Gnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling

Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero was not at his temple in Rajagiriya when prison officials visited the premises yesterday to take steps following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified the presidential pardon granted to him, police sources said.

Prison officials who visited the temple on Nawala Road, Rajagiriya, were reportedly informed by those present that the Thero’s whereabouts were unknown. The development comes a day after the Supreme Court declared former President Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Gnanasara Thero null and void.

The three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath B. Abayakoon held that the pardon was arbitrary, violated the public trust and principles of natural justice, and was made beyond the proper exercise of the President’s constitutional discretion.

The case arose from Gnanasara Thero’s conduct at the Homagama Magistrate’s Court in January 2016 during proceedings relating to the disappearance of journalist and political cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda.

The Court of Appeal convicted him on four counts of contempt of court in 2018 and imposed concurrent prison terms amounting to six years. He had served about nine months when Sirisena granted him a presidential pardon on May 23, 2019.

The Supreme Court found that although Article 34 empowers the President to grant pardons, that power is held in trust for the people and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. The Court concluded that Sirisena had effectively acted on the recommendation of the Additional Secretary (Legal) without demonstrating that he had independently considered the relevant material.

Justice De Silva held that the pardon was “arbitrary”, violated public trust and the rules of natural justice, and was ultra vires the President’s powers. The Court consequently found that the decision violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The ruling effectively restores the legal position under the original conviction, leaving Gnanasara Thero without the benefit of the 2019 pardon. The Supreme Court also clarified that a pardon does not erase a conviction or sentence, but merely relieves an offender from serving the sentence to the extent specified in the pardon.

Gnanasara Thero, the General Secretary of the Bodu Bala Sena, had been convicted over his conduct during proceedings concerning the disappearance of Eknaligoda, who went missing in January 2010 and has not been located.

Sandhya Eknaligoda, Prageeth Eknaligoda’s wife, was among those who challenged the presidential pardon before the Supreme Court, alongside the Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.

The detailed account of the judgment indicates that the Court’s ruling primarily nullified the pardon and restored the legal effect of the original sentence, with the implementation of the sentence falling to the relevant authorities.

Police sources said that the Supreme Court, however, did not permanently close the door on executive clemency. It held that a future President could grant Gnanasara Thero another pardon, provided the power is exercised lawfully and after proper consideration of all relevant material.

The Supreme Court has so far overturned three presidential pardons granted to two former Presidents. In January 2024, the Court declared former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s pardon of former MP Duminda Silva unlawful and invalid. In June 2024, it invalidated two pardons granted by former President Maithripala Sirisena to Royal Park murder convict Jude Shramantha Anthony Jayamaha — the first in May 2016, which commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, and the second in October 2019, which released him from prison. Jayamaha, who was convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Yvonne Johnson, remains at large. Most recently, on September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court declared Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero null and void, ruling that it was arbitrary and inconsistent with the Constitution.