Columns

The arrest and subsequent release of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe last week has become one of the most contentious episodes in Sri Lanka’s recent political and legal history. On the surface, it appears to be the story of a prominent political figure accused of misusing public funds. But the deeper implications go far beyond Wickremesinghe himself. The incident has exposed systemic flaws in the troubling use of police powers, and the fragility of due process.

For many legal practitioners, civil society activists, and ordinary citizens, this event merely confirmed what they already knew: the Sri Lankan police, when acting under political or institutional pressure, are capable of framing charges, manipulating procedures, and misusing the law to achieve predetermined outcomes

It is worthwhile  unpacking  the implications of the Wickremesinghe arrest, and situating it within the larger discourse on democracy, rule of law, and the future of Sri Lanka’s political culture.

Patterns of police action and the abuse of procedure

The Wickremesinghe case cannot be seen in isolation. Over the years, the Sri Lankan Police have been accused of routinely manipulating legal procedures to achieve outcomes that serve their interests—or those of political masters.

One common example is their use of ex parte orders obtained from magistrates on the eve of a planned protest. Typically, police officers rush to court and claim that if a demonstration is allowed to proceed, there will be a breakdown of law and order. Lacking sufficient time to inquire into the facts, magistrates, acting out of caution, often grant orders restricting protests. The matter then quietly disappears, with the police never pursuing the supposed threats of violence further. The real objective—to preempt dissent—is achieved.

Another glaring misuse of authority is the invocation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Designed as an extraordinary law to deal with terrorism, the PTA has frequently been used against ordinary citizens, activists, or community leaders in situations where normal criminal law would have sufficed. By framing cases under the PTA, the police effectively deny suspects bail, prolonging detention without trial.

The Ranil Wickremesinghe arrest fits squarely within this troubling pattern. By invoking provisions of the Offences Against Public Property Act, the police ensured that bail would not be easily available. This raises the fundamental question: was this legal strategy aimed at securing justice, or at ensuring punishment before trial?

In India, the Supreme Court has held that an arrest cannot be made merely because it is lawful to do so; it must be necessary and justifiable in the circumstances. This principle, emphasising necessity and proportionality, could well inform Sri Lankan jurisprudence and would apply to remand and detention as well.

The question of collateral purpose: Justice or revenge?

At the heart of this saga lies one critical question: was Wickremesinghe’s arrest a political manoeuvre designed to exact revenge?

All the evidence in the public domain suggests that the arrest had the hallmarks of a politically motivated action rather than a neutral pursuit of good governance.

The first indicator was the remarkable accuracy of a YouTuber’s prediction that Wickremesinghe would be arrested within days. When this prediction materialised, it reinforced the perception that the decision had been made well in advance and that the You Tuber was privy to the decision, and the machinery of the law was being deployed to stage-manage the outcome.

Second, in most complex or sensitive cases, the police consult the Attorney General’s Department before proceeding. In this instance, no such consultation seems to have occurred. For a case involving a former head of state as well as the complex  issue of what  state resources  a Head of State is entitled to use on a private visit,  the absence of  the Attorney General’s advice is striking—and telling.

Finally, the purported submission of a 38-page B Report to the Magistrate added to the skepticism.  The question arises  how such a lengthy document could have been prepared within mere hours after Wickremesinghe’s statement was recorded.

Broader implications for democracy and rule of law

The consequences of this episode go beyond Wickremesinghe. They touch on fundamental issues of democracy and governance.

A society where the police can manipulate procedure, deny due process, and act with political bias is a society where no citizen is safe. Today it may be a former president; tomorrow it could be an ordinary citizen protesting corruption, a student leader demanding education reform, or a journalist exposing abuse of power. The very essence of the rule of law—the idea that all are equal before the law, is undermined.

Political calculations and strategic missteps

The political fallout of the arrest is complex.

For the NPP government, the arrest may prove a strategic blunder. Memories of the 1988–89 insurrection remain vivid, when the JVP’s decision to target the families of police and armed forces proved a turning point that resulted in a backlash that contributed to the State’s brutal suppression of the uprising. In the same way, the targeting of Wickremesinghe—whether or not he enjoys broad popular support—could generate resentment against the government and loss of confidence even among its own supporters. Actions perceived as vindictive often backfire and can provide a lifeline for the very individuals who may have to be dealt with in the Government’s crusade against corruption.

For the SJB, the incident presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The SJB has cultivated an image as the only major party untainted by large-scale corruption scandals. Forging broad political alliances risks associating the party with discredited elements of the old political order. The SJB must therefore tread carefully—defending principles of justice without allowing itself to be painted as defending  the corrupt and those rejected by the people.

The silence of the private sector and the dehumanization of politics

The private sector’s silence is also telling. Wickremesinghe has long been viewed as a friend of business, consistently promoting policies favorable to corporate interests. Yet, in his hour of need, the private sector has remained conspicuously quiet. Whether out of fear, political calculation,  indifference or sheer self interest their silence reflects a troubling unwillingness to speak out against injustice—even when directed at one of their chief allies.

Another disturbing feature of the saga has been the reaction on social media. Many posts were filled with vitriol, celebrating Wickremesinghe’s arrest with glee. This reflects a deeper societal problem: the dehumanization of political opponents.

Whatever one thinks of Wickremesinghe’s policies or political record, the central issue here is injustice. A society that celebrates the arbitrary misuse of power against a political figure risks normalizing that same injustice against anyone else.

A warning for the future

The arrest of Ranil Wickremesinghe should be understood not as an isolated political skirmish but as a warning as to how easily political vendettas can be dressed up in the language of legality.

If the public allows this precedent to stand, the consequences will be far-reaching. Future governments, regardless of party, will be tempted to use the police as instruments of political control. The space for dissent will shrink. The line between good governance and revenge will blur.

 Beyond Ranil Wickremesinghe

The real lesson of last week’s events is not about Ranil Wickremesinghe himself. Democracy cannot survive if police investigations are reduced to a political weapon. It cannot thrive if citizens—whether Presidents, protesters, or ordinary  citizens—are left vulnerable to arbitrary arrests.

What is at stake is not merely the fate of one former President, but the future of the freedom for every citizen.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)