Former Justice Minister G.L. Peiris Accused of Undermining Judiciary in Ranil Trial-at-Bar Debate
Former Justice Minister and law professor G.L. Peiris has come under criticism after questioning the legality of a proposed Trial-at-Bar against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe over allegations that public funds were misused for a private trip to London.
Speaking on behalf of the Joint Opposition, Peiris argued that only the Chief Justice has the authority to formally constitute and announce a Trial-at-Bar, and claimed no such announcement has yet been made. He also stressed that the Attorney General should be allowed to act independently without political interference.
However, critics argue that Peiris’ public intervention itself risks becoming an interference with the judicial process. They point out that the question of whether a Trial-at-Bar has been lawfully constituted is ultimately a matter for the courts, not politicians or former ministers to litigate through press conferences and public statements.
Under Sri Lankan law, the Attorney General may request a Trial-at-Bar where a case is considered complex, significant, or of major public importance. The ultimate authority to appoint a three-judge bench lies with the Chief Justice. If procedural defects exist, they can be raised before the court by defence counsel. That is precisely how the legal process is meant to function.
Critics therefore argue that for a former Justice Minister and constitutional law professor such as Peiris to publicly imply that the proceedings are flawed before the judiciary has even pronounced on the matter could be seen as an attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of both the Attorney General’s Department and the courts themselves.
The allegations against Wickremesinghe relate to claims that state resources were used to fund what investigators believe was a private visit to the United Kingdom. Prosecutors have told court there is evidence suggesting the trip was unofficial, and that indictments are expected to be filed before a three-judge High Court bench.
This is not the first time Peiris has publicly challenged the use of Trial-at-Bar proceedings in relation to Wickremesinghe. Earlier this year, he warned that such a move against a former Head of State could amount to an abuse of the process unless strict legal safeguards are followed.
Yet opponents ask a more direct political question: why is Peiris so eager to defend Wickremesinghe from being tried under ordinary legal procedures available to any other citizen?
Once Wickremesinghe left office, the presidential immunity that protected him while in office ceased to apply. In law, he now stands before the courts as any ordinary citizen would. Whether he is guilty or innocent is a matter for the judiciary to decide — not politicians, former ministers, or law professors speaking from political platforms.
For many observers, the larger issue is not whether procedural safeguards should be respected — they should — but whether influential figures are attempting to pre-emptively delegitimise a corruption prosecution involving one of Sri Lanka’s most powerful former presidents.