Prageeth Eknaligoda: Sixteen Years On, Sri Lanka Still Owes His Family an Answer

The journalist disappeared in January 2010. In 2026 his case has returned to a permanent Trial-at-Bar, while other institutional decisions around the case have generated fresh controversy. This is an updated public-interest timeline of what is established, what is alleged and what remains unresolved.

24 October 2026 • Lanka Witness Unresolved Cases Desk

Prageeth Eknaligoda, a Sri Lankan journalist and political cartoonist, disappeared on 24 January 2010. More than sixteen years later, his fate has not been established. His wife, Sandya Eknaligoda, has spent years pursuing truth and accountability through Sri Lanka’s institutions and in public advocacy.

The central criminal proceedings concern allegations against military intelligence personnel. Those accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until convicted. The existence of charges and a trial does not establish individual guilt. Equally, the passage of sixteen years without a final answer is itself a legitimate matter of public accountability.

2026: the trial resumes

In May, Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena appointed a permanent three-member High Court Trial-at-Bar to hear the disappearance case. Contemporary reporting identified High Court Judges Nayana Seneviratne, Nalin Hewawasam and Lakmali Hewawasam as the bench. The renewed arrangement followed a prolonged interruption associated with the absence of a complete bench.

Judicial continuity matters in a case of this age. Witness memory, document preservation and public confidence all become harder to sustain as years pass. A permanent bench does not predetermine the outcome; it creates the conditions in which evidence can finally be tested to conclusion.

A promotion controversy

Earlier in 2026, the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association publicly objected to the reported promotion of an Army Intelligence officer who is an accused in the Eknaligoda proceedings. The association described the reported decision as damaging to confidence in accountability. Being an accused person is not proof of guilt, and a promotion is not proof of interference in a trial. The institutional question is narrower: whether decisions affecting serving officers facing grave pending allegations are governed by transparent rules that protect both due process and confidence in justice.

The Supreme Court and the presidential pardon

In September, the Supreme Court overturned the presidential pardon previously granted to Buddhist monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara in relation to his contempt-of-court sentence arising from conduct at a Homagama court hearing connected to the Eknaligoda case. The ruling concerned the legality of the pardon; it did not resolve who was responsible for Prageeth’s disappearance.

Yet the decision matters to the wider accountability story. Sandya Eknaligoda’s long campaign has repeatedly intersected with the conduct of state institutions, courts and powerful public actors. The Supreme Court ruling demonstrates that executive mercy itself is subject to constitutional scrutiny.

The unanswered question remains the simplest one

Where is Prageeth Eknaligoda, and what happened to him? International scrutiny of Sri Lanka continues partly because cases like this remain unresolved. The OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project’s mandate was renewed in 2025, with the Human Rights Council continuing monitoring and evidence-related work. The European Union has likewise highlighted the lack of significant progress on justice for people who were killed or remain missing.

For Sandya Eknaligoda and other families of the disappeared, institutional reform cannot be measured only in new commissions, bills or speeches. It is measured in answers.

Lanka Witness assessment: The state’s duty is not to guarantee a particular verdict. It is to guarantee a credible process: preserved evidence, protected witnesses, uninterrupted hearings, equal treatment of accused persons, and a serious effort to establish the truth. Sixteen years is already an extraordinary wait.

Image: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.