A serious controversy has emerged in Sri Lanka following allegations that a journalist covering a nationally significant “Walk for Peace” was assaulted and obstructed while reporting, with claims implicating a media official attached to the President’s office. The incident has triggered strong condemnation from media rights groups and intensified concerns over press freedom, institutional conduct, and equal access to public events for journalists.
According to a press statement issued by the Free Media Movement, the organisation has strongly condemned what it describes as unacceptable interference in journalistic duties during the peace march, which had attracted both local and international attention. The statement highlights allegations made by Lake House photographer and journalist Buwaneka S. Perera, who was covering the event as part of his professional duties.
Journalist Buwaneka Perera stated that an individual who identified himself as “Chandana Sooriyabandara” claimed that the right to report on the peace march had been assigned exclusively to Sirasa Channel, a private television channel operating in Sri Lanka.
Perera has reportedly filed a police complaint alleging that he was threatened and physically pushed while photographing the march. He stated that the individual responsible identified himself as the Presidential Media Director. According to his account, the person also claimed that reporting rights for the event had been granted exclusively to Sirasa Channel, suggesting that other media organisations were not permitted to freely cover the proceedings.
These allegations have raised immediate concerns within media circles about whether unofficial restrictions or preferential access arrangements were enforced during the event. The Free Media Movement has argued that if such claims are accurate, they represent a serious violation of media freedom and equal opportunity principles that are expected in democratic governance, particularly during events of national importance.
The organisation further emphasised that individuals holding senior media coordination roles within the government are expected to ensure neutrality and equal treatment for all journalists, regardless of the institution they represent. It warned that any deviation from this standard risks undermining public confidence in both the media management process and state accountability.
In addition to the alleged assault, Perera reportedly stated that police officers at another location also interfered with his reporting, allegedly telling him that only one television network was authorised to cover the peace march. If verified, such claims would suggest a broader pattern of restricted media access during the event, further intensifying concerns over transparency.
The Free Media Movement also referenced an additional incident involving Anuruddha Lokuhapuarachchi, an International Reporting and Photographic Media Advisor attached to the Presidential Media Division. According to information shared by the organisation, supported by video evidence, Lokuhapuarachchi himself was allegedly obstructed by police while attempting to document the march. This development has added an ironic dimension to the controversy, as even individuals connected to official media structures were reportedly not exempt from interference.
The organisation has strongly condemned both incidents and questioned the decision-making process behind media coverage arrangements for the peace march. It has asked how it was determined that only one media channel would be permitted to report on an event of such national significance, and on what legal or administrative basis such a decision could have been made.
The Free Media Movement has also called on the Sri Lankan government to clarify its position and provide transparency regarding the organisation of media coverage for the march. It stressed that public events of this scale should be accessible to all accredited media institutions to ensure balanced reporting and accountability.
Furthermore, the organisation questioned the role of state institutions, including the administration of Lake House, in safeguarding the rights of journalists assigned to cover the event. It noted that as a government-owned media institution, Lake House journalists should not face obstruction while performing their duties, particularly in contexts involving public interest reporting.
The alleged incidents have sparked wider debate within Sri Lanka’s media community about press freedom, political influence over communication structures, and the safety of journalists covering sensitive public events. Observers say that if the allegations are confirmed, they could represent a significant setback for media independence and raise urgent questions about how future national events will be managed in terms of press access and transparency.
