Public Trust in Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe Has Collapsed to Zero
By Colombowire Investigations
Public confidence in Sri Lanka’s justice system rests, in large measure, on the credibility, independence, and moral authority of the Attorney General. When that confidence erodes, the damage is not confined to one individual office-holder. It corrodes the rule of law itself. Today, a growing cross-section of civil society, legal commentators, and victims’ families argue that public trust in Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe has fallen to zero. Colombowire examines why this perception has taken root, whether it is justified, and what constitutional mechanisms exist to address an Attorney General who has lost the confidence of the public he is meant to serve.
At the centre of the controversy is not a single decision, but a pattern. The prolonged stagnation of the Lasantha Wickrematunge murder case, the Attorney General’s perceived silence on politically sensitive overseas engagements by senior figures, and a broader reluctance to confront entrenched power structures have combined to create a damaging narrative: that the Attorney General’s Department is either unwilling or unable to act independently when the stakes are highest.
This article does not purport to determine guilt or innocence. That is precisely the function of a credible, transparent process. What Colombowire seeks to do is to articulate the questions now being asked openly by the public and to assess whether continued inaction is itself incompatible with the duties of the office.
The Lasantha Wickrematunge Case: A Symbol of Failure
The murder of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge remains one of the most emblematic attacks on press freedom in Sri Lanka’s modern history. More than a decade after his assassination, accountability has not been secured. Successive governments have promised justice. Successive Attorneys General have presided over delay.
Under Parinda Ranasinghe’s tenure, critics argue that the case has effectively been allowed to wither. Files move, hearings are scheduled, but decisive prosecutorial action appears perpetually deferred. For the Wickrematunge family and for journalists across the country, this inertia is not merely bureaucratic. It is political.
The Attorney General is constitutionally mandated to act independently, guided by evidence and public interest, not by political convenience. When a case of this magnitude stagnates indefinitely, the reasonable inference drawn by the public is that prosecutorial discretion is being exercised selectively. Whether that inference is fair or not, the Attorney General bears responsibility for dispelling it through transparent action. To date, that has not happened.
Silence on Politically Sensitive Conduct
Public disquiet has also been fuelled by the Attorney General’s perceived reluctance to address controversial overseas engagements by senior political figures. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s UK visit and former Justice Minister Ali Sabry’s appearance at a Cambridge University student union event have both generated significant debate. The questions raised were not trivial. They concerned propriety, representation of the state, and the use of personal political platforms abroad while sensitive legal and political processes remained unresolved at home.
The Attorney General’s Department is not required to comment on every political controversy. However, where legal or constitutional implications arise, silence can be interpreted as acquiescence. In these instances, Colombowire notes that no clear public legal position was articulated by the Attorney General, reinforcing the perception that politically connected individuals operate beyond scrutiny.
A Crisis of Credibility, Not Personality
It is essential to distinguish between personal attacks and institutional accountability. Colombowire’s concern is not with Parinda Ranasinghe as an individual, but with the office he occupies and the public trust attached to it. When confidence collapses, the question is not whether the Attorney General feels aggrieved by criticism, but whether he can continue to function effectively.
In comparable jurisdictions, Attorneys General have resigned or been removed not only for proven misconduct, but for loss of credibility. The standard applied is often whether the office-holder can command public confidence necessary to discharge the role. By that measure, Sri Lanka is facing a serious problem.
Comparative Perspective: Removal of Attorneys General Elsewhere
International precedent demonstrates that Attorneys General are not immune from scrutiny. In several democratic systems, Attorneys General have stepped down following allegations of political bias, conflicts of interest, or failure to act in high-profile cases. The principle is clear: prosecutorial independence must not only exist, it must be seen to exist.
Sri Lanka cannot claim exceptionalism. If anything, given the country’s history of politicised justice, the threshold for accountability should be higher, not lower.
Constitutional Mechanisms for Removal
Sri Lankan law does, in fact, provide a framework to inquire into the conduct of an Attorney General. The relevant mechanism is often misunderstood or deliberately obscured.
Under the applicable legal framework, a committee may be constituted to inquire into allegations against the Attorney General. The law provides:
“The Committee constituted in terms of subsection (2) of section 5 shall comprise of the following persons:
(a) where the inquiry is in relation to the Attorney-General, the Committee shall consist of three persons of which the Chairman shall be the Chief Justice and two other persons appointed from among persons who have previously held the office of Attorney-General or persons who have reached eminence in the field of law, appointed by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.”
This is not a radical proposal. It is a constitutionally contemplated safeguard. The mere initiation of such a process does not imply guilt. It signals seriousness about accountability.
Colombowire notes that to date, there has been no indication that the NPP government intends to activate this mechanism, despite its stated commitment to clean governance and institutional reform.
Investigating Wealth, Assets, and Potential Conflicts
One of the most contentious demands now emerging is for an investigation into the Attorney General’s wealth, bank statements, and overseas property portfolios, if any. Colombowire emphasises that this demand is grounded not in malice, but in principle.
The Attorney General is a public servant, funded entirely by Sri Lankan taxpayers. Those taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing whether the country’s chief legal officer is financially transparent, free from unexplained wealth, and insulated from improper influence.
Asset declarations exist precisely for this purpose. Where public confidence has collapsed, voluntary transparency can serve as a powerful corrective. Conversely, resistance to scrutiny only deepens suspicion.
Colombowire is not asserting that Parinda Ranasinghe possesses illicit wealth. Rather, it asserts that an independent review of his financial disclosures, banking arrangements, and any overseas assets would either restore credibility or confirm the need for further action. In either scenario, the public interest is served.
Questions of Qualification and Appointment
Another unresolved issue concerns the circumstances of Parinda Ranasinghe’s appointment as Attorney General. Was he the most qualified candidate? Was the selection process transparent? Were alternative candidates considered? These questions matter because the legitimacy of the office-holder is inseparable from the integrity of the appointment process.
In recent years, Sri Lanka has witnessed a pattern of senior appointments driven more by political loyalty than professional merit. Colombowire argues that the Attorney General’s position must be demonstrably insulated from such practices. Absent a clear public record explaining why Parinda Ranasinghe was selected, doubts will persist.
Resignation With Dignity or Removal for Incompetence?
This brings the debate to its unavoidable conclusion. Is it time for Parinda Ranasinghe to resign with dignity, acknowledging that public confidence has irretrievably broken down? Or should the NPP government, if it truly believes in accountability, initiate formal proceedings to assess his competence and independence?
Resignation would not be an admission of guilt. It would be an acceptance of institutional reality. Removal through a constitutional process, on the other hand, would test the government’s willingness to confront entrenched interests and uphold the rule of law.
What is no longer tenable is the status quo.
The Cost of Inaction
Every day that passes without clarity compounds the damage. Victims lose faith. Journalists self-censor. Citizens conclude that justice is selective. The Attorney General’s Department, once a pillar of the legal system, risks becoming synonymous with delay and deference.
Colombowire warns that restoring trust will require more than rhetoric. It will require decisive action, transparency, and a willingness to subject even the most powerful legal office to scrutiny.
A Test for the NPP Government
The controversy surrounding Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe is ultimately a test of Sri Lanka’s democratic maturity. If public confidence in the chief law officer has indeed fallen to zero, ignoring that reality is not an option.
The Constitution provides mechanisms. International practice provides precedent. The public provides the mandate. What remains to be seen is whether the political will exists to act.
Colombowire calls for an immediate, independent inquiry into the conduct, competence, and credibility of the Attorney General. Until that happens, the perception of a justice system compromised at its apex will continue to haunt Sri Lanka’s fragile democracy.