Sensitive Cases Must Be Decided Strictly Under Criminal Law, Says PC Ali Sabry

03-Aug-2026

.

President's Counsel and former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry has stressed that the gravity of the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks should not dilute the fundamental principles of criminal justice. While accountability is essential, punishment must always correspond to the offence that has been legally established. He emphasised that courts must remain steadfast in applying criminal law without fear or hesitation, particularly in emotionally charged cases.

His remarks came in a post on his official Facebook page following the death sentences imposed on former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, who were convicted of abetting the murder of 268 people by failing to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks despite receiving prior intelligence warnings.

Sabry stated that intelligence warnings had indeed been available before the attacks and that the tragedy occurred not because of an absence of intelligence, but due to the failure of those responsible for safeguarding national security to act appropriately. This institutional failure, he noted, claimed hundreds of innocent lives, making it imperative to acknowledge those failures to ensure that such a catastrophe never recurs.

However, he argued that criminal liability must always be distinguished from administrative or political responsibility. While he fully supports accountability, he respectfully disagrees with the imposition of the death penalty, stating that his concern lies not with the need for accountability but with the legal principles governing criminal liability.

Sabry explained that a fundamental principle of criminal law is that a person cannot be found guilty merely because of an act or omission unless the required criminal intent is established. The prosecution, therefore, must prove not only the prohibited act but also the specific mental element prescribed by law.

He observed that however serious negligence or dereliction of duty may be, and however disastrous its consequences, such conduct generally does not satisfy the mental element required for offences such as murder or attempted murder. Likewise, a failure to act, however grave, cannot automatically be equated with an intention to kill or to assist in murder.

He further noted that the enormity of the Easter Sunday attacks must not weaken the core principles of criminal justice. Accountability is indispensable, but punishment must be proportionate to the offence that has been proved. The law does not punish individuals merely because the consequences are tragic; it punishes only when every essential element of the offence, including the necessary criminal intent, has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Where the established misconduct amounts to negligence or breach of duty, the legal basis for imposing the maximum punishment must be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. The death penalty, he said, is not imposed for negligence but only for offences carrying the highest degree of criminal culpability. If the requisite intent for murder has not been proved, the legal justification for capital punishment becomes a serious question.

Sabry concluded that justice demands accountability while simultaneously requiring strict adherence to the fundamental principles of criminal law. Courts, particularly in highly emotional cases, must therefore apply those principles without fear or hesitation.