Manufacturing a Split: Why the Sunday Times Story on the Attorney General’s Department and Ranil Wickremesinghe Falls Apart
The Sunday Times Sri Lanka has published a report claiming that there is an internal split within the Attorney General’s Department over whether criminal charges should be filed against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in relation to an alleged misuse of nearly LKR 16 million in public funds for a visit to the United Kingdom.
According to the newspaper, “two conflicting opinions” exist within the Attorney General’s Department, suggesting an institutional deadlock over the decision to indict the former President. On closer scrutiny, however, the article raises more questions about journalistic integrity than about the state of the investigation itself.
What the Sunday Times Claims
The report asserts that:
-
A Deputy Solicitor General overseeing the investigation has withdrawn from responsibility due to an alleged internal disagreement.
-
The Deputy Solicitor General is said to hold the view that investigations have not revealed sufficient evidence to file charges against Ranil Wickremesinghe.
-
In contrast, an Additional Solicitor General supervising the matter is reportedly of the opinion that charges can be framed based on existing evidence.
-
Officers of the Criminal Investigation Department are said to agree with the latter position.
These claims are presented as evidence of a deep institutional divide within the Attorney General’s Department.
What the Article Fails to Establish
The central problem with the Sunday Times report is not what it says, but what it fails to prove.
First, no documentary evidence is produced. There is no reference to written opinions, internal memoranda, official minutes, or formal recommendations issued by the Attorney General’s Department. The entire narrative rests on unnamed sources and attributed opinions, presented without corroboration.
Second, the Attorney General’s Department is not a debating society where individual opinions translate into institutional positions. Decisions on indictments are taken through established legal processes, often after layered review. Differences of legal assessment—if they exist—are not unusual in complex cases and do not, by themselves, constitute a “split” or crisis.
Third, the report does not explain why such an alleged disagreement would suddenly surface in the media, rather than being resolved internally through established prosecutorial mechanisms.
The Politics of Timing
The timing and framing of the story have inevitably led to political interpretations. The article creates a convenient public narrative: that the case against Ranil Wickremesinghe is legally weak, internally contested, and on the verge of collapse.
Critics argue that this is a classic example of narrative planting—a media strategy designed to influence public perception before any formal prosecutotrial decision is announced. By suggesting uncertainty and division within the Attorney General’s Department, the report subtly advances the idea that charging the former President would be legally unsound or politically motivated.
Notably, the article offers no response or clarification from the Attorney General himself, nor does it cite any official departmental communication confirming the existence of such a split.
From Reporting to Opinion-Shaping
The Sunday Times piece blurs the line between reporting and speculation. Rather than presenting verifiable facts, it relies heavily on inferred intent and selectively leaked viewpoints. In doing so, it shifts from journalism to opinion-shaping, with clear political implications.
The implication is not merely that officials disagree, but that the prosecutorial process itself is fractured. This is a serious claim—one that demands a high evidentiary threshold, which the article does not meet.
Why This Matters
The Attorney General’s Department is a cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system. Casual or speculative reporting about internal divisions, especially in politically sensitive cases, risks undermining public confidence in prosecutorial independence.
If every major investigation involving powerful political figures is accompanied by anonymous claims of “internal disagreement,” the inevitable outcome is erosion of trust—not only in the media, but in legal institutions themselves.
The Sunday Times Sri Lanka report on an alleged split within the Attorney General’s Department over charging Ranil Wickremesinghe reads less like a rigorously sourced investigation and more like a strategically framed narrative. In the absence of hard evidence, official confirmation, or documentary support, the story appears speculative at best and politically convenient at worst.
Whether charges will ultimately be filed against the former President is a matter for the Attorney General and the courts—not for narrative construction through unnamed sources. Until verifiable facts are presented, claims of an institutional split remain unproven, and the article stands as an example of how powerful figures can benefit from ambiguity manufactured in print.