A Test of Integrity: The Attorney General, the Lasantha Case, and the Call for Accountability
The assassination of The Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge in 2009 remains one of the darkest chapters in Sri Lanka's modern history. For over 16 years, the nation has waited for justice, a wait that has tested the public's faith in the very institutions meant to uphold the rule of law . Today, that faith is facing a new and profound crisis, centred on the conduct of the Attorney General, Parinda Ranasinghe, and a controversial decision that has sparked widespread calls for his removal.
A Legal U-Turn and a Demand for Transparency
The controversy, brought to the forefront by civil activist Nagananda Kodituwakku, revolves around a significant reversal by the Attorney General's Department. In January 2025, the Attorney General advised the police to discharge three key suspects in the Lasantha Wickrematunge murder case . However, following a public uproar, this decision was reversed. The Attorney General then withdrew his initial advice, a move that raised serious questions about the integrity and independence of the prosecutorial process .
Mr. Kodituwakku filed a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking the disclosure of the letters containing this legal advice. When the Attorney General's Department refused, he appealed to the RTI Commission. In a landmark order on February 25, 2026, the Commission directed the Attorney General to release the documents, stating that "there will be no harm to the public or the prosecution of criminal proceedings" in doing so . The Commission highlighted that the Attorney General holds his office "in public trust," and that his decisions are subject to public scrutiny .
"Gross Partiality" and a Culture of Impunity
This incident has become a flashpoint for long-simmering frustrations. Critics, including lawyers, activists, and victims' families, argue that the Attorney General's Department, under Ranasinghe, has stalled numerous high-profile prosecutions, creating a culture of impunity for politically connected suspects while aggressively pursuing cases against ordinary citizens . The decision to first discharge and then reverse the discharge in the Lasantha case is seen by many as a glaring example of this "partiality" and "active obstruction" .
The core accusation is that the Attorney General is "grossly partial in office" and has committed a "gross neglect of duty" . The public, represented by activists like Mr. Kodituwakku, is asking a fundamental question: can the "Fountain of Justice" be trusted when its chief officer appears to bend to public pressure and make decisions that undermine the prosecution of a case of such national importance?
This sentiment is not isolated. There are growing concerns that the Attorney General's Office is protecting powerful figures, including former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, by delaying or obstructing prosecution . The case against Wickremesinghe is another example of a high-profile prosecution where the Attorney General's actions have been questioned . For many, the Attorney General appears to be choosing to prosecute the less powerful, while shielding the elite who have allegedly planned the looting of billions of taxpayer dollars .
The NPP Government's Dilemma and the Legal Pathway Forward
This places the National People's Power (NPP) government in a difficult position. The NPP came to power on a wave of public support for change and accountability. However, it now faces the complex question of how to deal with an Attorney General whose actions are under intense scrutiny.
The legal process for removal is clear but rigorous. Under the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, an Attorney General can only be removed on specific grounds, including misconduct, corruption, gross abuse of power, gross neglect of duty, or gross partiality . For the most serious charges, the process requires a parliamentary resolution supported by a majority of MPs (including those not present), followed by an inquiry by a committee chaired by the Chief Justice .
The removal process is deliberately difficult to protect the Attorney General's office from arbitrary dismissal and safeguard its independence . This is a principle that the Justice Minister recently reaffirmed in Parliament, stating that the NPP government will not undermine the constitutional independence of the Attorney General .
Conclusion: An Existential Test for Justice
The demand for a thorough investigation into the Attorney General's conduct is not a partisan attack but a fundamental test of the nation's commitment to the rule of law. The Lasantha Wickrematunge case is a wound on the nation's conscience. The perceived failure of the Attorney General to act with integrity and impartiality in this case has reopened that wound and triggered a crisis of confidence in the entire justice system.
The NPP government must now decide: will it be seen as part of an old system that protects the powerful, or will it champion the transparency and accountability it promised? The President must consider the weight of the evidence, including the RTI Commission's findings and the public outcry. The Parliament must be prepared to exercise its constitutional power if it finds the grounds for removal are met . The public is watching, and the nation's faith in justice hangs in the balance.