Did Ranil Wickremesinghe Mislead the Court? UK Government Records Raise New Questions Over His 2023 Visit
FCDO transparency records put the former President's “official visit” claim under renewed scrutiny
A new publication by the United Kingdom's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has raised a potentially important question concerning former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe's controversial visit to Britain in September 2023.
The question is straightforward:
If Ranil Wickremesinghe maintained before the Sri Lankan courts that his visit to Britain was an official engagement, why does the UK Government's own published record of State and Guest of Government visits contain no corresponding visit by the Sri Lankan President?
The question deserves a proper legal and factual investigation.
The FCDO has published transparency data covering State and Guest of Government visits to Britain between July 2023 and December 2024. The department explains that the data covers senior foreign dignitaries invited to Britain either on a State Visit by His Majesty The King or as Guests of Government by the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary.
The published table records presidential and ministerial visits from countries including the United States, Somalia, Ukraine, Indonesia and others. It also separately records State Visits by the President of South Korea, the Emperor of Japan and the Emir of Qatar.
Sri Lanka does not appear in the list.
More importantly, there is no entry for Ranil Wickremesinghe as a Sri Lankan President among the UK's published Guests of Government or State Visits for the relevant period.
That does not, by itself, prove that Wickremesinghe's visit was unlawful or that he deliberately lied to court.
But it raises a serious question about exactly what he meant when he repeatedly maintained that the visit was an “official” one.
The Wolverhampton controversy
The controversy concerns Wickremesinghe's trip to Britain on 22 September 2023, when his wife, Professor Maithree Wickremasinghe, was involved in an event connected with her honorary professorship at the University of Wolverhampton.
The case later became the subject of a criminal investigation concerning the alleged expenditure of public funds on the trip.
Wickremesinghe has denied wrongdoing.
His defence has included the argument that the visit was connected to an invitation from the University of Wolverhampton. In August 2025, the United National Party published what it described as the university's official invitation addressed to President Ranil Wickremesinghe and First Lady Maithree Wickremasinghe. The letter invited them to a special graduation luncheon associated with celebrations of Professor Wickremasinghe's honorary professorship.
That document is clearly relevant.
But another question must now be separated from it:
Was an invitation from a British university equivalent to an official invitation from the United Kingdom Government?
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
The distinction the courts should examine
An invitation from a university can unquestionably be an official invitation from that university.
But the FCDO's published transparency regime uses a particular governmental classification: State Visits and Guests of Government.
According to the FCDO, a Guest of Government is a senior foreign dignitary invited by the British Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, while State Visits are conducted by invitation of the King.
The FCDO's published records therefore provide an important benchmark.
If Wickremesinghe's claim was merely that he had received an invitation from the University of Wolverhampton, the FCDO dataset does not contradict that.
But if the argument presented to court was that his trip was an official UK Government visit by the President of Sri Lanka, the absence of Sri Lanka from the FCDO's State and Guest of Government records becomes highly relevant.
That distinction should be tested against the actual court record.
A further complication: what did Wolverhampton itself say?
The issue became even more complicated following an information request to the University of Wolverhampton.
A report published in March 2026 concerning the university's response to a Freedom of Information request stated that the university said the invitation was for a luncheon held for Professor Maithree Wickremasinghe. The university reportedly said it provided lunch for Ranil Wickremesinghe, but did not identify the visit as a diplomatic engagement.
If that account accurately reproduces the university's FOI response, it deserves to be placed alongside the invitation document produced by the UNP.
The central question is therefore no longer simply whether a document called an “invitation” existed.
The real question is:
What exactly was the nature and purpose of that invitation, and how was it represented to the Sri Lankan authorities and the court?
Did the former President mislead the court?
This is where caution is essential.
It would be premature to declare as an established fact that Ranil Wickremesinghe “lied to the court” solely because the FCDO database does not contain his name.
The database does not purport to list every private, institutional, academic or diplomatic visit by foreign presidents. It specifically concerns State and Guest of Government visits.
Therefore, the absence of Wickremesinghe's name cannot, standing alone, prove dishonesty.
However, if evidence eventually establishes that Wickremesinghe knowingly represented a university invitation as a UK Government invitation, or knowingly gave the court a materially false account of the status of the visit, that would be an entirely different matter.
It would raise questions about the accuracy of evidence placed before a judicial proceeding.
Contempt of court is not simply another word for lying
There is also an important legal distinction concerning contempt.
A person does not automatically commit contempt merely because another party alleges that the person gave inaccurate evidence.
Contempt jurisdiction concerns conduct that interferes with or undermines the administration of justice, including disobedience of court orders and other conduct falling within the court's contempt jurisdiction.
A knowingly false statement made in judicial proceedings can also potentially raise separate questions concerning false evidence, perjury or other offences, depending on the circumstances, the form in which the evidence was given, and the applicable Sri Lankan law.
Therefore, any allegation against Wickremesinghe should be tested against the actual documents filed in court, the exact words used, whether they were sworn or otherwise formally given as evidence, and whether there is evidence of knowledge and intention.
That is considerably more serious than simply discovering that two government databases contain different descriptions.
What about the legal team?
The lawyers who represented Wickremesinghe should also not be accused automatically of participating in wrongdoing merely because they presented his defence.
A lawyer is entitled to advance a client's case on the basis of instructions and evidence.
However, if a lawyer knowingly placed fabricated or deliberately false evidence before a court, that could raise professional and potentially legal consequences.
The critical word is knowingly.
If counsel received a document from a client and had no reason to believe it was false, the situation is fundamentally different from knowingly presenting false evidence.
That distinction is essential if this controversy is to be treated as a genuine rule-of-law issue rather than a political attack.
The court should examine the original evidence
The appropriate response is therefore not trial by newspaper.
It is judicial scrutiny.
The court should examine:
- The original invitation from the University of Wolverhampton.
- The exact wording of the invitation and the capacity in which Wickremesinghe was invited.
- Whether the invitation was ever transmitted to the Sri Lankan High Commission in London.
- Whether the British Foreign Office or British Prime Minister's Office had any involvement.
- Whether any UK Government department classified the visit as an official governmental engagement.
- The actual evidence given by Wickremesinghe before the Sri Lankan court.
- Any affidavit, statement or written submission containing the alleged representation.
- The evidence obtained directly from the University of Wolverhampton.
- Records concerning expenditure by the Sri Lankan Government.
- Any evidence showing what Wickremesinghe and his lawyers knew when the representation was made.
These questions are capable of being answered through documentary evidence.
The FCDO record changes the political argument
The newly published FCDO data is therefore important, but its significance should not be exaggerated.
It does not prove that Wickremesinghe did not travel to Britain.
It does not prove that the university did not invite him.
It does not prove that every statement made by Wickremesinghe in court was false.
What it does establish is that the UK Government's published list of State and Guest of Government visits for the relevant period does not identify a Sri Lankan presidential visit.
That fact should now be compared directly with the evidence presented before the Sri Lankan court.
From political controversy to accountability
For Sri Lanka, this is bigger than Ranil Wickremesinghe.
The principle at stake is whether a former President, a sitting President at the time of the events, is subject to the same evidentiary standards as every other citizen.
The courts cannot operate on political status.
If the evidence establishes that the visit was genuinely private, the court should say so.
If it establishes that it was an institutional invitation from a university but not a UK Government invitation, that distinction should be recorded.
If the evidence establishes that it was genuinely a UK Government engagement, the relevant British records should demonstrate that.
And if the evidence ultimately establishes that materially false evidence was knowingly placed before the court, the appropriate legal authorities—not political parties—should determine what consequences follow.
That is why the demand should not simply be “arrest Ranil” or “start contempt proceedings immediately.”
The proper demand is more fundamental:
Examine the evidence. Identify exactly what was represented to the court. Compare that representation with the official British records. Determine who knew what, and when. Then apply the law without fear or favour.
The FCDO publication has provided a new documentary reference point. It is now for the Sri Lankan judicial process to determine whether there is merely a difference in terminology—or whether a materially false representation was actually made to a court.
Until that question is answered, calling Ranil Wickremesinghe a proven liar would go beyond the evidence currently available.
But asking whether the former President misled the court—and demanding that the question be formally investigated—is entirely legitimate.