The UK High Court has ruled against the former UK representative of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and secretary of Global Sri Lanka Forum, Jayaraj Palihawadanaa, in a landmark case concerning false claims he made against the executive director of the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), Yasmin Sooka.

Palihawadanaa has been forced to pay substantial legal costs and compensation to Sooka, retract his comments, and publish an apology online in English and Sinhala. Sooka is reportedly in discussions over establishing a scholarship fund for the children of political prisoners and families of the disappeared in Sri Lanka with her compensation money when she receives it.

The case follows a report Palihawadana published and sent to 47 diplomatic missions in Geneva in 2021, which claimed that Sooka held a bias in favour of the Liberational Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Sooka rejected his assertion and filed a claim under the UK’s Data Protection Act of 2018. She maintained that publishing inaccurate personal information was detrimental to her reputation.

Initially, Palihawadanaa had attempted to counter-sue Sooka, which the court dismissed. Palihawadanaa a prominent activist in the Sinhala diaspora has repeatedly railed against the Eelam Tamil diaspora and the ITJP. Responding to the ITJP’s calls for sanctions on Shavendra Silva, Palihawadanaa wrote to the Foreign Secretary and Minister for South Asia asserting, without evidence, that the ITJP’s dossier was “politically motivated”, with “no legal basis”.

“Naturally these allegations are completely false and appear to be a calculated attempt to discredit me in my work as a human rights defender in Sri Lanka. The Court will probably be aware that it is well-worn tactic of repressive regimes around the world to denounce human rights defenders as terrorists, or supporters of terrorists, smearing them by association” Sooka said in her witness statement to the High Court King’s Bench Division.

The decision is a landmark case as it granted permission for the first time from the UK High Court to make a Statement in Open Court in a Data Protection case.

“This brings to an end a long-running debate among practitioners about whether Statements in Open Court are available for other causes of action than libel, slander, malicious falsehood and misuse of private or confidential information,” said Sooka’s counsel, Guy Vassall-Adams KC said in the ITJP’s press release.

Another solicitor on Sooka’s behalf, Daniel Machover of Hickman and Rose, stressed that “it’s important that this court process acts as a deterrent and that’s why the financial penalties help drive home the point”.

In Open Court, Palihawadanaa admitted this falsehood stating;

“The Defendant unconditionally retracts and apologises unreservedly for the aforementioned untrue allegations made against the Claimant in the Reports. To indicate the sincerity of this apology, the Defendant has agreed to pay the Claimant a substantial sum to compensate her for distress and harm to her reputation arising from the Reports. The Defendant has also agreed to bear the Claimant’s reasonable costs.”

On his website, it reads:

“We accept this allegation is completely unfounded and ought never to have been published. We apologise unreservedly to Ms Sooka for the publication of this allegation and the distress that it caused her, and have agreed to pay her a substantial sum in damages and her legal costs”.

Read the ITJP's statement here.