Sri Lankan AG Parinda Ranasinghe: Learning Saibaba’s Tricks?
Colombo, Sri Lanka – The legal fraternity and the public are increasingly questioning whether Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe is making high-profile criminal cases "disappear" from the Department—reminiscent of the magician Saibaba's vanishing acts. With protests demanding his removal and allegations of bias and corruption, the efficiency and credibility of the Attorney General's Department under his leadership have come under intense scrutiny.
Appointed by Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe
Parinda Ranasinghe was appointed as the 49th Attorney General by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in July 2024. His appointment was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Council before being formalized by the President. This connection has naturally raised questions: Is the Attorney General protecting his political patron, Ranil Wickremesinghe, from legal accountability, particularly concerning ongoing investigations tied to the previous administration?
The Attorney General's Department, established in 1884, is designed as an independent pillar of legal governance. However, history shows that when this independence crumbles, the rule of law transforms into the rule of power. The current controversy echoes past patterns of political interference—from the manipulation of prosecutions under Felix Dias Bandaranaike in the 1970s to the structural subordination of the AG's Department under Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Questions of Efficiency and Conduct
The efficiency of the Attorney General's Department under Parinda Ranasinghe has been sharply questioned. The country faces a staggering backlog of 1,131,818 pending cases across the judicial system. The Department is severely understaffed, with only approximately 70 Senior State Counsel assigned to the Criminal Division to handle cases from across the entire country. Additionally, about 6 Additional Solicitors General with nearly 30 years of experience are expected to leave the Department this year.
While the AG's Department attributes delays to investigative gaps and resource shortages, critics argue that this is a convenient excuse. The department itself has stated that decisions are based strictly on evidence forwarded by the Police and that it "cannot proceed without evidence". In sensitive cases like the Mahara Prison riot, the department maintained there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges—a position recently upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Taxpayers' Right to Question
Parinda Ranasinghe is paid by taxpayers, and taxpayers have a fundamental right to question his conduct, credibility, and experience. If he is not doing a good job or deliberately misleading the public and the courts, he must be held accountable.
The Legal Officers' Association of the Attorney General's Department has expressed "grave concern" over what it describes as "unfounded and baseless personal attacks" against the Attorney General. The Association warns that such attacks, often amplified through social media, appear to be part of "coordinated attempts to exert pressure" on the Attorney General and his officers, threatening the independence of the Department. They emphasize that the Attorney General is subject to the rule of law and that any person aggrieved has recourse to legitimate avenues of redress.
The Lasantha Wickrematunge Case: A Flashpoint
The most damning allegations against Ranasinghe arise from the murder case of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge. Ahimsa Wickrematunge, the slain journalist's daughter, has called for Ranasinghe's impeachment, accusing him of "gross abuse of power and neglect of duty". The controversy stems from a letter sent by the Attorney General recommending the release of three suspects in connection with the case. While the AG's Department clarified that these are not the same suspects arrested for the murder, critics fear this will add the case to Sri Lanka's "long list of crimes without criminals".
Ahimsa Wickrematunge has argued that if Ranasinghe was unaware of the facts, he is guilty of "gross neglect of duty"; if he was aware, he is guilty of "gross abuse of his office". She has urged the government to impeach him to restore integrity to the justice system. The Attorney General has defended his actions, stating that his decisions remain subject to judicial review.
Is He Deliberately Misleading the Public and Courts?
The pattern raises serious concerns about whether the Attorney General is deliberately misleading the public and courts. The UN Human Rights Commissioner's report noted that a key obstacle to justice in Sri Lanka is the lack of reform within the Attorney General's office, emphasizing the need for an independent prosecutorial authority. The report highlighted that "wide prosecutorial discretion granted to the AG, reluctance to pursue cases based on uncorroborated evidence, limited investigative capacity within the police, a shortage of qualified forensic experts, and the lack of Tamil-speaking officers continue to hinder victims' access to justice and contribute to a culture of impunity".
Value for Taxpayers' Money?
The question remains: Is Parinda Ranasinghe delivering value for taxpayers' money? With a massive case backlog, high-profile cases stalling, and allegations of bias, the answer appears to be no. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has expressed concern over possible interference with the Attorney General's office, emphasizing that it is the government's duty to ensure no unwarranted interference with the exercise of the Attorney General's powers. The BASL has lent credence to the criticism that there is a coordinated campaign to undermine the office.
The Attorney General of Sri Lanka holds one of the most powerful offices in the country, with immense discretion over prosecutions. When that power is perceived to be misused—whether to protect political allies, delay cases, or make evidence "disappear"—it strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law. Taxpayers have every right to question whether Parinda Ranasinghe is serving the public interest or protecting political interests. If the allegations are substantiated, he should be held accountable. However, the Attorney General's Department warns that the ongoing vilification campaign "could cause lasting harm to the rule of law, justice system, and public trust in democratic governance".
The debate is not about personalities but about the integrity of the justice system. The Attorney General is accountable to the law and appropriate legal channels exist for addressing grievances. The decisions of the AG remain subject to judicial review, and accountability should come through proper legal frameworks—not political pressure.