By Sena Thoradeniya

A controversy has emerged, creating space for conspiracy theories regarding who persuaded the former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to accept the interim presidency following the resignation of GR in 2022.

The question of whether the US Ambassador Julie Chung or Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay was responsible for persuading him remains contested. The controversy has generated speculation and competing narratives. Wimal Weerawansa, in his Nine, The Hidden Story” (2023) attributed the intervention to Julie Chung. My own study, Galle Face Protest: Systems Change or Anarchy” (2023) arrives at a similar conclusion, though through independent analysis of publicly available evidence. I reached the same conclusion through a careful analysis of US involvement, presented in a dedicated chapter entitled US Footprints at the Galle Face Protest Site”. This analysis drew upon Julie Chung’s Twitter communications as well as the timeline issued by the US Embassy, which directed protesters toward strategically significant establishments. Based on these sources, I concluded that Julie Chung compelled Mahinda Yapa to assume the presidency.

To elaborate, my reasoning rests on the sequence of events at Galle Face, the content of Julie Chung’s Twitter messages, and the discernible evidence of U.S. involvement, which I examined extensively in my book. Importantly, I did not consult politicians, or individuals close to the upper echelons of power in arriving at this conclusion. As I am not a journalist, I did not consider it necessary to seek the opinions of those directly involved. Moreover, given the explosiveness of the situation, I refrained from soliciting external perspectives, relying instead on the widely shared understanding with my friends and colleagues that Julie Chung played an active role in the protests – an understanding substantiated by her public communications stated above.

It is a well-known fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plays a crucial role in advancing United States foreign policy objectives: has often been mediated through a network of ostensibly independent institutions. These include the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its affiliated organizations such as the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Research & Exchange Board (IREX). In addition, funding has been directed toward a wide array of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media initiatives, including Media Empowerment for a Democratic Sri Lanka (MEND) and ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights) Media.  In my book I have elaborated how collectively, these entities have functioned as instruments within a broader U.S. project under the stewardship of Julie Chung aimed at overthrowing (and possibly assassinating) a popularly elected President.

The methodology relied exclusively on observable events, public statements, and social media activity. Given the volatility of the situation, and the widespread acknowledgment of Julie Chung’s active role in the protests, further interviews were not deemed necessary.

Additional contextual evidence reinforces this interpretation; Julie Chung’s prior role as the then US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (and her boss Victoria Nuland, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, mastermind of the US instigated protest campaign at Maidan, Independence Square in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine), to the murder of Haitian President Jovenal Moise in July 2021. This provides a precedent for her engagement in political transitions. Chung had met with Moise just before his assassination, nearly one year before the almost murder of GR, just after Chung was posted from that Caribbean crime scene to a new coven (specifically refers to a group of witches gathered for ritual) here in Sri Lanka. After the assassination of Moise, Ariel Henry was selected as the Prime Minister by a group of diplomats called Core Group”, consisting of the ambassadors to Haiti representing Brazil, the EU, France, Germany, Spain, Canada and of course the US.  Henry was accused of having links to the killers of Moise.

Julie Chung presented her credentials to President GR on 25, February 2022, just 34 days before the Mirihana incident. Nuland visited Sri Lanka in March 2002. She met with GR on 23, March 2022, 8 days before Mirihana outrage.

From the day Julie Chung  assumed her ambassadorial duties, and prior to the eruption of protests we closely observed her meetings with almost all the Ministers, leading politicians affiliated to all registered political parties, high ranking military officers, religious dignitaries of all denominations, custodians of temples and churches, NGO bigwigs, so called civil society activists, media personnel, business captains, academics, scientists, marine biologists, those who have graduated from the US, LGBTIQ+ activists, visual   artists, writers, youth leaders, representatives of marginalized communities, war affected and displaced persons, differently abled persons, and protest leaders – many of whom she met repeatedly, almost ritualistically.

Her extensive travels across the country, visiting Southern Province, Eastern Province, Northern Province, Hill Country as the self-appointed Viceroy of Sri Lanka, which she engaged with provincial NGOs and other actors, collectively underscore the depth of her involvement. Thus, pawns were recruited, brainwashed and positioned for the final assault.  These patterns of activity reinforced our conclusion that Julie Chung was the central figure in compelling Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to assume the presidency.

In my essay titled, Speaker’s Statement: Julie Chung and Her Fellow Conspirators in the Dock Again” posted in Lankaweb on March 27, 2024, commenting on former Speaker’s statement made immediately after the No Confidence Motion of the joint opposition on 21 March, 2024, I discussed the following: who pressurized the Speaker, GR’s action or inaction, presidential aspirants among the conspirators, Haiti, the American test run proposed for Sri Lanka, role of protesters and  conspirators, near storming and bringing the Parliament under the control of the protesters as instigated by JVP stalwarts (victory over the Rajapaksa dictatorship would not be complete without seizing the Parliament”) and Avatars of 1988/89.  

Shamindra Ferdinando, in his The Island” Midweek Review” article titled, Clandestine visit to Speaker’s residence: Finally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight” (10 December 2025) reveals that it was the then Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Gopal Baglay who asked him to accept the Presidency immediately. 

Accordingly, Sunanda Madduma Bandara, author of Aragalaye Balaya” who served as Senior Advisor (Media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe disclosed Baglay’s intervention in his book. Shamindra says that obviously the author has received the blessings of Abeywardena and Wickremesinghe to disclose this. 

E-con E-news in its 7-13 December 2025 issue tells this about Sunanda Madduma Bandara: He appears to be a hand who writes and yet his hand is moved by other hands”; Madduma Bandara is unreliable as a narrator as media advisors” tend to be”. Again, in its 14-20 December issue says: Madduma Bandara’s media assertions have been frequently found to be numerically challenged and terminologically inexact”.

One website labelled Madduma Bandara as a propagandist. Daily Mirror Online reported that Madduma Bandara’s claim to widening trade deficit to the recent relaxation of import bans was referred to FactCheck.lk and classified as FALSE.

Madduma Bandara may be described as a political figure whose career reflects adaptability across different political regimes, having benefitted from the patronage of leaders across the political spectrum. A staunch supporter of the United National Party (UNP) since his undergraduate years, he first received political favour under R. Premadasa. Subsequently, he was appointed Secretary to the State Ministry of Mass Media by another Abeywardena, Luxman Yapa. During the presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Madduma Bandara served as Director of Information and, in 2014, was appointed Vice Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya by Mahinda Rajapaksa. He also held the position of Director General at the Ministry of Economic Development under Basil Rajapaksa.

His career trajectory was not without controversy. In 2016, Luxman Kiriella, the then Minister of Higher Education in the Yahapalana government, recommended Bandara for the Vice Chancellor post, a move that drew wide criticism and controversy. The Court of Appeal case Prof. Yapa Mudiyanselage Sunanda Bandara v. University of Kelaniya (CA Writ No. 134/2012–2013) further illustrates the contentious nature of his career ambitions.  An acolyte posting a post in LinkedIn said, Professor Sunanda and his rivals engaged in a race of institutional collusion and conflict” as political conflicts and rivalries increased inside the faculty, (this writer thinks that this statement grammatically correct, but semantically sounds like Madduma Bandara is equally responsible for institutional collusion and conflict!). Most recently, Ranil Wickremesinghe, succeeding Gotabaya Rajapaksa, appointed him as Senior Advisor on Media.

His publication appears as political glorification of Ranil Wickremesinghe, his present political master.

A respected political analyst who attended this book launch told this writer that Mahinda Yapa in his speech at this book launch, did not disclose that it was Baglay who persuaded him to accept the presidency. The responsibility however lies with GR who failed to reveal full situation in his book, The Conspiracy to oust me from the Presidency, how internationally sponsored regime change made a mockery of democracy in Sri Lanka” (2024),  (Janadhipathi Dhurayen Ma Nerapeeme Kumanthranaya- Jathyanthara Anugrahayen Woo Regime Change Meheyumen Sri Lankawe Prajathanthravadaya  Haellu Woo Hati” in Sinhala (2024), thereby creating an open-ended space for speculation. A former MP vouched to me that Mahinda Yapa confided in him that it was Julie.

Bringing Baglay into this controversy appears to be an attempt to absolve Julie by the UNP, while simultaneously allowing another conspiracy theory to emerge in which Baglay is positioned as the scapegoat. At this juncture much will depend on Baglay’s response; so far, he has not made any clarification. It seems unlikely that Jaishankar or Modi will allow him to do so. His silence serves the interests of both the US and India.

Even Baglay’s successor, Santosh Jah, the current High Commissioner, continues to maintain a stoic silence on this matter. As the present incumbent, it is his responsibility to ensure that no further space is created for conspiracy theories, particularly given the diplomatic implications for the country he represents.

While attending, Hiru, Salakuna” talk show on December 15, 2025, Wimal Weerawansa stated that Mahinda Yapa had confided to a friend that it was Julie who persuaded him. Contributing to this emerging theory, WW further suggested that Baglay may have visited Yapa following Julie’s departure.

Pages 98 and 153 of Maddma Bandara’s book are interesting:

Page 98
Baglay’s arrival at the Speaker’s official residence was sudden and unexpected. The residence was surrounded by a large crowd of protesters, yet Baglay did not disclose how he managed to reach the premises during such a tumultuous time, nor the route he had taken. Once inside, he made a bold promise: the crisis could be ended within 45 minutes – if he accepted the Presidency.

Page 153
Maddma Bandara recounts that Baglay insisted on appointing a member of the Rajapaksa family as Prime Minister. GR, however, vehemently rejected the proposal, warning that such a move would only ignite a fresh crisis.

Maddma Bandara reveals that the media reported that Mahinda Yapa would ascend to the presidency, and the story was carried across all newspapers. Yet, none of the outlets disclosed their sources or revealed who had provided them with this information. The same lack of transparency applies to Maddma Bandara: he does not divulge the origins of his account regarding Baglay’s sudden arrival, Baglay’s insistence on appointing a member of the Rajapaksa family as Prime Minister, or GR’s vehement opposition to that proposal.

Who would believe the author’s claim that Baglay insisted on appointing a member of the Rajapaksa family as Prime Minister, when Baglay himself was entangled in a grand conspiracy to oust GR – and GR, in opposing the move, was effectively standing against his own clansmen?

Following the events of May 9, 2022, all members of the Rajapaksa family holding political office – including Mahinda Rajapaksa (then Prime Minister), Chamal, Basil, Namal, and Shasheendra – tendered their resignations.

In this context, any suggestion of appointing another member of the Rajapaksa family as Prime Minister was both illogical and politically untenable. To insist upon such a proposition, as reportedly advanced by Baglay, undermines the credibility of diplomatic reasoning and appears detached from the prevailing political realities. Madduma Bandara paints Baglay as a diplo-mutt, rather than a seasoned career diplomat. If he were truly a mutt like our own people, Modi would never have posted him to Canberra, an especially important posting for India as a member of the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), which focuses on the so-called Indo-Pacific Region. India’s relations with MR were strained and the Indian media widely welcomed his ouster in 2015.

By this time, public anger and opposition were overwhelmingly directed at the Rajapaksa family. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s retreat to a naval base in Trincomalee was besieged by protesters, while vehicular traffic toward Katunayake International Airport was halted and searched under the watch of armed security forces, as demonstrators sought Basil Rajapaksa’s blood (Kaputa innawada”?). Against this backdrop of widespread hostility, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s response to the collective resignations of his family members was not made public. It was believed that GR initiated MR’s resignation. Consequently, claims that he rejected a proposal to appoint another Rajapaksa as Prime Minister are not only inconsistent with the political climate but also contextually misdirected.

A political analyst has interpreted this book as an attempt to enhance Ranil’s public image (personal communication). However, the author’s sources are limited exclusively to the works of GR and Wimal Weerawansa, which are employed merely to reinforce his own arguments. Notably, both Shamindra Ferdinando and Shenali Waduge have written extensively on this subject, yet the author appears to be unaware of or has chosen not to engage with their contributions. This omission represents a significant scholarly shortcoming, particularly as the author positions himself as an academic and a former Vice Chancellor.