Former Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Deputy Minister Premalal Jayasekera has reportedly left Sri Lanka before a Supreme Court-imposed travel ban could be enforced, according to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID). The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Jayasekera and two other individuals to appear in court on October 21, simultaneously issuing a travel ban to prevent their departure from the country.

The developments follow a protracted legal battle stemming from a 2015 shooting incident that occurred at an election rally in Kahawatte supporting then-presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena. Jayasekera, along with former Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council member Nilantha Jayasinghe and former Kahawatte Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman Vajira Darshan de Silva, were initially convicted and sentenced to death by the Ratnapura High Court in relation to the incident.

However, the Court of Appeal subsequently acquitted all three individuals. The Supreme Court intervention arose after the victim’s widow, Shantha Dodangoda, filed an appeal contesting that acquittal. The court panel reviewing the appeal consists of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Gihan Kulatunga.

In light of the appeal, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara requested the imposition of travel bans on Jayasekera, Jayasinghe, and de Silva. Lawyers representing the defendants included Presidents’ Counsel Nalin Ladduwahettii, U.R. de Silva, and Anjua Premaratna, while the aggrieved party was represented by President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris.

The CID discovered Jayasekera had departed Sri Lanka on August 31, traveling to Thailand before the travel ban could be enacted. This information has been forwarded to the Attorney General’s Department as authorities continue to monitor the situation. The two other individuals remain in the country under the travel restrictions.

The Supreme Court hearing regarding the appeal and the associated travel bans is set for October 21. The case remains significant in light of its political implications, given the involvement of figures linked to the former SLPP administration and the contested nature of the lower court rulings.