Here is the revised English newspaper article, incorporating the additional Sinhala material, including the reported statement by Attorney Sudath Wickramaratne, the response from Dematagoda Police, his reported political affiliations, and the investigation ordered by the Inspector General of Police. Allegations are attributed to the supplied report rather than presented as independently established findings.
Sri Lanka Police Investigate Lawyer’s Viral Claim About Vas Kavi: Dematagoda Police Deny Recording Any Statement
Attorney Sudath Wickramaratne’s social media statement triggers police inquiry after officers reportedly confirm that nobody was questioned over the controversial poem
COLOMBO, October 23, 2026 — Sri Lanka Police have reportedly launched an investigation into a controversial social media statement by attorney Sudath Wickramaratne, who allegedly claimed that Dematagoda Police had summoned his client and recorded a statement in connection with a disputed Vas Kavi, a traditional Sinhala verse associated with curses.
According to a Sinhala-language report published on October 23, the claim emerged on or around October 22, 2026, when Wickramaratne stated on social media that his client had been called to Dematagoda Police in connection with the poem.
However, following the circulation of the video and the resulting public controversy, police authorities reportedly requested an immediate report from Dematagoda Police to establish whether the alleged incident had occurred.
According to the report, an examination of the station's official records and inquiries with officers who were on duty on the relevant date found no record of a statement having been obtained from any individual in connection with the matter.
The officer in charge of Dematagoda Police reportedly confirmed that no such statement had been recorded and that the station had not received any complaint concerning the Vas Kavi.
The discrepancy between the social media claim and the police account has prompted a wider investigation into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement.
Dematagoda Police Deny Recording a Statement
The controversy centres on a specific factual question: whether Dematagoda Police summoned an individual and recorded a statement concerning the poem.
According to the report, police authorities acted promptly after the video attracted public attention, seeking clarification directly from the station concerned.
The station's records were examined, and officers who had been on duty at the relevant time were questioned about the alleged incident.
The resulting account, as reported in Sinhala, was that no individual had been questioned in the manner described by the lawyer and that no complaint concerning the poem had been received.
If confirmed by the original police documentation, these findings would directly contradict the central factual assertion made in the social media statement.
The distinction is important because claims that a person has been summoned or questioned by police can create the impression that an official investigation is under way or that the individual is suspected of wrongdoing.
When such claims circulate widely, they can influence public opinion before the underlying facts have been established.
Police verification is therefore essential when public statements concern specific law enforcement actions.
Inspector General of Police Orders Investigation
According to the report, the matter escalated after the police account contradicted the statement attributed to Wickramaratne.
The Inspector General of Police reportedly directed that legal action be considered and that an investigation be initiated into the circumstances surrounding the disputed claim.
The Central Criminal Investigation Bureau is reportedly conducting a broader inquiry into the allegation that false information was disseminated through social media, potentially misleading members of the public.
Investigators will need to establish the precise content of the statement, the circumstances in which it was published, the evidence available to its author and whether the claim was made knowingly or resulted from a misunderstanding.
The investigation must also distinguish between an inaccurate statement and one made deliberately to deceive. Those are not necessarily the same, and the relevant legal consequences will depend on the evidence and applicable law.
An investigation does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. Any decision to prosecute or impose professional disciplinary measures must follow the appropriate legal procedures.
Nevertheless, the reported involvement of the Inspector General of Police and the Central Criminal Investigation Bureau indicates that the authorities are treating the matter as requiring formal examination.
Lawyer’s Political and Professional Background
The Sinhala-language report identifies Wickramaratne as the general secretary of the Samagi Lawyers' Association, described in the report as an organisation associated with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya political movement.
It also reports that he is an active political member of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, or SJB, with activities centred on the Colombo District.
The report further describes him as a figure who has attracted media attention in connection with several recent incidents.
These details provide context for the public interest surrounding the controversy. However, political affiliation alone does not establish a person's motive, nor does it prove that a disputed statement was deliberately fabricated.
The central issue remains whether the claim about Dematagoda Police was accurate, what evidence supported it and whether the investigation establishes any wrongdoing.
As a legal professional and public commentator, Wickramaratne's statements may carry particular weight among audiences who regard lawyers as informed sources on legal proceedings and police conduct.
That makes accuracy and appropriate verification especially important when speaking publicly about alleged police action.
At the same time, the principles of fairness and due process require that the lawyer be given an opportunity to explain the basis of his statement and respond to any evidence gathered by investigators.
The Vas Kavi Controversy and Social Media
The disputed claim emerged against the background of widespread social media discussion surrounding a Vas Kavi poem.
The term is associated with a form of Sinhala verse traditionally linked in popular belief with curses or the invocation of misfortune. Such cultural subjects can generate intense public interest when they become connected to contemporary political or social disputes.
However, discussion of a poem and claims about police action are separate matters.
The existence of a controversial verse does not establish that the police have received a complaint, opened an investigation or summoned an individual.
Those are factual matters that should be confirmed through reliable evidence.
The episode illustrates how quickly an unverified claim can become a public controversy when presented through a video or statement by someone with a recognised professional or political profile.
Social media enables people to communicate directly with large audiences, but it also allows claims to spread before journalists, authorities or other independent sources have checked their accuracy.
Even where a correction is issued, the original allegation may continue to circulate through reposts and screenshots.
This creates a responsibility for public figures and media organisations to distinguish clearly between confirmed facts, allegations and personal interpretations.
Political Debate Must Not Replace Evidence
Sri Lanka's political environment is characterised by vigorous debate among competing parties, public figures and institutions. Such debate is an essential part of democratic life.
However, allegations involving police conduct should not become established public narratives solely because they are repeated by politically influential individuals.
If the reported police findings are accurate, the claim that a person was summoned and questioned over the Vas Kavi requires a clear explanation.
Investigators should establish whether the statement was based on information from a third party, whether the details were misunderstood or whether evidence exists that the claim was knowingly false.
The answers will determine how the matter should proceed.
It is equally important that any investigation remain impartial and that political affiliation neither shield an individual from legitimate scrutiny nor expose that individual to unfair treatment.
The rule of law requires the same evidential standards to apply regardless of a person's political position or professional standing.
Protecting Public Confidence in Law Enforcement
The reported denial by Dematagoda Police raises a wider question about the protection of public confidence in law enforcement.
False or inaccurate claims about police activity can undermine trust in institutions, create unnecessary anxiety and damage the reputations of people who are wrongly portrayed as subjects of an investigation.
Conversely, the authorities must ensure that their own public statements are accurate, transparent and supported by reliable records.
The appropriate response to conflicting accounts is to establish the facts through documentation, witness accounts and other relevant evidence.
If investigators establish that an offence has occurred, any further action must be taken under the applicable law and in accordance with due process.
If the claim resulted from an error or misunderstanding, the public should receive a clear correction.
Transparency in either circumstance would help prevent speculation from replacing verified information.
The controversy surrounding attorney Sudath Wickramaratne's reported statement about a client being questioned over a Vas Kavi has developed into a wider debate about professional responsibility, political communication and misinformation in Sri Lanka.
According to the Sinhala-language report, Dematagoda Police examined their records, consulted officers who were on duty and reported that no statement had been recorded from an individual in connection with the poem. The station also reportedly confirmed that it had received no related complaint.
The report further states that the Inspector General of Police directed action on the matter and that the Central Criminal Investigation Bureau is conducting an investigation into the alleged dissemination of false information.
The findings of that investigation will be critical in determining what actually happened and whether any legal or professional consequences are justified.
The fundamental principle is clear: claims about police investigations must be supported by evidence, and allegations of deliberate misinformation must themselves be proved through a fair and impartial process.
In a democracy, lawyers, politicians, journalists and other public figures have the right to express their views. But public influence carries a responsibility to verify facts, correct errors and avoid presenting unsubstantiated allegations as established truth.