Rohingya in Mullaitivu: Sri Lanka’s Detention Policy Faces a Fresh Human-Rights Test

Nearly two years after 116 Rohingya reached Sri Lanka by sea, a fresh Human Rights Commission inspection keeps the central question alive: can a state protect its borders while treating people fleeing persecution as rights-holders rather than a security problem?

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has published a new report following an unannounced inspection on 3 September of the Immigration Detention Centre inside the Air Force Camp in Mullaitivu. The Commission lists the report as issued on 19 October 2026 and highlighted the detainees’ situation again on 21 October.

The history matters. On 19 December 2024, a trawler carrying 116 Rohingya, including 57 children, drifted near Mullivaikkal after a dangerous journey from Myanmar. Local fishermen provided assistance and the Navy escorted the vessel to Trincomalee. Survivors were later detained in Mullaitivu. The Commission’s January 2025 assessment stressed children’s best interests, access to appropriate welfare support, meaningful UNHCR access and the principle of non-refoulement.

A refugee treaty gap does not erase other obligations

Sri Lanka is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. That fact is often treated as the end of the legal discussion. It is not. The Human Rights Commission has pointed to domestic and international protections that remain relevant, including the best-interests requirement for children and Sri Lanka’s statutory prohibition on returning a person to a state where substantial grounds exist for believing that person would face enforced disappearance.

Amnesty International has separately argued that group detention without individualised assessment is arbitrary and called for access to international protection procedures, adequate healthcare, sanitation and legal status. Those are Amnesty’s legal conclusions and recommendations, not a judicial finding against the Sri Lankan state. They nevertheless reinforce the need for government to explain publicly the legal basis, necessity and duration of each person’s detention.

UNHCR access is an accountability issue

The Commission’s earlier recommendations called for specialised UN agencies, including UNHCR, to have meaningful access so protection needs could be assessed. If access is now being provided, the government should say so clearly and describe the process. If it remains restricted, the responsible ministry should explain the legal and operational reason.

This matters beyond one group. Sri Lanka sits on Indian Ocean migration routes and may again receive people fleeing persecution, conflict or trafficking. Ad hoc detention inside a military facility is not a durable asylum policy. A transparent civilian framework should establish screening, child protection, access to counsel and interpreters, independent monitoring, humanitarian access and individual decisions subject to review.

What foreign missions and UN agencies should ask

International partners should seek concrete answers rather than rhetorical commitments: how many people remain detained; how many are children; whether UNHCR has confidential access; whether individual protection assessments have occurred; what alternatives to detention were considered; and what safeguards prevent return to a place where a person faces a prohibited risk.

Lanka Witness assessment: Border control and refugee protection are not mutually exclusive. Sri Lanka’s credibility will be measured by whether each person receives an individual, lawful and reviewable decision — and whether children and vulnerable people are treated first as human beings under the state’s protection.

Image: Anton Gutmann, Rohingya refugees at Kutupalong, Bangladesh, 29 April 2018, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Illustrative only; the people pictured are not the Mullaitivu detainees.