A boat carrying Rohingya migrants. Screenshot via YouTube channel Rohingya Vision. Fair use. This article by Ruki Fernando was originally published in Groundviews, an award-winning citizen media website. An edited version is published here as part of a content-sharing agreement with Global Voices. On December 17, 2022, fishermen in northern Sri Lanka alerted the navy about a boat in distress adrift in the sea. On December 18, the navy rescued a group of 104 people from the boat. The navy has referred to them as Myanmar nationals while a statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) refers to them as Rohingya refugees. The Rohingya Muslims are stateless and many have fled and continue to flee from persecution in Myanmar. Many Rohingya refugees are also reported to be leaving refugee camps in Bangladesh because of overcrowding and lack of facilities. In December, there were alarming reports of deaths at sea of Rohingya refugees despite prior appeals, including from the United Nations, to nearby states to rescue them. The rescued people were handed over to the police, produced before the Mallakam Magistrate (in the Jaffna district) and detained as “suspects” in the Jaffna prison. It is not clear under what legal provisions they were detained or what crime they (including children) were suspected of, especially since they had not landed illegally or even tried to enter Sri Lanka illegally but had been brought in by navy personnel who had rescued them from a boat in distress. A navy spokesperson is reported to have stated that “this is not a criminal act.” UNHCR stated that it was providing support to the Sri Lankan authorities for their immediate needs. Mannar Social Economic Development Organization (MSEDO) provided immediate basic needs such as clothes, underwear, hijabs, sanitary pads, diapers, bed sheets, towels, soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, slippers, toys and travelling bags while the group was at the Jaffna prison. The group comprises 29 men, 26 women and 49 children, ranging in age from one to 70 years. On December 22, they were brought to Colombo and are being detained at the Mirihana and Welisara Immigration Detention Centers. When I and some religious leaders visited the Mirihana Immigration Detention Center on December 26, we were politely informed by staff and policemen on duty that visitors were not allowed, and only immigration officers could make that decision. But they called the immigration officer in charge, who spoke to us on the phone. He said visitors were not encouraged but told us to come the next day when he would also be around. We did so and were allowed to distribute food items and toys. We had brief conversations with a few refugees across a closed barbed wire fence and a gate in restricted circumstances. The language was a major challenge as only one person spoke basic English. We were told that the group had left a refugee camp in Bangladesh and got into the boat on December 3, and were at sea until they were rescued. All of them had received refugee certificates from UNHCR while they were in the refugee camp but some had been lost during their ordeal at sea. UNHCR was doing individual interviews when we visited Welisara on December 27. ICRC personnel were also there at the time. Only two priests were allowed to talk to the 20 women refugees there. The two Rohingya refugees who had come from Panadura in western Sri Lanka to talk to the new arrivals were disappointed. It was not clear if this was the general rule or whether it was due to us going there when UNHCR was doing intensive interviews. However, security personnel provided us space at the reception area to talk freely to the Pakistani refugees (whom I had met earlier) at the same detention centre. We heard that there were a few refugees from Pakistan in Welisara, including a family of four who had been in Sri Lanka since 2006. The officials in both detention centres were cordial; they welcomed and facilitated humanitarian assistance. One officer called me later to seek support for the unique needs of a patient in the hospital, but they were not too keen to allow interactions and discouraged visitors, although they did allow us some minimal interactions. This is surprising since even suspects of crimes in Sri Lankan prisons can receive visitors six days a week. The decision and actions of the navy to rescue and disembark those in distress are admirable, especially in comparison to the reluctance of other Asian states to intervene for many days and weeks. However, if access to visitors is restricted, and if the Rohingya refugees continue to be detained, the appreciation earned by Sri Lanka may evaporate into familiar expressions of concern and condemnation.