Lawyers for Democracy pays tribute to late senior lawyer Lal Wijenayake

Colombo Telegraph reports that Lal Wijenayake died in Kandy on the evening of October 31, 2026, aged 86. Daily Mirror and Newswire describe him as a senior lawyer and veteran left-wing political activist; Lankadeepa identifies him as a member of the National People’s Power executive council.

Daily Mirror reports that the Lawyers Collective expressed sorrow, describing Wijenayake as a founding member of Lawyers for Democracy, the group from which the Collective later developed. Newswire reports that Lawyers for Democracy issued a statement on November 2, recognising his longstanding contribution to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Newswire says Lawyers for Democracy recalled that Wijenayake helped establish the organisation in July 2012, after an attack on the Mannar Magistrate’s Court. The outlet reports that he helped mobilise lawyers, unions and civil society groups in defence of judicial independence and opposed the impeachment of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake in January 2013. Newswire also says the organisation pointed to his opposition to a proposed 22nd constitutional amendment as evidence of his political independence.

Colombo Telegraph reports that Wijenayake joined the Lanka Sama Samaja Party as a university student in the early 1960s, later serving on its Politburo and for about 15 years as a provincial councillor. The outlet says he led the opposition in the first Central Provincial Council and practised law for more than 52 years, much of it for trade unions, plantation workers and the Ceylon Federation of Labour.

Daily Mirror, Newswire and Ada Derana report that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake paid his respects to Wijenayake in Kandy. Lankadeepa also reports the President’s visit. Ada Derana reports that the final rites were scheduled for that day, though its headline does not specify a date. Newswire separately reports that Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa paid tribute, praising Wijenayake’s defence of judicial independence despite political differences.

Written automatically by AI from the outlets’ own reports, and not reviewed by an editor. It can be wrong — the original report is the authority.