The Corruption of Confidentiality: How a Lawyer’s Son Allegedly Sold Access to Free a Drug Kingpin
By Our Political Correspondent
In a scandal that has sent shockwaves through the legal and political establishment, the recent arrest of a former Justice Minister’s son has laid bare the dangerous nexus between organized crime and the abuse of legal privilege. The case starkly illustrates how a lawyer’s sacred duty of client confidentiality is being cynically subverted to broker deals with the underworld, turning the very pillars of justice into commodities for sale.
The Dubai Connection and the Deal to Free 'Harak Kata'
According to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), the drama began in Dubai in 2023. It was there that Attorney-at-Law Rakitha Nirmala Rajapaksa, son of former Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, along with SJB Horana organizer Charith Abeysinghe, allegedly met with the wife of notorious drug kingpin Nadun Chinthaka Wickramaratne, alias “Harak Kata”.
At the time, Harak Kata was already in the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) under detention orders, accused of operating a sophisticated drug smuggling network from Dubai. Investigators allege that the suspects demanded an initial bribe of Rs. 500 million, later reduced to Rs. 200 million, to secure the kingpin’s release, prevent his transfer to the high-security Boossa Prison, and halt all ongoing investigations.
What is most alarming is the nature of the services allegedly promised. Court documents reveal that the suspects claimed they could use high-level political influence, boasting of connections to the Interior Minister, judges, and even the Presidential Private Secretary, to ensure Harak Kata walked free.
Legal Framework: Where Confidentiality Ends and Crime Begins
The case forces us to examine the critical distinction between legitimate client confidentiality and criminal conspiracy. Sri Lankan law provides robust protection for attorney-client communications. Under the Evidence Ordinance No. 14 of 1895 (Section 126) , no attorney shall be permitted to disclose any communication made to him in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court Rules (Rules 31-38) similarly mandate that an attorney must hold all client information in "strict confidence" irrespective of whether representation has ceased.
However, the law explicitly states that this privilege is not absolute. Crucially, Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Evidence Ordinance provides a clear exception: protection is not granted to any communication made "in furtherance of any illegal purpose" or to any fact observed by the attorney regarding the "commission of any crime or fraud". This is known as the Crime-Fraud Exception.
In this context, the alleged discussions in Dubai were not about legal strategy. They were about paying off public officials to subvert the law. This falls squarely outside the scope of protected legal advice.
Furthermore, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006 and the Financial Reporting Act No. 6 of 2006 require attorneys to disclose privileged communications if they were made for the commission of any unlawful activity. When a lawyer’s son offers to "fix" a case by paying off a judge, it isn't law; it is conspiracy to commit bribery, an offence punishable under the Bribery Act No. 11 of 1954 and the new Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023.
A Pattern of "Mob Lawyers"
This case is emblematic of a disturbing trend in Sri Lanka often referred to as the rise of "Mob Lawyers" — legal professionals who serve as integral parts of criminal enterprises, using their knowledge of the law to shield and protect criminal networks.
In the wake of the arrest, the former Justice Minister himself arrived at the CIABOC office, raising questions about the extent of the institutional influence being leveraged. A Colombo Chief Magistrate has since remanded the suspects until July 3, 2026, signaling the seriousness with which the judiciary is viewing this threat to the rule of law. The Anti-Corruption Act holds that where a public official—or a relative—uses their office to confer a wrongful benefit, it constitutes a serious offense.
The case against Rakitha Rajapaksa and his associates is not merely about a drug dealer seeking freedom. It is about the alleged corruption of the legal system at its highest levels. By allegedly using the cover of a lawyer's access to negotiate with gangs in Dubai and promise influence over the executive and judicial branches, the suspects have demonstrated a brazen contempt for the law.
As this case moves through the courts, it must serve as a reminder that attorney-client privilege is a shield for justice, not a cloak for corruption. To allow it to be used as a tool for negotiating with gangsters is to trade the integrity of the nation for a price.