Five decades without executions: Sri Lanka’s suspended death penalty

In Sri Lanka, as of the end of 2024, over 1,000 people were imprisoned on death row, awaiting execution. Yet it has not carried out an execution for close to 50 years – the last took place in June 1976. As such, Sri Lanka is categorised as an ‘abolitionist de facto’ (ADF) state: those that retain death penalty laws but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. There are more than 40 other states worldwide that also fall into the ADF category, but of these, Sri Lanka has the largest recorded death row population, presenting an important case study of the paradoxical nature of the death penalty under ADF status. This post provides an overview of the contemporary death penalty situation in Sri Lanka, which, as an ADF state, receives relatively little scrutiny compared to retentionist states that actively carry out executions. 

The roots of Sri Lanka’s death penalty laws date back to the Penal Code of 1883, introduced under British colonial rule, which established the death penalty for offences including murder and treason. During the colonial era, capital punishment was widely utilised as a tool of repression and control. Bogambara Prison, opened in 1876, became one of only two prisons in Sri Lanka where executions were conducted, with a total of 524 executions carried out there before its closure a century later. In the post-independence era after 1948, the death penalty was briefly abolished in 1956 under Prime Minister S.W.R.D Bandaranaike, but reinstated soon thereafter in 1959, following Bandaranaike’s assassination. The last execution in 1976 marked the beginning of a moratorium period that continues to the present day.

Despite the suspension of executions, new death sentences are still handed down, resulting in continued growth of the death row population. Capital offences include murder (which results in a mandatory death sentence), treason, drug-related offences and sexual offences. During 2024, Amnesty International recorded the imposition of at least 25 new death sentences. For those detained on death row, conditions are reported to be harsh, characterised by serious overcrowding, sanitation problems and very little time outside of cells permitted each day. An extensive 2020 study by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka found a high likelihood of death row phenomenon among those under sentence of death: “The uncertainty of whether or not you might be hanged by the order of the executive tomorrow or next month or in a couple of years creates severe mental anguish … The prolonged time in detention compounds the unrelenting mental strain of living in fear of execution.” 

In recent decades, Sri Lankan leaders have at times threatened to resume executions. In March 1999, then President Chandrika Kumaratunga made an announcement indicating that executions would be resumed for those convicted of murder and drug trafficking offences, prompting a domestic and international backlash. In February 2019, then President Maithripala Sirisena also threatened to resume executions, claiming that this would occur within two months of his statement. Apparently inspired by the harsh anti-drug policies of the Philippines’ then leader Rodrigo Duterte, he stated: “To curb the illegal drug menace, it is necessary to implement the death penalty.” On this occasion, authorities even went so far as to sign the execution warrants of several prisoners and recruit two hangmen to carry out the executions. While neither instance led to the end of the moratorium, both demonstrate the continued symbolic power of the death penalty in Sri Lankan political discourse. 

Retention of the death penalty in Sri Lanka has been justified on the basis that it is supported by public opinion – a common claim in retentionist and ADF jurisdictions, often not underpinned by empirical evidence. Empirical research on public opinion on capital punishment in Sri Lanka is limited, but one small online study conducted by Eleos Justice in 2021 provides some recent data. The majority of respondents (79%) disagreed that drug crime could be resolved by resumption of executions; 76% stated that the death penalty should be abolished in law; and 70% indicated that the death penalty was not a deterrent against crime. While these findings reflect a non-representative sample, in-depth studies of public views on the death penalty undertaken elsewhere have found that public opinion is highly nuanced and sensitive to detailed questioning, especially where respondents are presented with scenarios reflecting realistic country-specific cases to comment on. 

Officials have also justified the retention of death penalty laws on the basis of sovereignty: the notion that it is a state’s sovereign right to determine its own penal policy, regardless of objections made on the basis of human right law or principles (an argument advanced in particular by the retentionist state of Singapore). In 2022, Sri Lanka voted in favour of a Singapore-led resolution amendment making this argument at the UN General Assembly, with the Sri Lankan delegation stating that: “the prescription of the death penalty is a sovereign decision that needs to be taken by a state having regard to its societal norms, the culture, and [its] specific challenges.” Facing criticism from the European Union over the 2019 threat to resume executions, then President Sirisena appealed to similar principles, responding: “This is a threat on our sovereignty.” Given the lack of executions over a near five-decade period, these stringent defences of the unused laws further highlight an attachment to the symbolic role of the death penalty.

Capital punishment has continued to attract media attention due to reporting of high-profile cases. For example, in September 2016, former Member of Parliament Duminda Silva and four co-defendants were sentenced to death for killing a former Presidential advisor and three others during local government elections in 2011 (Silva was later released after receiving a Presidential pardon in 2021, before his pardon was overturned and he was returned to death row). In January 2017, six police officers were sentenced to death after being found guilty of murdering a young man in police custody in 2014. And in January 2022, a prison official was sentenced to death after an incident in 2012 which resulted in the deaths of 27 prisoners. Amid public discussions of such cases, human rights advocates have raised wider concerns about the need for reforms to the criminal justice system.

Under ADF status, the death penalty in Sri Lanka remains alive in two respects: for the more than 1,000 individuals on death row, awaiting execution, the sentence is very much a reality; while the continued presence of capital punishment in political and media discourse highlights its powerful symbolic functions. In 2014, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) conducted a comprehensive review of the death penalty, and formally recommended the abolition of capital punishment and the commutation of all existing death sentences to life imprisonment. While Sri Lankan authorities have taken some positive actions (commuting the death sentences of 60 prisoners in 2017, and often voting in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution for a universal moratorium on the death penalty), the only way to truly move beyond the capital punishment system, and all its attendant harms, is to accept the recommendations of the HRCSL and take the final step of enacting full, legal abolition. 

Anmol Dikshit holds a law degree from Symbiosis Law School, Noida, India, and recently completed a short course in ‘Modern Legal Controversies’ at the Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford. His academic interests include international law, global legal governance and foreign policy relations.