POLITICAL

Ranil’s London Visit Under CID Lens: Attorney General Seeks UK Probe Material as Political Noise Grows Around Investigation

By ColomboWire Investigations Desk

The controversy surrounding former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s much-discussed visit to London has now entered a decisive legal phase, with the Attorney General’s Department formally requesting investigation material collected by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) team that travelled to the United Kingdom. What was once framed by Wickremesinghe and his allies as an “official visit” has increasingly come under scrutiny as evidence suggests that the trip—centred on the University of Wolverhampton—may not have followed any recognised diplomatic or official protocol.

At the heart of the matter is a fundamental legal question: was public money misappropriated on the basis of a false declaration that a private visit was an official engagement? If so, the implications go far beyond a single foreign trip, striking at the credibility of how state funds, official status, and truthfulness are treated at the highest levels of political power.

The Attorney General’s Exact Request

In a significant development, the Attorney General has informed the CID to submit extracts of further investigations conducted by the CID team that travelled to the UK as part of the probe into the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 16.6 million by former President Wickremesinghe.

This instruction was conveyed in writing to the Director of the CID through a formal letter signed by Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera. The letter makes it clear that the AG’s Department is acting in accordance with an order issued by the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court and requires the investigative material to proceed with the next legal steps.

Crucially, the AG has already informed court that he intends to request Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) from UK authorities under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The purpose of the MLA is specific and narrow: to verify whether the invitation letter purportedly issued by the University of Wolverhampton—inviting Wickremesinghe to attend his wife’s graduation ceremony—was an official invitation or one sent strictly in a personal capacity.

This distinction is not semantic. It is legal.

Why Wolverhampton Matters

According to the investigation, former President Wickremesinghe declared his London visit as official, thereby justifying the use of public funds and official status. However, subsequent inquiries reportedly revealed that:

• There was no formal invitation issued through recognised diplomatic or academic channels.

• No official protocol was followed, either by the university or by Sri Lanka’s diplomatic missions.

• The visit appeared to revolve around a private family event rather than a state or governmental engagement.

If established, this would mean that public funds were expended on the basis of a false declaration—an issue that has gained renewed legal significance amid the current anti-corruption climate.

Media Noise: Why Did the CID Go to London?

As the investigation progressed, a parallel narrative began circulating in certain media outlets and political circles sympathetic to the former president: Why did the CID travel to London? What was their agenda? Did they obtain approval from the Attorney General?

These questions, ColomboWire notes, are not merely misleading—they fundamentally misunderstand the structure of criminal investigations in Sri Lanka.

The CID does not require prior approval from the Attorney General’s Department to travel overseas if there is a credible investigative lead. The CID is a police investigative body. Its mandate is to collect statements, documents, and evidence. The Attorney General’s role begins once that evidence is compiled and presented for legal evaluation and prosecution.

This is not exceptional. It is routine.

CID’s Overseas Operations: Nothing New

Historically, the CID has travelled abroad—often at short notice—to pursue criminal investigations:

• CID officers have travelled to Middle Eastern countries to arrest fugitives or record statements.

• CID teams have operated in Southeast Asian jurisdictions in financial crime investigations.

• Investigators have travelled to Eastern Europe, including Belarus, and to African states, to follow evidentiary trails.

In none of these cases was prior approval from the Attorney General a prerequisite. The CID acts on investigative necessity; the AG assesses the legal sufficiency of the evidence later.

To suggest otherwise is either ignorance of criminal procedure or a deliberate attempt to undermine an ongoing investigation.

The AG’s Clarification—and a Procedural Dispute

That said, the AG’s letter does raise a procedural concern.

It notes that the officer in charge of the investigation had been informed to visit the AG’s Department to assist in compiling documents and drafting the questionnaire required for the MLA request to the UK. According to the letter, this did not occur before the CID team travelled to London, and the team had done so without obtaining an MLA from UK authorities.

This has been seized upon by critics as evidence of procedural impropriety.

However, legal experts point out a critical distinction: travelling to collect open-source material, record voluntary statements, or verify facts does not always require an MLA, particularly where no coercive powers are exercised on foreign soil. An MLA becomes mandatory when formal assistance is sought from foreign authorities, such as compelling documents, accessing official records, or conducting state-to-state evidence gathering.

The AG’s request, therefore, is not a rebuke of the CID’s authority—but an administrative step to regularise and supplement the investigation through formal legal channels.

Ranil’s Media Counter-Offensive

As the investigation gathered momentum, allies of the former president launched a sustained media campaign questioning the motives and professionalism of CID officers.

The narrative is familiar: portray investigators as politically motivated, cast doubt on their methods, and shift the focus from the substance of allegations to procedural distractions.

This tactic is not new in Sri Lankan politics. What is different now is the institutional response.

The Attorney General’s Department has not halted the investigation. The Magistrate’s Court has not dismissed the case. Instead, the legal process is moving forward methodically, with January 28 set as the next date for court proceedings.

The Rs. 16.6 Million Question

The figure at the centre of the probe—Rs. 16.6 million—is not incidental. It represents the estimated public expenditure allegedly incurred in connection with the London visit.

If the visit is ultimately deemed private rather than official, the legal consequences could include:

• Criminal liability for misappropriation of public funds

• Recovery of state losses

• Establishment of precedent regarding false declarations by public office holders

In a country where ministers and presidents have historically enjoyed near-total immunity for such conduct, this alone marks a shift.

A Broader Legal Context: False Declaration as Crime

The Ranil Wickremesinghe probe does not exist in isolation. It unfolds alongside a broader legal awakening in Sri Lanka, where false declarations—whether relating to assets, travel, imports, or official status—are increasingly being treated as prosecutable offences rather than administrative lapses.

If a former president can be investigated over a disputed “official visit,” it sends a clear message to current and former office holders: status is no longer a shield against scrutiny.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Ranil

This investigation is not merely about one man’s trip to London. It is about:

• Whether public office can be used to subsidise private life

• Whether declarations made by presidents are immune from verification

• Whether law enforcement agencies can operate without political intimidation

The outcome will be closely watched—not just by politicians, but by civil servants, diplomats, and professionals accustomed to grey zones of accountability.

January 28: A Defining Date

The Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court is scheduled to take up the case again on January 28. By then, the AG’s Department is expected to have reviewed the extracts submitted by the CID and to determine the next procedural steps, including the formal MLA request to UK authorities.

What happens next will test the resilience of Sri Lanka’s justice system.

Will the investigation proceed on evidence and law? Or will it collapse under political pressure and media noise?

Law, Not Loyalty, on Trial

The controversy over the CID’s London visit ultimately reveals more about Sri Lanka’s political culture than about police procedure.

When investigators pursue allegations against powerful figures, the reflexive response has long been to question how they investigate, not what they are investigating.

This time, however, the institutions appear to be holding.

The Attorney General has asked for evidence, not excuses. The court has demanded compliance, not commentary. And the CID has done what it is mandated to do: follow the trail, wherever it leads—even to London.

Whether Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Wolverhampton visit was official or private is a matter for evidence and law, not political spin. In that sense, this case is no longer about Ranil alone. It is about whether Sri Lanka is finally willing to treat truth as a legal obligation—and not a matter of convenience for those who once held power.