments reflected that division. Some welcomed punishment for senior officials. Others argued that wider political and intelligence failures were being concentrated on two defendants. Social-media claims are not evidence, but the disagreement shows why the written judgments and appeals will be central to public understanding.
The death penalty changes the international frame
International headlines have emphasized the death sentences because Sri Lanka has not carried out an execution for five decades. In practice, a death sentence under the moratorium is generally treated as imprisonment unless a future government changes policy or the judgment is overturned.
That distinction does not remove human-rights concerns. Opponents of capital punishment can regard the convictions as a step toward accountability while rejecting the punishment imposed. Supporters may view the symbolic maximum sentence as proportional to the scale of the loss.
The international significance also lies in command responsibility. Governments around the world receive fragmentary threat information, and courts rarely impose such severe criminal penalties on senior officials for failing to prevent an attack. The appeals will therefore be watched for how Sri Lankan judges define knowledge, duty, causation and individual responsibility inside a large security bureaucracy.
What to watch
The immediate milestone is whether Jayasundara and Fernando appeal and whether a higher court stays or modifies the sentences. The written majority and dissenting opinions will show precisely which warnings the judges believed each defendant received and what actions they were legally required to take.
Separate proceedings against people alleged to have assisted the bombers are continuing. Victims’ groups and the Catholic Church will also watch the widened investigation for evidence about possible organizers, facilitators or political protection beyond the suicide attackers.
The next anniversary on April 21, 2027 will provide a public measure of progress. Before then, the government will face pressure to show that the verdicts are part of a broader, evidence-based investigation rather than the end of accountability.
Sources
- Associated Press, international, verdicts, divided panel and death-penalty moratorium.
- News 1st, Sri Lanka, charges and trial schedule.
- Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, 2023 fundamental-rights judgment.
- Fides, Vatican, Catholic Church position and 2026 anniversary remarks.
- Archdiocese of Colombo, Sri Lanka, memorial observance and continuing call for truth.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor. English- and Sinhala-language reporting and source material were checked.