Sri Lankan legislators never miss an opportunity to affirm their commitment to the principle of natural justice, the presumption of innocence, etc., but they unflinchingly use their parliamentary privileges to insult others, and even treat suspects in custody as guilty and carry out vilification campaigns. One wonders whether they are trying to run a parallel judiciary, as it were. Ruling party members predict arrests and the incarceration of their political rivals. This deplorable practice, however, is not of recent origin.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and Deputy Minister of Media Dr. Kaushalya Ariyarathne had a heated argument in Parliament on Thursday over crime and criminals in politics. Ariyarathne claimed that the JVP-NPP government had prevented a person who even obtained protection money (kappan) from underworld figures from securing the post of deputy leader in the SJB. She mentioned the name of Charith Abeysinghe currently in remand custody. Premadasa retorted that a party that had committed heinous crimes was now levelling baseless allegations against his party. His reference was obviously to the JVP and its past crimes.

During the past several decades, lawmakers have abused their parliamentary privileges by treating some suspects as guilty solely because of their arrests, without leaving the determination of guilt or innocence of the suspects to the judiciary in the interests of fairness and the separation of powers. Suspects and others who are at the receiving end of such malicious attacks carried out by legislators during their parliamentary speeches have no means of defending themselves. If sovereignty resides in the people and Parliament only exercises their legislative power vested in it, they should be able to seek redress when legislators blatantly violate their rights, taking cover behind parliamentary privileges.

One may recall that Parliament was turned into a kangaroo court during the second term of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the then Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake was subjected to vilification by a parliamentary Select Committee, which was packed with Rajapaksa supporters. Obviously, due process was not followed in ‘impeaching’ her. That being the experience of a Chief Justice, the helplessness of ordinary people who become targets of malicious attacks by legislators goes without saying.

Strangely, the MPs who conduct what may be described as legislative trials and trade allegations of criminal offences baulk at having high-profile crimes probed. The incumbent government made a hue and cry about the Batalanda torture chambers, where hundreds, if not thousands, of suspects were ‘put to the question’ before being killed. It alleged former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s involvement in them. Most of the victims were JVP members or sympathisers. So, it was widely thought that the JVP-NPP government would get to the bottom of it. But what has become of the much-publicised probe is anybody’s guess. Has the government got cold feet as the probe is very likely to open a can of worms for it, given the numerous crimes the JVP committed during its second uprising in the late 1980s? The JVP leaders should explain to the public why they opted for a political honeymoon with the UNP under Ranil Wickremesinghe’s leadership from 2015 to 2019.

President Anura Kamara Dissanayake has declared that his government will not allow serious crimes to be buried in the sands of time. So, he should have all crimes committed under successive governments probed. Prosecution for serious crimes is not time-barred, and he ought to appoint a special presidential commission to probe all political killings since 1977. Why the JVP-led government has not ordered an investigation into the extrajudicial execution of JVP founder Rohana Wijeweera in 1989 is the question. Some of the perpetrators of that crime are said to be still alive, and they must be brought to justice.

The SJB should make a pledge in its next election manifesto to have the crimes which its leader Premadasa says the JVP committed in the 1987-89 period, investigated thoroughly. It should also explain why its leaders did not call for a probe into those crimes while they were in power from 2015 to 2019 as members of the UNP-led Yahapalana government. They had no qualms about enlisting the JVP’s support to retain their hold on power following the SLFP’s pullout from their government. The JVP even had representation in the National Executive Council of the Yahapalana government.

When the members of the current Parliament clash, accusing one another of criminal activities, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They ought to stop trading accusations and have those crimes probed while in power. They should fish or cut bait.

Saturday 11th July, 2026

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has been urging President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to take action to fill four vacancies each in the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeal (SC), but in vain. It has renewed its call, in a letter to the President, who however remains impervious to public opinion and fervent calls for filling the judicial vacancies. The BASL has warned that the prolonged delay in filling them could undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the Judiciary.

The BASL has further noted that it is still awaiting a response to its previous letter to President Dissanayake, objecting to a government proposal to amend the Constitution to increase the retirement ages of the SC and CA judges and warning that such a move could have implications for judicial independence. Is it that the President’s Office has chosen to remain silent on the BASL letter?

The first of the SC vacancies arose following the retirement of Justice Gamini Amarasekera on 20 June 2025, according to the BASL. The other vacancies occurred due to the retirement of Justices S. Thurairaja, Kumudini Wickramasinghe and Priyantha Fernando.

There are no signs of President Dissanayake initiating action to fill the vacancies in the SC and the CA any time soon. Neither he nor his government has been able to offer any plausible explanation either, and it is only natural that an ulterior motive is suspected.

The BASL has rightly reminded President Dissanayake of his constitutional responsibility in this regard. Quoting Article 107 (1) of the Constitution, it has said the President is duty bound to appoint the judges of the SC and the CA, and warned that the continuation of judicial vacancies at issue over a long time is inconsistent with the effective discharge of that vital constitutional function. It is being asked in some quarters whether the President’s failure to fulfil this constitutional responsibility amounts to a violation of the Constitution.

The SC and CA vacancies have impeded the career progression of members of the judiciary, the BASL has argued cogently, insisting that they have placed an additional heavy burden on the two courts, as both of them now have to function with 25% fewer judges than their constitutionally stipulated complements. This situation has severely impacted the administration of justice and the efficient disposal of matters coming before the SC and the CA, according to the BASL. This is a very serious situation, and it defies comprehension why President Dissanayake has chosen to remain silent.

What’s the world coming to when the Head of State of a country keeps 25% of positions each in the superior courts vacant and refuses to heed serious concerns and counsel of professional organisations of lawyers and individual legal experts?

There is no way President Dissanayake can justify his decision to keep judicial vacancies under discussion unfilled. His failure to fill them could give rise to the perception that he is doing so pending the eligibility of certain individuals, as the BASL and other professional organisations have argued. Such perceptions do matter as much as reality in this country, given the manner in which successive governments have interfered with the judiciary to further their political interests.

If President Dissanayake thinks he can wear down his critics and have his own way, where judicial vacancies and the questionable government move to raise the retirement ages of the SC and CA judges are concerned, he will be mistaken. Such obduracy stemming from the arrogance of power is counterproductive, for it compels the critics of the government to harden their position on the issue and erodes public confidence in both the government and the judiciary.

Friday 10th July, 2026

The latest bout of prison violence has brought the appalling conditions of Sri Lanka’s prisons to light once again. Whenever riots erupt in prisons and lives are lost, issues such as prison congestion, squalor, etc., attract the attention of legislators and other policymakers, but hardly any remedial action is taken, and no wonder the status quo remains. Governments only pay lip service to prison reforms, which have become mere political slogans.

Over the past few days, many members of Parliament have been shedding copious tears for the victims of the Negombo prison violence, which claimed about 28 lives, including those of seven officers, but sadly nothing comes of their so-called discussions and debates. Cynics say Sri Lanka has a NATO (No-Action-Talk-Only) parliament, where its members talk the talk, but seldom walk the walk. They ought to sink their political differences and find ways and means of improving the conditions of prisons, which are widely considered hellholes. Haphazard prison reforms won’t do.

Meanwhile, as for remand prisons, there is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed urgently. Even a brief stay in a Sri Lankan remand prison is tantamount to punishment in itself before conviction, as is public knowledge. Suspects are so vulnerable in prisons that they even run the risk of being beaten to death, as we saw the other day in Negombo. Successive governments have abused the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), the Offences against Public Property Act, etc., to have suspects arrested and remanded for prolonged periods.

Many people languish in remand prisons due to politically motivated arrests and selective enforcement that the police have earned notoriety for. The police ought to conduct thorough investigations and gather credible evidence before moving to arrest suspects who are not hardcore criminals posing a danger to society. It defies comprehension why so many suspects are arrested and kept in remand prisons for months on end even when there is no reason to suspect that they will flee the country, interfere with witnesses, suppress evidence, commit further serious offences, or pose a significant danger to the public.

Pretrial arrests, remand or detention should be the exception and not the rule, especially in a country like Sri Lanka, which cannot even ensure the safety of convicts and remand prisoners. The police make arrests swiftly and thereafter drag their feet on investigations while objecting to bail for suspects. Most suspects who are arrested and remanded in this manner are political opponents of the governments in power. There have been numerous such cases during the past several decades. Ruling party politicians use arrests to vilify their opponents and gain political mileage. They abuse their parliamentary privileges to defame suspects in custody and hold social media kangaroo trials with impunity. They apparently presume suspects guilty until proven innocent. When they do so, the police cannot be expected to conduct impartial investigations; the police dare not do anything that might cause the ruling party politicians to lose face. It is no surprise that the police have been accused of fabricating evidence against suspects who have incurred the wrath of ruling party politicians.

Holding a person on remand indefinitely until the conclusion of investigations is not consistent with due process and international best practices. The rule of law demands that the police or other investigators establish reasonable grounds to suspect an offence, collect and preserve evidence, interview witnesses, question suspects and assess the facts objectively before depriving anyone of personal liberty. They must not act according to their whims and fancies or at the behest of their political masters.

Premature arrests risk wrongful detention, reputational damage, hardships and expensive legal challenges for suspects. They could also compromise public confidence in law enforcement and lead to perceptions that investigations are influenced by political pressure or public sentiment rather than facts. When the rule of law is undermined, the justice system becomes weak.