Did a President’s Counsel Cross the Line? Questions Mount Over Ali Sabry’s Public Commentary on an Active Case
By Investigations Desk
In most jurisdictions shaped by the common law tradition, there is a bright—if sometimes contested—line between robust public discourse and interference with the administration of justice. In Sri Lanka, that line is now being tested by controversy surrounding remarks made by Ali Sabry—President’s Counsel, former Minister of Justice, and past office-bearer of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).
At issue is whether Sabry, in a televised "Borella Handiya" interview, on 31st March 2026, and related public statements, strayed into ethically impermissible territory by discussing matters connected to an ongoing legal proceeding involving Suresh Salley—a figure whose detention and subsequent court appearances have already attracted intense public scrutiny.
The Core Allegation: Sub Judice or Free Speech?
The controversy turns on a foundational legal doctrine: sub judice, the principle that matters under judicial consideration should not be publicly discussed in ways that may prejudice proceedings.
Critics argue that Sabry’s remarks—delivered while the case relating to Salley’s detention and fundamental rights petitions was actively before the courts—went beyond general commentary. According to transcripts and recordings reviewed by this website, Sabry:
- Referenced evidentiary deficiencies allegedly observed when Salley was produced before a Magistrate;
- Linked the case to broader historical narratives, including the Millennium City raid and post-2015 intelligence restructuring;
- Suggested systemic failures in intelligence operations contributed to the Easter Sunday bombings.
Legal analysts note that such commentary, when made by a senior member of the Bar, risks being interpreted not merely as opinion—but as an authoritative framing of facts that are still subject to judicial determination.
Professional Ethics: Higher Burden for Senior Counsel
Under widely accepted standards of legal ethics—mirrored in BASL guidelines and comparative Commonwealth jurisprudence—lawyers are expected to exercise restraint when commenting on pending cases. This duty is heightened for those holding senior rank, such as President’s Counsel.
“An advocate’s freedom of expression is not absolute,” said one Colombo-based legal academic. “It is constrained by the duty to avoid prejudicing fair trial rights or undermining public confidence in the judiciary.”
The question, therefore, is not whether Sabry had the right to speak—but whether he exercised that right in a manner consistent with professional obligations.
Particular concern has been raised over:
- Commenting on evidence allegedly not presented in court;
- Publicly opposing detention while judicial processes were ongoing;
- Contextualising the case within politically sensitive narratives that could influence public perception.
The Political Overlay: Intelligence, Accountability, and Narrative Control
Sabry’s remarks did not occur in a vacuum. By invoking the Millennium City episode—a controversial 2002 intelligence exposure—and subsequent claims of intelligence “harassment” after 2015, he effectively situated Salley’s legal predicament within a broader political narrative.
This framing is significant. It suggests that Salley’s detention is not merely a legal issue but part of a historical pattern of institutional failure—an argument that may resonate in public discourse but risks encroaching upon matters before the courts.
For critics, this crosses into the realm of trial by media.
A Religious Dimension: Sensitivity and Risk
Compounding the legal debate is a separate but equally sensitive claim attributed to Sabry: that Malcolm Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, had opposed his appointment as Justice Minister—a claim he suggested was disregarded by Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The implications are twofold:
- Verification – There is, as yet, no publicly available documentary evidence supporting the assertion.
- Communal Sensitivity – Given Sri Lanka’s fragile inter-religious dynamics—particularly in the shadow of the Easter attacks—such statements risk inflaming tensions between Catholic and Muslim communities.
Legal observers point out that public figures, especially those with legal authority, bear an added responsibility to avoid unverified claims that could destabilise social cohesion.
Could This Trigger Formal Proceedings?
The question now circulating within Colombo’s legal circles is whether these actions warrant formal scrutiny.
Potential avenues include:
- Professional disciplinary review by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka;
- Judicial consideration by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka if it is argued that the comments interfered with due process;
- Police inquiry into the factual basis of statements involving Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith.
However, initiating such processes is neither automatic nor straightforward. It would require demonstrating that Sabry’s statements:
- Created a real risk of prejudice to ongoing proceedings; or
- Amounted to professional misconduct under applicable ethical codes.
The Counterargument: Public Interest and Democratic Debate
Supporters of Sabry may argue that his comments fall within the realm of legitimate public interest discourse—particularly given the national importance of intelligence failures and the Easter attacks.
They may also contend that:
- No specific judicial outcome was advocated;
- His remarks were interpretative rather than evidentiary;
- Public accountability requires open discussion, even of ongoing matters.
This defence reflects a broader tension in democratic societies: balancing freedom of expression against the sanctity of judicial processes.
A Test Case for Legal Boundaries
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Ali Sabry may evolve into a test case—one that clarifies how far senior legal practitioners can go in engaging with politically charged, legally active issues in the public sphere.
For now, the matter remains unresolved. But one point is clear: in a system where the rule of law depends as much on perception as on procedure, even the appearance of impropriety can carry significant consequences.
Whether those consequences materialise in the form of formal inquiry—or fade into Sri Lanka’s turbulent political background—will depend on how institutions choose to respond.
And in that response lies a deeper question: not just about one lawyer’s conduct, but about the resilience of legal ethics itself.