Former parliamentarian Lakshman Kiriella spent a media briefing on Friday refusing to withdraw remarks linking the government’s handling of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera to an effort to win minority votes, insisting that his criticism was aimed at government policy rather than at Tamil or Muslim communities.

“I criticised the Government and never found fault with the minorities. Those criticising me have not listened to my full remarks at the meeting with the Mahanayake Thera,” he told reporters, the Daily Mirror reported at 1.31 p.m.

The exchange grew steadily more hostile as the day’s reporting went on. Journalists pressed him on whether his comments implied that minority communities supported removing a monk’s robes, and whether such statements risked deepening ethnic divisions, NewsFirst reported in a fuller account filed at 8.09 p.m. Kiriella repeatedly rejected that reading and asked journalists to quote his exact words rather than their interpretation of them.

Speaking partly in English, he said: “I am a lawyer. Kindly read it whole and then read why I criticize government policy.”

Asked directly whether he believed the action taken against Gnanasara Thera was intended to attract minority votes, he answered “Any other questions?” and later “I’ve answered all the questions.” Journalists told him he had not addressed the concern.

The remarks were made four days ago, and an ally has already objected

Neither filing says where the original remarks were made. This desk’s own record does.

Kiriella made them in Kandy on Monday, when an SJB delegation led by general secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara called on the Malwathu Chapter’s Mahanayake Thera — a meeting at which the prelate questioned several of the delegation’s claims and asked on what evidence they rested.

More importantly, the objection Kiriella was answering on Friday did not originate with the press. It came from inside his own coalition. Mano Ganesan, leader of the Tamil Progressive Alliance and an SJB ally, wrote to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa on Wednesday saying he was “deeply concerned and disappointed,” and stating the claim far more plainly than any newsroom had: that Kiriella had suggested the government was using the Gnanasara case “to appease Tamil-speaking citizens and other citizens who do not belong to the Sinhala-Buddhist community.” Ganesan also objected to what he called outdated terminology for the Tamil and Muslim communities.

Neither Friday filing mentions Ganesan’s letter, and Kiriella was not reported to have been asked about it.

A second claim that collides with the government — and with the Supreme Court

The Daily Mirror carries a fact NewsFirst does not. Kiriella also said President Anura Kumara Dissanayake could pardon Gnanasara Thera by presidential directive, with no legislation required.

“You don’t have to bring in new laws to pardon Gnanasara Thera.”

That is a harder position than the one he took in Kandy, where he argued the President could provide interim relief pending the enactment of a legal framework. NewsFirst’s account of Friday retains that softer framing; the Daily Mirror’s does not. The difference matters: a stopgap pending a law is not the same claim as a law being unnecessary.

Two things sit against it. Hours later the same day, Minister K.D. Lal Kantha ruled out a pardon outright, saying one would breach the government’s mandate on equality before the law. And the obstacle the Supreme Court identified is not a missing statute. On 10 September it declared the 2019 pardon arbitrary and invalid, holding that the Presidential Secretariat had no record of why it was granted and that the power must be exercised in the public interest, with reasons. A fresh directive would have to meet that standard — which is a question of justification, not of legislation.

Not reported

No verified newsroom has published the words Kiriella actually used. The entire dispute concerns language that neither filing quotes, that Ganesan’s letter characterised without reproducing, and that this desk has not been able to confirm from any verified source. Kiriella’s core defence — that his full remarks exonerate him — therefore cannot be tested against the record.

Neither filing says where Friday’s briefing was held or on whose behalf he spoke. Neither reports any response from Premadasa, the SJB leadership, Ganesan or the government to Friday’s remarks, nor whether the party has taken any position on the letter. Whether Kiriella still holds a formal party office is not stated by either outlet.

Sources: NewsFirst, Daily Mirror.