Why the Government Must Expedite the Criminal Case Against Ranil Wickremesinghe
Preparations Underway to Indict Ranil Before April 29
Reports indicate that arrangements are now being made to file indictments in the Colombo High Court against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe and former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake, before the case pending before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court is taken up again on April 29.
The case concerns the alleged misappropriation of public funds. Investigations have revealed that during a private overseas visit to attend a graduation ceremony at the University of Wolverhampton in the United Kingdom, a loss exceeding Rs. 16.6 million was caused to the State.
Based on instructions from the Attorney General, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), under the supervision of Senior Superintendent of Police Shani Abeysekara, conducted investigations under the Public Property Act. The resulting case file is now being studied, and preparations are underway to draft indictments against the accused.
Move Towards a Trial-at-Bar
The Attorney General’s Department has informed the Fort Magistrate, through Additional Solicitor General Dilip Peiris, that it intends to request the Chief Justice to appoint a special three-judge High Court bench (Trial-at-Bar) to hear this case.
This reflects the gravity of the allegations, as Trial-at-Bar proceedings are reserved for serious offences involving public trust, large-scale financial loss, or matters of national importance.
Accordingly, the Magistrate has instructed the Attorney General to file indictments without delay and report progress before April 29.
Status of the Co-Accused
The second suspect, former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake, has been remanded until the 11th of this month.
He is also due to undergo a handwriting examination. CID officers, acting on the Attorney General’s advice, are expected to obtain a court order to present him before the Government Analyst for forensic verification.
Meanwhile, legal submissions on behalf of former President Wickremesinghe have reportedly been forwarded to the Attorney General’s Department by his senior counsel.
The Legal Imperative: Why This Case Must Be Streamlined
1. Equality Before the Law
Article 12 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. No individual—regardless of former office, political influence, or status—may be placed above legal accountability.
Delays in prosecuting former heads of state create the perception of selective justice and institutional bias. Streamlining this case is therefore essential to preserve constitutional integrity.
2. Enforcement of the Public Property Act
The Public Property Act imposes strict liability on public officials who misuse state resources. It is designed to deter abuse of office and safeguard public funds.
Failure to prosecute under this law in a timely manner undermines its deterrent function and weakens public confidence in financial governance.
This case, involving alleged misuse of public funds for private travel, falls squarely within the purpose of the statute.
3. Protection of Public Trust
Public office is a fiduciary responsibility. Office-holders are trustees of national resources.
Where allegations arise that public money was diverted for personal benefit, the State has a legal duty to investigate and prosecute promptly. Delay amounts to a breach of that fiduciary obligation.
4. Prevention of Procedural Manipulation
Prolonged delays increase the risk of:
-
Evidence becoming stale
-
Witnesses becoming unavailable
-
Procedural loopholes being exploited
-
Political interference influencing outcomes
Fast-tracking the indictment phase helps preserve evidentiary integrity and procedural fairness.
5. Compliance with Due Process and Fair Trial Standards
Streamlining does not mean persecution. It means ensuring that the accused receives a fair, timely, and transparent trial in accordance with due process.
Excessive delay itself violates the right to a fair trial under both constitutional and international human rights standards.
6. Restoring Credibility to Anti-Corruption Institutions
Sri Lanka’s investigative and prosecutorial bodies have long faced criticism for selective enforcement.
If this case is allowed to stagnate, it will reinforce public scepticism about the independence of the CID, the Attorney General’s Department, and the judiciary.
Conversely, decisive prosecution will signal institutional maturity and reform.
7. National and International Implications
Sri Lanka remains under international scrutiny for governance standards, rule of law, and corruption control—particularly in the context of IMF programmes and foreign investment.
Demonstrating that even former presidents are subject to prosecution strengthens Sri Lanka’s credibility in global financial and diplomatic forums.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
The proposed indictment of Ranil Wickremesinghe and Saman Ekanayake is not merely a legal formality. It is a test of Sri Lanka’s commitment to the rule of law.
This case must not be buried in procedural delays, political bargaining, or administrative inertia.
If the government is serious about governance reform, anti-corruption, and institutional accountability, it must ensure:
-
Prompt filing of indictments
-
Transparent proceedings
-
Independent judicial oversight
-
Swift conclusion of the trial
Only then can Sri Lanka move away from a culture of impunity towards a culture of accountability.
In the end, this case is not about one individual. It is about whether public power in Sri Lanka remains answerable to the law—or continues to hide behind privilege.