-By Muslim Affairs Editor
(Lanka-e-News -06.Nov.2024, 11.30 pm) The Twists and Turns of a Trial That Gripped Sri Lanka’s Legal System: Eyewitness Testimony, Political Pressure, and the Untold Story of Ten Lives Lost.
The tragic events of December 5th, 2001, echo in the annals of Sri Lankan history. A heinous murder, a powerful family, and persistent rumors of political influence—these are the ingredients of the infamous Udathalawinna case. Central to this story is Mohamed Malik, the sole surviving eyewitness, whose testimony could have changed the fate of the accused, specifically Lohan and Chanuka Ratwatte. But was Malik's account coerced, altered to protect those in power?
Judge Deepali Wijesundara, presiding over this high-profile trial, expressed concerns that Malik’s statement lacked the detail necessary to firmly link Lohan and Chanuka Ratwatte to the gruesome crime. Speculation swirled around the possibility that his statements were influenced by two former Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP) presidents, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa. Many wonder: was Malik’s testimony manipulated to protect the Ratwatte family?
The backdrop of the Udathalawinna murder case is a charged election atmosphere, rife with tension and fears of political violence. At around 5:30 p.m. on that fateful day, a convoy of ten supporters from the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) escorted election officials who were transporting a ballot box from Madawala in the Katugastota district to the counting center in Kandy.
The convoy, however, would never reach its destination. Allegedly, a “thug squad” led by Lohan Ratwatte, son of Anuruddha Ratwatte, the then Deputy Defense Minister, intercepted the convoy. According to reports, the perpetrators forced the vehicle off the road, where it crashed into a lamppost. What followed was a massacre: the squad reportedly approached the vehicle, opened the doors, and ruthlessly shot all ten supporters at point-blank range. Then, they vanished into the dark, leaving behind a blood-soaked scene that would haunt the region for years.
The names of the victims are solemn reminders of the brutality that unfolded:
T. M. Fisar, 24
F. M. Rizwan, 27
M. R. M. Nazir, 25
A. M. M. Mohideen, 31
A. M. Milsar, 23
Z. M. Nazar, 19
M. I. M. Ashwar, 26
M. Riswan, 23
I. M. I. Fasar Yahamod, 25
M. Mohamad, 25
Their deaths not only shocked Sri Lanka but ignited cries for justice across the country. The SLMC and civil society groups pointed fingers directly at Lohan Ratwatte, accusing him of orchestrating the massacre. This incident was not the first time the Ratwatte family faced accusations of voter intimidation; during the October 2000 General Election, allegations of similar violence and ballot manipulation arose. Yet, for years, the powerful Ratwatte family’s influence over political and legal spheres appeared to shield them from accountability—until the winds of power shifted.
In an unexpected turn, the People’s Alliance (PA), led by then-President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, lost the December 7th election, ushering in a new United National Party (UNP) government. With the PA’s defeat, the Ratwatte family’s influence waned. Facing potential criminal charges, Lohan Ratwatte fled the country, accompanied by his wife and children. The exodus of the once-powerful family left Sri Lankans questioning if this would finally open a path to justice.
But soon, a new question emerged: Could a trial involving such powerful individuals truly remain impartial? Would witnesses, especially Mohamed Malik, the sole survivor, testify without fear or influence?
The prosecution’s case rested heavily on Mohamed Malik, the only survivor of the shooting spree. His testimony could have been the key to identifying those responsible. However, in court, Malik’s account lacked the expected specificity. He failed to directly implicate Lohan and Chanuka Ratwatte, raising suspicions that he might have been pressured to hold back certain details.
Judge Deepali Wijesundara noted that Malik’s account left much to be desired, leading many to believe that his testimony was weakened under duress. Indeed, it is here that accusations arose, implicating former Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa in allegedly pressuring Malik to tone down his statements, thereby safeguarding the Ratwattes.
Sri Lanka’s complex political landscape has often seen figures in power exerting influence over legal proceedings. In the case of the Udathalawinna massacre, it is suggested that both Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa, both influential figures within the SLFP, may have used their positions to protect the Ratwattes.
This alleged interference is not unique to this case; Sri Lanka’s judicial system has, at times, struggled to maintain independence in politically charged cases. However, few cases have gripped the public imagination as firmly as the Udathalawinna massacre, where the question of interference went beyond mere rumor, stirring national and international outrage.
Beyond Malik’s testimony, other evidence appeared to vanish or be delayed, further muddying the waters of the investigation. Ballistic reports, forensic evidence, and witness accounts that could have corroborated Malik’s testimony reportedly took an inordinate amount of time to reach the court. The delays in evidence submission only fueled the public’s suspicions of obstruction.
A legal expert close to the case commented, “In a country where influence is often exerted behind closed doors, it isn’t surprising that a case of this magnitude would face countless hurdles. But the lack of concrete witness testimonies combined with political pressure created a situation where justice was difficult to achieve.”
The influence of Anuruddha Ratwatte, former Deputy Defense Minister and a close ally of Kumaratunga, cannot be underestimated in this story. Known for his sway in military and political circles, Ratwatte’s reach extended into Sri Lanka’s judiciary. His support for his sons, Lohan and Chanuka, was unwavering, and it is suggested that his stature dissuaded witnesses from coming forward with damning evidence.
By the time the trial began, Anuruddha Ratwatte’s power was not what it once was. Yet, the mystery of Mohamed Malik’s restrained testimony continued to baffle the public, as speculation mounted around who might have pressured him and how.
In the end, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict Lohan and Chanuka Ratwatte. For many Sri Lankans, this verdict was a disappointing blow. For the families of the ten victims, it felt as though the justice system had failed them. The lack of a clear resolution left the nation questioning whether justice had truly been served.
While some were quick to blame the legal system, others felt the political overreach tainted any chance of an impartial verdict. The speculation surrounding Malik’s testimony has lingered for years, as Sri Lankans continue to ask: Did former Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa indeed intervene to protect the Ratwattes?
The Udathalawinna case remains a stark reminder of the challenges Sri Lanka’s legal system faces in high-profile cases. For justice to thrive, it is critical that the judiciary operates without political interference, free from the influence of powerful figures with vested interests.
This case, with all its unanswered questions, remains a warning and a lesson. It demonstrates the perils of unchecked power, the vulnerability of witnesses, and the importance of transparency in a democratic society. Until there is a system where witnesses like Mohamed Malik can testify without fear, cases like Udathalawinna may continue to erode public trust in the promise of justice.
---------------------------
by (2024-11-06 19:06:30)
Read 8376 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news
