Presidential Pardons Under Scrutiny: What About the Alleged Pardon Brokers?

Colombo — Sri Lanka's presidential pardon system is facing renewed scrutiny following a series of Supreme Court decisions that have declared controversial presidential pardons unlawful.

The latest developments raise a broader question that should not be avoided: if individuals acted as intermediaries or advocates in securing presidential pardons, were any financial or other improper inducements involved?

That question is particularly relevant to the case of former Parliamentarian Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero and the pardon granted to Royal Park murder convict Don Shramantha Jude Anthony Jayamaha.

Jayamaha was convicted in connection with the 2005 murder of 19-year-old Yvonne Johnson at the Royal Park apartment complex. After the courts imposed the death sentence, former President Maithripala Sirisena granted him a presidential pardon in November 2019.

The Supreme Court subsequently quashed that pardon in June 2024, holding that it was contrary to constitutional requirements and invalid in law. The Court also found that the manner in which the pardon was exercised infringed fundamental rights and the public trust doctrine.

The Rathana Thero question

The involvement of Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero in the Jayamaha pardon is not merely a political allegation.

The Presidential Media Division stated in 2019 that Rathana Thero had played a key role in coordinating the request for the pardon. It said he had brought Jayamaha's parents and relatives to meet President Sirisena and had submitted a written appeal supporting the pardon.

The Supreme Court judgment also referred specifically to an undated letter sent by Rathana Thero to the President, which was received and considered in February 2019. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda observed that the material before the Court suggested an inference that the decision to grant the second pardon may have been influenced by extraneous factors, including possible persuasion by Rathana Thero.

But the Court was careful not to make a finding against the Thero. It expressly stated that it would refrain from reaching such a conclusion because there was insufficient cogent evidence and Rathana Thero was not a party to the proceedings.

That distinction is crucial.

There is therefore a legitimate basis for asking questions about the circumstances surrounding the pardon, but it would be wrong to state as an established fact that Rathana Thero accepted money.

Indeed, there is another important piece of evidence. In 2023, the Criminal Investigation Department informed Rathana Thero that its investigation had found no evidence of a pecuniary offer from Jayamaha's family to him in exchange for securing the pardon. The CID investigation followed allegations arising from comments made publicly by former President Sirisena.

Consequently, the responsible question is not whether Rathana Thero "took money" — that has not been established — but whether the circumstances surrounding the pardon have been sufficiently and independently investigated.

Who were the alleged intermediaries?

The issue goes beyond one monk or one presidential decision.

Sri Lanka has had numerous controversial presidential pardons involving convicted murderers and other prisoners. If intermediaries, political figures, religious figures, lawyers or other influential persons played a role in persuading presidents to exercise the pardon power, the public is entitled to know how those approaches were made and whether any improper benefit was sought or received.

Any investigation, however, must be evidence-based.

It should examine financial records, communications, meetings, correspondence, statements by presidential officials and other relevant evidence. If evidence establishes that somebody demanded or received money in exchange for influencing a presidential pardon, that would be a matter for the appropriate criminal and anti-corruption authorities.

If no such evidence exists, that conclusion should also be made clear.

The Duminda Silva precedent

The issue has become even more serious because the Supreme Court has already invalidated another highly controversial presidential pardon.

Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa granted a pardon to former parliamentarian Duminda Silva, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra and others.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court declared the pardon invalid and ordered that the original sentence be implemented. The Court found that the constitutional procedure governing the exercise of the pardon power had not been properly followed.

That decision creates another obvious question for public accountability:

Were there intermediaries involved in the Duminda Silva pardon, and if so, what was their role?

That question should not be answered through political speculation. It should be answered through documentary and financial evidence.

A pattern requiring transparency

The Jayamaha and Silva cases are not isolated matters.

The Supreme Court has now intervened in several presidential-pardon cases, demonstrating that the President's constitutional power of pardon is not an unlimited personal discretion immune from judicial scrutiny.

The Royal Park judgment is especially significant because the Court examined whether constitutional procedures and fundamental-rights principles had been respected.

The Court's reasoning therefore raises a much wider institutional question: how should Sri Lanka ensure that presidential pardons are based on transparent, lawful and consistent criteria rather than personal influence?

The question has become even more relevant following the Supreme Court's September 2026 decision concerning the presidential pardon granted to Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero. The Court again invalidated a presidential pardon, this time concerning a conviction for contempt of court, finding violations of constitutional rights.

Sri Lanka therefore needs to consider whether the existing pardon mechanism provides sufficient safeguards against political influence, personal lobbying, conflicts of interest or financial inducements.

Investigate the system, not just individuals

The answer should not be another political witch-hunt.

If there is credible evidence that any person acted as a "pardon broker" for money, the authorities should investigate that evidence and, where appropriate, prosecute.

If the evidence shows that individuals merely advocated for prisoners without receiving financial benefits, that should also be established and publicly distinguished from allegations of corruption.

Most importantly, the investigation should not be limited to one presidential administration or one political party.

The public interest requires an examination of the wider system of presidential pardons — including controversial pardons granted under successive presidents.

Sri Lanka's presidential pardon is an extraordinary constitutional power. It can overturn the consequences of a judicial conviction and, in cases involving death sentences, determine whether a convicted person remains in prison or walks free.

Such an extraordinary power demands an equally extraordinary level of transparency.

The central question should therefore be simple:

Who approached the President, what representations were made, who benefited, and was any money or other consideration offered or received?

If the answers reveal corruption, those responsible should face the law.

If the evidence clears those who have been accused, that should also be stated unequivocally.

What Sri Lanka cannot afford is a system in which presidential pardons are surrounded by allegations of influence and money, while the public is left without a transparent account of what actually happened.

The Supreme Court has already demonstrated that presidential pardons are subject to constitutional limits.

The next step should be to determine whether the people behind the pardons were also acting within the law.