by Durga Velayutham
The so-called White Flag incident has been used for years to accuse former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, of ordering the killing of surrendering LTTE leaders. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka was the source of this allegation. He claimed that surrendering leaders were executed on the orders of the political leadership. This narrative formed the basis for international criticism, sanctions, and vilification campaigns against the Rajapaksas. It has dominated discourse for more than a decade.
Fonseka has now admitted that his initial claim was false. This is what he established during the press conference held yesterday, February 18, 2026. He confirms that the political leadership attempted to allow LTTE leaders to surrender through third parties, including the ICRC and Amnesty International. He states that the plan failed because the LTTE did not trust the intermediaries. Fonseka himself ordered the complete annihilation of the LTTE leadership. By his own admission, he is the person who made the decision to kill, rejecting the possibility of surrender. The Rajapaksas did not give orders to kill anyone. Their intent, as admitted by Fonseka, was to rehabilitate and integrate, not to execute.
This is a direct admission of responsibility by Fonseka. The killings that occurred, which have been blamed on the Rajapaksas, were carried out on his orders. There is no ambiguity. Legally, this places full responsibility for any unlawful killing or excess use of force on Fonseka as the acting military commander. The political leadership cannot be held criminally liable if, as Fonseka states, they attempted to arrange surrender and restraint. The Rajapaksas’ actions were consistent with lawful conduct and international norms. Fonseka’s admission confirms that any deaths that occurred were a direct result of his decision, not of the civilian leadership.
Fonseka himself admits that he had full command authority. He had the power to execute the surrender plan. He chose not to. He gave orders that led to the deaths of surrendering leaders. This constitutes a factual and legal admission that the military command, not the political leadership, directed the lethal actions. Any attempt to hold the Rajapaksas responsible is now clearly contradicted by his own statements. [This could be the very truth many people are reluctant to acknowledge regarding the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunge, editor of the Sunday Leader, a few months before the end of the civil war.] The person responsible for any criminal or unlawful acts in these circumstances is Fonseka. The Rajapaksas cannot be implicated under the law if they neither ordered nor intended these killings.
Fonseka also confirms that the Rajapaksas engaged in diplomatic and humanitarian measures. They sought to negotiate with the LTTE through intermediaries, attempted to provide surrender mechanisms, and aimed to conclude the war with minimal casualties. These actions were lawful and demonstrate intent to preserve life. Fonseka’s own conduct directly obstructed these efforts. The legal responsibility for the deaths that occurred rests solely on him, because he exercised command authority to override civilian direction and permitted or ordered lethal force against surrendering combatants.
The implications are clear. Fonseka’s statements absolve the Rajapaksas of all claims of criminal intent in the final stages of the war. The narrative promoted internationally and among the diaspora that they ordered the killing of surrendering LTTE leaders is demonstrably false. Fonseka, by his own admission, was the agent of the killings. Any international or domestic legal assessment must place accountability with him, not with the civilian leadership. The Rajapaksas’ conduct aligns with lawful governance and adherence to humanitarian principles. Fonseka’s actions were contrary to these principles and caused the deaths he now acknowledges.
There is no room for doubt or interpretation. Fonseka admits to directing killings of surrendering combatants. He admits to rejecting surrender plans arranged by political leadership. He admits to taking full command decisions that led to death. These are objective facts. From a legal and judicial perspective, Fonseka bears complete responsibility. The Rajapaksas did not order killings, did not intend killings, and acted to prevent them where possible. Any claim to the contrary has been disproven by Fonseka himself.
Fonseka’s admission is a direct confession of actions for which he alone is legally accountable. The Rajapaksas are completely exonerated. All claims that sought to portray them as criminal actors in these events are invalid. The White Flag story, previously used to condemn the Rajapaksas, has collapsed under the weight of Fonseka’s own statements. Judicially and factually, Fonseka is responsible for the killings; the Rajapaksas’ conduct demonstrates lawful intent and attempts at peaceful surrender. There is no legal basis for accusing them. The historical and legal record, as established by Fonseka’s own confession, fully clears the Rajapaksas of any criminal liability regarding the deaths of LTTE leaders. The truth came out from the horse’s mouth; what remains must now speak for itself.
