> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Oncologist Wants Health Officials Prosecuted After RTI Order Goes Unheeded - URL: https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/featured/oncologist-wants-health-officials-prosecuted-after-rti-order-goes-unheeded/ - Published: 2026-10-06T05:53:48.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-06T14:37:37.000Z - Author: Jaffna Monitor - Tags: JM Exclusive, October 2026 **COLOMBO, Sri Lanka:** A consultant oncologist has asked Sri Lanka's Right to Information Commission to take legal action against the Ministry of Health and Mass Media after the ministry failed to comply with the commission's order to give him copies of two complaint letters held in a ministry inquiry file, according to people familiar with the matter. Dr. Nadarajah Jeyakumaran, a consultant clinical oncologist at the National Cancer Institute in Maharagama, had not received the documents as of Oct. 3, the people said. The commission had ordered the ministry to release them on or before Sept. 25\. Dr. Jeyakumaran has formally notified the commission of the ministry's non-compliance and asked it to act under Section 39 of the Right to Information Act, which provides for prosecution before a magistrate's court, they said. The commission's ruling concerns only his right to the documents. It does not address the allegations against him, which remain the subject of a ministry inquiry. The commission's order, issued on Aug. 20, named the ministry's secretary, Dr. Anil Jasinghe, and its information officer, A.B.W. Kumarasinghe, as responsible for releasing the letters, with a copy to the commission. It stated that if the ministry failed to comply by the deadline, the information officer and the ministry would be prosecuted. Under the law, defying a commission decision is a criminal offense. An official convicted by a magistrate can be fined up to 50,000 rupees, sentenced to up to two years in prison, or both. According to the people familiar with the matter, Dr. Jeyakumaran waited an additional week after the deadline to allow for postal delays before approaching the commission. He has asked the commission to formally record the ministry's failure to comply, begin proceedings under Section 39, direct the immediate release of the documents and inform him of the action it takes, they said. He has also asked that, if the ministry maintains it has already sent the letters, it be required to provide proof of the date, method and address of dispatch. The people said Dr. Jeyakumaran has argued that the commission has already ruled on the ministry's grounds for refusal, leaving only the question of enforcement. The commission's two other members, Kishali Pinto Jayawardena and A.M. Nahiya, have also been notified, they said. ### An Inquiry Opened in 2024 Dr. Jeyakumaran sought the two letters to respond to allegations under examination in a ministry inquiry, which arose from a complaint by a relative of a deceased cancer patient. The commission's decision identifies the letters as dated July 24, 2024 and Aug. 13, 2024, both originating from Teaching Hospital Jaffna. According to the decision, Dr. Jeyakumaran learned of the inquiry through a letter dated April 7, 2025, titled "Urgent Inquiry Regarding Allegations made by Relative of Deceased Cancer Patient." It was signed by Mr. Kumarasinghe, a senior assistant secretary, on behalf of the ministry secretary, and addressed to the director of Apeksha Hospital, who forwarded it to Dr. Jeyakumaran. Two days later, when Dr. Jeyakumaran visited the ministry's Flying Squad investigations division, a senior assistant secretary reviewed the file, told him it contained two complaint letters and declined to give him copies. He filed a request under the Right to Information Act on April 16, 2025\. When the statutory period for a reply passed without a response, he appealed to the ministry's designated officer on May 14\. The ministry refused the request on May 26, stating that the information could not be released because preliminary investigation No. MH/FS/PI/38/2024/B-123/263 had not been completed. He appealed to the commission on July 11, 2025. ### Ministry Cites Crime Exemption The ministry relied on Section 5(1)(h) of the Act, which allows a request to be refused where disclosure would cause grave prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime or to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In a submission dated July 22, 2026, the ministry told the commission that releasing the letters could jeopardize evidence gathering, expose complainants, compromise witness confidentiality, discourage future complaints and risk tampering with evidence. It said bodies such as the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and the police do not release documents from unfinished preliminary investigations. Dr. Jeyakumaran argued that the exemption applies to criminal and law enforcement matters and that no crime had been alleged against him. He cited Section 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which even an accused in a criminal case is entitled to a copy of the first complaint. He also pointed to Public Administration Circular No. 30/2019, which requires preliminary investigations to be completed within two months. An inquiry officer had been appointed on Sept. 2, 2024, he said, so the investigation should have ended by Nov. 2, 2024, unless an extension was authorized. ### Commission Rejects Ministry's Grounds The three-member panel, chaired by Dayaratne Lankapura, described a preliminary investigation as a fact-finding exercise to determine whether a prima facie case exists, at a stage where the authority does not decide guilt or innocence. It wrote that exemptions covering investigations are intended to protect the investigative process and cannot serve as a general immunity from disclosure, and that the burden lay on the ministry to show how releasing the letters would harm the inquiry or endanger witnesses or complainants. The ministry failed to meet that burden, the commission found. It said the ministry had relied solely on the existence of the exemption, without providing specific facts linking disclosure of the letters to any harm to the inquiry. The commission also noted that under Rule 11 of its 2017 rules, the ministry may not charge a fee for information released on its order. In a submission to the commission in July, the ministry said Dr. Jeyakumaran would be allowed to inspect the documents and learn the details of the complaints once his statement was formally recorded in the inquiry.