Addressing custodial deaths 

Custodial deaths in Sri Lanka have been treated as a byproduct of law enforcement while they are, in fact, among the gravest violations a State can commit against its own citizens. The recent judgment in Tamil Nadu, where nine Police officers were sentenced to death for the brutal 2020 custodial killings of a father and son, offers a stark reminder of what accountability can look like when the criminal justice system chooses to act. It also throws into sharp contrast Sri Lanka’s persistent failure to confront a long and troubling history of abuse in custody.

The Tamil Nadu case was horrifying in its simplicity. Two small traders were arrested for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown regulations. Within hours of their detention, they were subjected to severe assault inside a Police station. Both men died days later.

Sri Lanka, by contrast, has struggled to deliver even basic accountability in similar cases. Custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings have been reported for decades, often following a depressingly familiar script. Authorities claim that suspects attempted to escape or attacked officers while “showing weapons,” prompting Police to open fire. These narratives are repeated so frequently, and with such similarity, that they strain credibility. Yet, prosecutions or convictions are non-existent, and meaningful institutional reform to prevent such blatant violations have not happened.

This culture of impunity has deep roots. During the violence of 1987–89 in the South, and throughout the civil war in the North and the East, enforced disappearances and killings by State actors became widespread. While the end of the war in 2009 was expected to usher in a more rights-respecting era, reports of custodial abuse have continued. The persistence of such practices in peacetime underscores that the problem is not merely historical, but systemic.

The case of Makandure Madush illustrates the dangers of this entrenched impunity. A high-profile underworld figure extradited from the United Arab Emirates, Madush died in Police custody under highly questionable circumstances. Authorities claimed he was shot during an operation, but the opacity surrounding the incident raised serious doubts. More troubling were reports that he had been providing information about powerful individuals, including alleged links between the underworld and political actors. His death effectively silenced those disclosures.

Incidents like this do more than erode public trust as they damage Sri Lanka’s standing in the international community. Extradition agreements rely on assurances that suspects will be treated in accordance with the law. When individuals returned to Sri Lanka die in custody as was the case with Madush, it raises legitimate concerns for foreign governments and undermines future cooperation.

Ending custodial deaths requires decisive legal and institutional action. The Attorney General must take a proactive role in pursuing cases against law enforcement officers implicated in custodial abuse. Independent investigations, free from Police interference, are essential. Mechanisms such as body cameras, custodial monitoring systems, and strengthened judicial oversight can also serve as deterrents.

Equally important is a shift in institutional culture. Law enforcement, especially the Police, must be trained and incentivised to prioritise due process over coercion. Torture and extrajudicial violence are not tools of effective policing but a clear sign of its failure.

The Tamil Nadu verdict demonstrates that accountability is possible, even in cases involving powerful institutions. If Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system is to retain any credibility, the era of impunity for crimes committed by the State and its actors must end.