More than four years after the MV X-Press Pearl caught fire and sank off Sri Lanka’s western coast, the country is still struggling to turn a historic court ruling into tangible compensation. The June 2021 disaster, which released billions of plastic nurdles and hazardous chemicals into the marine environment, remains the worst environmental catastrophe in Sri Lanka’s recorded history. While the physical wreckage has long since been cleared, the legal aftermath continues to drift in uncertainty.
In July 2025, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court delivered what was widely celebrated as a landmark judgment, ordering $1 billion in compensation for environmental damage, economic loss, and harm to the public. The ruling was hailed as a powerful affirmation of the polluter pays principle and a rare assertion of environmental accountability in South Asia. Yet, as of February this year, the initial instalments mandated by the court have not been credited to the Treasury, leaving the judgment largely symbolic.
With court proceedings now formally concluded, responsibility for enforcing the order has shifted decisively to the Executive. That transition, however, has exposed institutional gaps, competing legal strategies, and an absence of coordination that continue to delay recovery.
The Supreme Court’s intervention followed a series of petitions filed by State agencies, environmental organisations, and private parties. A five-judge bench fixed compensation at $1 billion and laid out mechanisms for recovery and distribution. When payments failed to materialise by the initial deadlines, the court reconvened to assess progress.
On 26 January this year, a three-judge bench reviewed submissions from the Attorney General’s Department detailing steps taken toward enforcement. These included travel bans on 14 directors of the local shipping agent, Sea Consortium Lanka Ltd., and investigations into their assets by the Criminal Investigation Department. After considering the submissions, the court approved the motion and issued a final order directing the Attorney General to proceed with implementation. With that order, the court brought the Fundamental Rights proceedings to a close, ending direct judicial supervision of the matter.
Speaking to local media, Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe emphasised that the case had reached a definitive legal endpoint. He noted that the final order of 26 January meant there were no further hearing dates and that the judicial phase was formally concluded. From that point onward, responsibility for enforcement and recovery rested squarely with the Executive branch.
Ranasinghe has strongly rejected claims that Sri Lanka intends to abandon litigation in foreign jurisdictions, particularly proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Court. He said there was no intention to withdraw any pending cases and described the issue not as one of liability, which he considers settled, but of financial quantification. In his view, maritime pollution disputes globally tend to end in negotiated settlements rather than full trials, and Sri Lanka’s strategy reflects that reality.
According to the Attorney General, decisions on enforcement and settlement must first be communicated internally within the Government before being made public. For now, he maintains that diplomatic engagement and parallel litigation remain central to the State’s approach.
Environmentalists and activists, however, see the situation very differently. They argue that the conclusion of court proceedings should have triggered decisive enforcement action rather than prolonged negotiations. Attorney-at-law Dr. Ravindranath Dabare, co-founder of the Centre for Environmental Justice, has warned that continued delay risks undermining the authority of the Supreme Court itself.
Speaking to local media, Dabare said that when a court order is not complied with, the appropriate response is to initiate action against the non-compliant parties, including contempt proceedings if necessary. He expressed concern that the absence of continued judicial oversight following the January order could make enforcement more difficult and allow responsible parties to evade accountability.
Dabare has also questioned the reliance on foreign litigation as the primary recovery mechanism. He argues that international liability regimes could impose caps far below the $1 billion ordered domestically, potentially weakening Sri Lanka’s position. From the outset, his organisation favoured domestic remedies and opposed heavy investment in overseas legal proceedings, a stance he believes has been vindicated by the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Another critical bottleneck lies in the Compensation Commission established by court order to oversee the distribution of recovered funds. The commission, chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Gamini Amarasekera, has yet to become operational. Justice Amarasekera told local media that the commission has not received formal written communication regarding the closure of proceedings and is still awaiting a certified copy of the final order.
He explained that the commission’s Terms of Reference, which define its authority and procedures, remain unapproved. Without them, the body cannot determine compensation amounts or authorise disbursement. He also noted that the commission is not a court of law and lacks enforcement powers, making clarity on its mandate essential before it can function.
Meanwhile, the Marine Environment Protection Authority, which played a central role in the immediate response to the disaster, now occupies a more limited position. MEPA Chairman Samantha Gunasekara said that the January hearing marked a procedural shift, with the Supreme Court effectively restoring control of the matter to the Attorney General’s Department.
He clarified that while some related cases remain pending, including proceedings initiated by MEPA and actions abroad in Singapore and London, the private compensation claim ordered by the Supreme Court falls outside MEPA’s direct mandate. Those matters, he said, are now handled entirely by the Attorney General’s Department.
MEPA’s General Manager Jagath Gunasekara confirmed to local media that only a single payment has been received so far. The local shipping agent has remitted Rs. 300 million, representing the sole tangible financial recovery since the judgment. No payments have been made by other parties named in the order.
Gunasekara acknowledged that there is currently no coordinated enforcement plan and said MEPA’s role is largely supportive. He noted that inquiries about legal strategy and recovery steps must be directed to the Attorney General’s Department, while MEPA continues to assist where required.
The X-Press Pearl compensation process now spans concluded domestic proceedings, pending cases in foreign courts, and an inactive statutory commission, creating a complex and fragmented enforcement landscape. As diplomatic engagement continues and legal strategies remain under review, the bulk of the compensation ordered by Sri Lanka’s highest court remains unpaid.
For communities affected by the disaster and for a country that promised accountability after its worst environmental crisis, the delay has become a symbol of institutional inertia. Four years on, Sri Lanka’s $1 billion verdict stands as a powerful statement on paper, but one that has yet to deliver justice in practice.
