2026-02-06 / Ministerial Statement: Foreign Affairs 2026-02-06
## Summary
Minister of Foreign Affairs Vijitha Herath responded to a question raised under Standing Order 27(2) regarding UK sanctions imposed in March 2025 on four Sri Lankan individuals, including three former military commanders, for alleged human rights violations during the civil war. The Minister argued that these are unilateral measures under UK domestic law and are not legally binding on Sri Lanka, as only Sri Lankan courts or internationally recognised tribunals hold legitimate jurisdiction over criminal responsibility determinations. He stated that he met the British High Commissioner on 26 March 2025 to formally express Sri Lanka's objection, conveying that the sanctions complicate national reconciliation efforts and sought clarification on whether the timing was influenced by UK domestic political considerations. The Minister contextualised the UK action within a broader pattern of unilateral sanctions by the USA (2020, 2021, 2024) and Canada (2023), and affirmed that the Government does not condone such measures, will pursue diplomatic channels to safeguard sovereignty, and maintains that past human rights violations should be addressed through domestic accountability mechanisms.
Answer to the Question raised by Hon. Ravi Karunanayake under Standing Order 27(2) on 09 January 2026:
1. Sri Lanka’s plural and democratic character is recognized by the Constitution, which predates the defeat of terrorism in 2009. Read together, Articles affirm Sri Lanka as a democratic Republic (Art. 1), vest sovereignty in the People (Art. 3), guarantee equality before the law and non-discrimination (Art. 12), and recognize Sinhala and Tamil as Official and National Languages (Arts. 18–22), reflecting linguistic diversity. While Article 9 gives Buddhism the foremost place, Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) guarantee freedom of thought, conscience, religion and worship to all. Thus, all communities coexist as equal citizens within Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework.
2. An Inter-Ministerial Committee met and deliberated. The Cabinet has been verbally apprised, although no formal report was submitted. The Committee was appointed to assist Cabinet deliberations, not to brief Parliament.
3. UK sanctions on certain Sri Lankan individuals are unilateral measures under UK domestic law. Unlike UN Security Council sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, they are not legally binding on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has no obligation to recognize, enforce or cooperate with these measures, nor to accept the allegations or legal conclusions on which they are based. Any legally binding decision on criminal responsibility can only be made by Sri Lankan courts or by international courts with proper legal authority.
4. Under international law, Sri Lanka may formally object through diplomatic channels and uphold sovereignty and non-interference. In practice, international legal mechanisms are limited unless the sanctioned country agrees to be bound. Thus, the legal effect of UK sanctions applies only within the UK; their wider impact is political rather than legal. Please also see the answer to question 5 regarding actions taken by the Ministry.
5. The Cabinet is fully apprised, and the Government will take all measures necessary to safeguard Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As stated above, these are unilateral UK measures under domestic law; Sri Lanka is not legally bound and has publicly stated disagreement.
Following the 24 March 2025 FCDO press release titled “UK Sanctions for Human Rights Violations and Abuses during the Sri Lankan Civil War” imposing sanctions on four individuals (three former service commanders), I met the British High Commissioner on 26 March 2025 and emphasized:
- As a Government elected by all communities, we are building national reconciliation and unity, crucial in the current context.
- The UK action is a barrier to this process.
- Clarification was sought as to why the UK took this measure at this time, and whether it was driven by domestic UK politics, given the press release’s reference to an election-campaign commitment.
The Government of Sri Lanka issued a press release on 26 March 2025 underscoring that such unilateral action complicates, rather than assists, the national reconciliation process. I table the press release. Placed in the Library.
We reiterated that any past human rights violations should be addressed through strengthened domestic accountability and reconciliation mechanisms.
Unilateral sanctions were first imposed by the USA in February 2020 (against Gen. Shavendra Silva), and in December 2021, travel bans on former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Canada, in January 2023, also imposed sanctions on the two former Presidents as well as Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake and Navy Officer Chandana Hettiarachchi for alleged conflict-era violations. In December 2024, the USA sanctioned former Ambassador Udayanga Weeratunge and ex–SriLankan Airlines CEO Kapila Chandrasena for alleged corruption. Thus, the UK action is not the first and cannot be viewed in isolation.
7. The Government does not condone unilateral sanctions by State or non-State actors against its citizens. These differ from UN Security Council sanctions which bind all Member States. We have consistently maintained, including at the UNHRC in Geneva, that any allegations against armed forces members should be dealt with domestically. We reject international accountability mechanisms, including the evidence-gathering mechanism established under UNHRC Resolution 51/1 (2022). Our foreign policy is clear: we do not recognize unilateral actions taken outside recognized international legal frameworks.
Thank you.