NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW: AKD’S BIGGEST TEST IS TO DEFEND SRI LANKA’S JUDICIARY
The NPP promised to end political privilege, not replace one powerful elite with another. As controversial court decisions provoke public pressure, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake must show that neither politicians nor religious influence can dictate the course of justice.
Sri Lanka has reached a defining moment. For decades, the country's political establishment has been accused of operating a system in which connections mattered more than accountability, powerful figures enjoyed protection and ordinary citizens were left to question whether the law applied equally to everyone.
Now, under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People's Power (NPP) government, that old political culture faces a serious test.
The question is simple: will Sri Lanka finally become a country where the law applies equally to the powerful and the powerless, or will political pressure once again determine who faces justice and who escapes it?
President Dissanayake has made clear his commitment to respecting decisions of the Supreme Court and other courts. That principle must now be defended without hesitation. A government elected on promises of clean politics and accountability cannot allow protests, political manoeuvring or religious intervention to undermine the authority of the judiciary.
The courts must have the final word on matters of law—not the loudest politician, the most influential religious figure or the largest crowd outside a courthouse.
The old rules of political privilege must end
For years, Sri Lankan politics has been dogged by allegations that individuals connected to influential politicians could escape serious scrutiny while ordinary people faced the full weight of the law.
Environmental destruction, alleged illegal sand mining, suspected corruption and the misuse of public resources have all raised difficult questions about enforcement. In communities affected by these problems, people have often wondered whether the authorities would act with the same determination if those suspected of wrongdoing had powerful political connections.
Consider allegations involving tree felling and sand mining in the Mahiyangana area. Where claims have been made that individuals enjoyed political protection under previous administrations, the appropriate response is not to assume guilt but to demand a thorough, impartial investigation.
If evidence establishes an offence, the law must take its course. If the evidence does not support prosecution, the individual must be treated fairly.
That is precisely what distinguishes the rule of law from political revenge.
The NPP's task is not to punish everyone associated with a previous government. It is to ensure that nobody receives immunity because of such an association.
A relative of a former minister, a wealthy businessman, a political donor or a person with access to the corridors of power must face the same legal standards as any other citizen.
If the NPP allows influential individuals to escape scrutiny, it will have betrayed the expectations of voters who demanded a fundamental change in political culture.
When religious pressure collides with the rule of law
The greatest danger arises when a judicial decision becomes the target of organised political or religious pressure.
Sri Lanka's religious leaders have an important place in society. They have the right to express opinions, advocate reforms and participate in peaceful public debate. Citizens also have the right to protest against decisions they consider unjust.
But those freedoms do not confer a right to intimidate judges, obstruct court proceedings or demand that the executive disregard a lawful judgment.
When a court reaches a decision that powerful individuals dislike, the proper response is to use the remedies provided by law. Appeals, legal arguments and constitutional procedures exist precisely because judicial decisions may be challenged through an established process.
Street pressure cannot replace that process.
Nor should the government make concessions simply because a controversial ruling generates demonstrations or attracts influential supporters.
If political leaders can overturn the practical effect of judicial decisions through public pressure, the independence of the judiciary becomes little more than a constitutional promise.
President Dissanayake must therefore draw a clear line: peaceful criticism is part of democracy, but intimidation and improper interference cannot be allowed to determine the administration of justice.
The same standard must apply regardless of whether the pressure comes from a religious organisation, a political party, a business interest or a group supporting the government itself.
The Bribery Commission and CID must be free to act
A commitment to the rule of law is meaningless without independent institutions capable of investigating wrongdoing.
The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Criminal Investigation Department and other authorised agencies must be able to investigate credible allegations without political interference. Where the evidence justifies prosecution, the relevant authorities must make their decisions in accordance with the law.
The Attorney General's role is also crucial. Decisions about criminal proceedings must be based on the evidence, applicable legislation and the public interest—not political instructions or pressure from powerful individuals.
The courts must then independently determine the cases brought before them.
This process may be slower than public opinion demands. Complex investigations require evidence, financial records, witness testimony and proper legal analysis. Arrests do not establish guilt, and allegations do not constitute convictions.
But neither should delay, influence or intimidation be allowed to defeat legitimate investigations.
The NPP must resist the temptation to present every investigation as proof of guilt or every prosecution as a political victory. Its responsibility is to protect the integrity of the process and allow justice to take its course.
The objective is not simply to put prominent people behind bars. It is to establish accountability through fair trials and lawful judgments.
AKD cannot afford to create a new political elite
The NPP rose to power on the promise of a different kind of politics. Its supporters wanted a government that would challenge corruption, protect public resources and end the culture of impunity associated with powerful political networks.
That mandate carries a heavy responsibility.
The government cannot claim to have transformed Sri Lanka if it merely replaces one group of privileged individuals with another. Nor can it credibly defend judicial independence only when court decisions support its political objectives.
The real test will come when a judgment embarrasses the administration, when an investigation touches someone close to the governing party, or when a court rejects a position supported by the President.
Will the government respect the decision then?
That is the question that separates a genuine commitment to constitutional government from political rhetoric.
A strong administration does not fear an independent judiciary. It recognises that independent courts protect the government, its opponents and ordinary citizens from the arbitrary exercise of power.
The NPP must therefore demonstrate that its own ministers, officials and supporters are subject to exactly the same standards as those associated with previous administrations.
Anything less would undermine the credibility of its reform programme.
Public money demands public accountability
Sri Lanka's economic crisis has made accountability more urgent than ever. Citizens have borne the consequences of economic instability and difficult financial adjustments. They are entitled to demand that public money is managed transparently and that credible allegations of corruption are investigated.
Where criminal wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the consequences prescribed by law. Where assets have been unlawfully acquired, the authorities should pursue recovery through the appropriate legal procedures.
But prosecution alone will not solve the problem.
The government must strengthen public procurement, improve financial disclosure, protect whistleblowers and ensure that public institutions cannot be captured by private interests.
It must also communicate honestly about the progress of investigations without compromising fair-trial rights or judicial independence.
The ultimate objective should be a system in which corruption is more difficult to commit, easier to uncover and less likely to go unpunished.
That would be a far more lasting achievement than a series of high-profile arrests.
The judiciary must not become another political battlefield
There is a fundamental distinction between upholding the law and using the law as a political weapon.
The NPP must respect that distinction at every stage. No person should be prosecuted simply because of political affiliation, and no person should be protected because of it.
Judges must be free from intimidation. Investigators must be free from improper instructions. Prosecutors must be able to exercise their independent professional judgment. And the executive must respect the constitutional limits of its authority.
Equally, public criticism of the government must remain a legitimate part of democratic life. A government that demands respect for the courts must also respect the rights of citizens who peacefully disagree with its policies.
The rule of law is not a weapon to be wielded against political opponents. It is a framework that binds the entire state.
That is why the NPP must defend judicial independence even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
The verdict that will define the NPP
President Dissanayake has an opportunity to establish a lasting legacy: a Sri Lanka in which political connections no longer provide a shield against accountability and where religious influence cannot override constitutional authority.
But that legacy will not be secured through speeches alone. It will depend on the government's willingness to resist pressure, protect independent institutions and accept judicial decisions even when the consequences are uncomfortable.
The country does not need politicians deciding who deserves justice. It needs independent courts applying the law impartially, supported by investigators and prosecutors who can do their jobs without fear or favour.
Nor should anyone mistake the enforcement of the law for a political vendetta. Every accused person deserves due process, every allegation must be tested against evidence, and every judgment must be respected unless lawfully overturned.
Sri Lanka's democratic future depends on one uncompromising principle: no politician, no wealthy individual, no religious leader and no government should stand above the law.
The NPP was elected amid demands for change. Its greatest achievement will not be the number of political opponents investigated or prosecuted. It will be the creation of a system in which nobody can use power to escape justice—and nobody can use power to manipulate it.
That is the standard President Anura Kumara Dissanayake must uphold. And it is the standard by which history will judge his government.