Subscribe to our WhatsApp Channel
The Supreme Court’s decision to annul the presidential pardon granted to Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero under a previous government, and his return to prison, sparked a storm on social media. Supporters organised a march for his release, and many posts claimed he had been jailed simply for speaking up for war heroes. Few of them explained what the courts actually found. Here is how the claim was shared, followed by a full explanation of why he is behind bars.
Social Media Posts:
Posts promoting the march held for him were shared with the line, “Sentenced to prison for speaking up to save war heroes…”
Claim examined: Gnanasara Thero was jailed for speaking up to save war heroes. We examined the court cases against him to establish what led to his prison sentence, and whether speaking up for war heroes was the reason.
Fact-Check:
The main events behind Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero’s prison sentence, and their legal background, are set out below.
A timeline of the key events, compiled from the court records and news reports cited in this article.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2010 | Journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda disappears. Case B 7417/10 is heard at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court; army intelligence officers are later remanded. |
| January 25, 2016 | Gnanasara Thero addresses the Homagama courtroom without permission, insults a Senior State Counsel, and threatens Sandya Ekneligoda. |
| June 14, 2018 | Homagama Magistrate’s Court convicts him of threatening Sandya Ekneligoda: six months’ rigorous imprisonment (later suspended for five years on appeal). |
| August 8, 2018 | Court of Appeal convicts him on four counts of contempt of court: sentences totalling 19 years, running concurrently as six years’ rigorous imprisonment. |
| May 23, 2019 | President Maithripala Sirisena pardons him under Article 34; he is released after about nine months in prison. |
| 2019 | Sandya Ekneligoda and the Centre for Policy Alternatives challenge the pardon through fundamental rights petitions. |
| September 10, 2026 | Supreme Court declares the pardon unconstitutional and void. |
| September 29, 2026 | Court of Appeal issues an arrest warrant after he fails to appear. |
| October 3, 2026 | He is taken into custody by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). |
| October 5, 2026 | Court of Appeal orders the six-year sentence to take effect; he is sent to Welikada Prison. |
The 2016 Homagama Courtroom Incident Triggered the Contempt Case
In 2010, the Homagama Magistrate’s Court was hearing case B 7417/10, the inquiry into the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. A group of army intelligence officers had been remanded on suspicion of involvement. More information here and here.
The Attorney General later filed charges under the Penal Code against nine army intelligence personnel for abduction, wrongful confinement in secret and conspiracy to murder. Former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director, retired Major General Suresh Sallay, was brought before court to give evidence in this case in October 2026. More information here and here.
On January 25, 2016, while the case was being heard, Gnanasara Thero entered the courtroom. He was not a complainant, accused or witness, and had no legal connection to the case. He argued that the remanded intelligence officers were war heroes who had served the country and should be released immediately. Without the judge’s permission, he addressed the open court, declaring that he did not accept its orders and that the law of the land should not operate this way. He also insulted Senior State Counsel Dileepa Peiris, calling him a “eunuch state officer”. More information here and here.
Because this conduct disrupted the proceedings, the then Homagama Magistrate referred a contempt complaint against him to the Court of Appeal. Based on that complaint, four charges were filed against him in the Court of Appeal under CA (CC) 04/2016.
On August 8, 2018, the Court of Appeal found him guilty on all four charges. The sentences for the individual charges totalled 19 years of rigorous imprisonment, but as they were to run concurrently, he faced six years of rigorous imprisonment. More information here and here.
A Presidential Pardon Freed Him in May 2019
After he had served about nine months, then President Maithripala Sirisena pardoned Gnanasara Thero under Article 34 of the Constitution, and he was released on May 23, 2019. More information here and here.
In 2019, Sandya Ekneligoda and the Centre for Policy Alternatives challenged the pardon by filing fundamental rights petitions (SC FR 256/19 and SC FR 257/19) in the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that pardoning a person convicted of an offence such as contempt of court, without a valid reason, seriously undermines judicial independence, the rule of law and the administration of justice.
Supreme Court Annulled the Pardon in September 2026
On September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that the former President had granted the pardon outside the legal process, making it unlawful and void. As a result, Gnanasara Thero had to return to prison to serve the rest of his six-year sentence. More information here and here.
Supreme Court Found Serious Legal Flaws in the Pardon
The 58-page judgment, written by Justice Janak De Silva, identified the following key flaws in how the former President granted the pardon.
The President did not exercise his power under Article 34 of the Constitution independently, fairly or after considering the facts. No reasons for the pardon were recorded in writing. Instead, the President mechanically signed a brief minute prepared by the Additional Secretary (Legal) of the Presidential Secretariat, without any inquiry of his own. The Court held that handing over a power and responsibility the law vests in the President to another official’s discretion was unlawful. It also found that the process breached the rules of natural justice. The Court stressed that the constitutional power of pardon is held in trust for the public, not a tool to be used arbitrarily for personal or political ends.
Because of these flaws, the Court ruled that the pardon violated the right to equality before the law guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution and annulled it entirely. More information here and here.
Justices Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath B. Abayakoon agreed with the judgment. The judgment itself did not order his arrest. When prison officers went to the Rajagiriya temple on September 12, he could not be found, as reported at the time. On the Attorney General’s motion, the Court of Appeal issued an arrest warrant on September 29. He was taken into custody by the CID on October 3, and on October 5 the Court of Appeal ordered his six-year sentence to take effect. He was then sent to Welikada Prison.
The Sandya Ekneligoda Threat Case Is Separate, and Its Sentence Is Suspended
A second case, separate from the contempt of court case, was filed against Gnanasara Thero over the same day. On January 25, 2016, while behaving disruptively in the Homagama Magistrate’s courtroom, he abused Sandya Ekneligoda, who was present, and criminally intimidated her. On her complaint, the Homagama Police filed a separate case under the Penal Code in the Homagama Magistrate’s Court. On June 14, 2018, after a trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. It also ordered him to pay Rs. 100,000 in compensation to Mrs. Ekneligoda. He appealed to the Homagama High Court and was released on bail within a few days.
Legally, the six-month sentence has not been served, but it is not currently in force. The Homagama High Court, hearing his appeal, upheld the conviction. However, the High Court judge suspended the six-month rigorous imprisonment sentence for five years. More information here and here.
The case over threatening Sandya Ekneligoda is therefore a separate case, and its six-month sentence remains suspended. As of October 2026, Gnanasara Thero is in prison because of the other case: the six-year contempt of court sentence, now enforced after the Supreme Court annulled his presidential pardon.
The two cases at a glance:
| Contempt of court case | Sandya Ekneligoda threat case | |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal, CA (CC) 04/2016 | Homagama Magistrate’s Court, then Homagama High Court on appeal |
| Offence | Contempt of court: disrupting proceedings, defying court orders and insulting a State Counsel | Criminal intimidation and insult under the Penal Code |
| Verdict | Guilty on four charges (August 8, 2018) | Guilty (June 14, 2018); conviction upheld on appeal |
| Sentence | 19 years in total, served concurrently as six years’ rigorous imprisonment | Six months’ rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 3,000 fine and Rs. 100,000 compensation |
| Pardon | Pardoned May 2019; pardon annulled by Supreme Court on September 10, 2026 | Not pardoned |
| Status (October 2026) | Being served: sentence took effect on October 5, 2026 | Suspended for five years by the High Court |
Contempt of Court Is a Serious Offence Under Sri Lankan Law
In Sri Lanka, contempt of court is a serious offence. It exists to protect the independence and dignity of the judiciary and the administration of justice. The legal position is as follows.
Contempt of court in Sri Lanka falls mainly into two categories:
- Contempt in the face of the court: threatening a judge, lawyer, or witness inside the courtroom, shouting, or disrupting proceedings.
- Contempt outside the court: questioning judges’ impartiality through the media, social media, or public statements, maliciously attacking judgments, or influencing the outcome of a pending case.
Under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have full power to try and punish contempt committed against them.
Article 105(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka (English text). Source: Parliament of Sri Lanka
- New legal position (Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024): Until recently, Sri Lanka had no written law on contempt of court, and judges had wide discretion over punishment. The Act passed in 2024 clearly defines contempt of court and sets out the penalties and the rights of the accused.
Under the 2024 Act and general legal provisions, the possible punishments are:
- Imprisonment: simple or rigorous imprisonment, depending on the nature of the offence. For example, Gnanasara Thero was sentenced to six years’ rigorous imprisonment and former MP Ranjan Ramanayake to four years’ rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court.
- Fines: a fine fixed by the court, in addition to or instead of imprisonment.
- Warning and discharge: if the offender apologises to the court unconditionally and the court accepts it, judges may release them with a strict warning or on a bond of good behaviour.
How a Presidential Pardon Works in Sri Lanka
The President’s power to pardon comes from Article 34 of the Constitution. Under Article 34(1), for any person convicted by any court in Sri Lanka, the President may:
- grant a free or conditional pardon.
- grant a respite, temporarily postponing the execution of the sentence.
- substitute a less severe form of punishment.
- remit the whole or any part of the punishment.
A contempt sentence imposed by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal is still a punishment imposed by a Sri Lankan court. It can therefore be pardoned under the Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court has annulled presidential pardons in some cases, holding that the pardon power is not “an unlimited or arbitrary power” and must not violate Article 12(1), which guarantees equality before the law.
For example, in the Duminda Silva case (January 17, 2024), the Supreme Court annulled the presidential pardon granted to former MP Duminda Silva. The Court stressed that pardons granted outside proper legal procedure and without a lawful basis are unlawful.
Duminda Silva had been sentenced to death for the 2011 killing of former MP Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra. Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa pardoned him in June 2021.
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of September 10, 2026, on the fundamental rights petitions challenging Gnanasara Thero’s 2019 pardon, clarified the law on presidential pardons in contempt cases. More information here.
Contempt of court laws exist to protect public confidence in the justice system and the independence of the judiciary, not the personal dignity of judges. An arbitrary pardon for this offence weakens judicial independence.
In principle, when considering a pardon for contempt of court, a President should examine whether the offender admitted guilt and apologised unconditionally before the court, and whether releasing him serves the public good.
The Procedure a Pardon Must Follow
Article 34(1) of the Constitution sets out a formal procedure the President must follow when an offender has been sentenced to death:
- Obtain a report from the judge who tried the case.
- Forward the report to the Attorney General for advice.
- Send the report, with the Attorney General’s advice, to the Minister of Justice, whose recommendation then goes to the President.
In the Gnanasara Thero judgment, the Supreme Court noted that this written procedure applies to death sentences. For other offences, including contempt of court, the Court held that the President must still apply his own mind and keep a contemporaneous written record of his reasons. A pardon granted mechanically, without recorded reasons, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and void.
Lawyer Harindra Banagala: Annulling the Pardon Restores the Sentence
We asked Attorney-at-Law Harindra Banagala to explain the legal position. This is what he said:
“The President has unconditional discretionary power to grant pardons. In other words, the President has the legal capacity to grant a full pardon of any kind, without being bound by any condition. Although the decision is the President’s alone, it is carried out through an executive process. That process involves calling for reports from the Cabinet of Ministers, the prisons authority, the Ministry of Justice, and the court that delivered the judgment. No written law sets out the procedure for granting a presidential pardon. However, this traditional practice of calling for reports has been followed for a long time.
“When former President Maithripala Sirisena granted Gnanasara Thero an unconditional pardon, one party went to court arguing that flaws in the procedure had violated fundamental rights. If there is a flaw in the procedure, the fundamental rights violation is committed by the officials responsible for that procedure, such as the Minister of Justice or the Commissioner General of Prisons. The President only exercises his discretionary power. Even so, the Supreme Court judgment set aside the pardon. When a legal order is annulled, the position returns to what it was before, as if the order had never been made. That means Gnanasara Thero’s sentence must be enforced again.”
Watch our detailed Fact Crescendo interview with Attorney-at-Law Harindra Banagala on the legal position of presidential pardons below.
Join us to learn more about our fact-check investigations.
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Google News | TikTok
Conclusion
Our fact-check shows that the claim that Gnanasara Thero is in prison merely for speaking up for war heroes is misleading. It is true that, at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court, he tried to speak on behalf of the army intelligence officers remanded over the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda. However, he was jailed not for his views on war heroes but for undermining the independence of the court, pressuring a judge, and breaking the law of the land. The Court of Appeal convicted him of contempt of court in 2018 and sentenced him to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.
He was pardoned by a previous government in 2019. On fundamental rights petitions challenging that pardon, the Supreme Court annulled it on September 10, 2026, finding that it had been granted arbitrarily, without recorded reasons and in violation of Article 12(1). He is now serving the rest of the six-year sentence, while a separate six-month sentence for threatening Sandya Ekneligoda remains suspended.
