Columns

In the delicate machinery of a constitutional democracy, few cogs are as vital — and as vulnerable — as the Office of the Attorney General. Over the past few weeks, the environs of Hulftsdorf have been disrupted by an unsettling cacophony: street demonstrations, targeted social media campaigns, and a rising tide of media hostility directed personally at the Attorney General, Parinda Ranasinghe Jr.

While public critique is a hallmark of a healthy democracy, the current vitriol directed at the AG transcends legitimate grievance. It has taken the form of a coordinated assault that threatens to undermine not just an individual, but the institutional independence of the legal cornerstone of the state. At a time when Sri Lanka is gasping for stability and the rule of law, one must ask: Are these protests a genuine cry for justice, or will they have the effect of dismantling the last safeguards of our legal system?

The anatomy of the allegations

The primary ammunition used by critics involves the alleged “blocking or delaying” of justice in high-profile cases. Protestors point to the Mahara Prison riot, the Kosgoda STF shooting, and the tragic assassination of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge. The narrative on social media suggests that the AG’s Department is the primary bottleneck preventing indictments.

However, an analysis of the law reveals a different reality. The Attorney General does not operate in a vacuum; he is the recipient of evidence gathered by the Police. As the Department has rightly pointed out, the AG cannot fabricate indictments out of thin air if the investigative files provided by the Police contain fundamental gaps. To demand that the AG prosecute without sufficient evidence is to demand the subversion of the law itself.

Interestingly, the “selective amnesia” of the protestors is telling. While they correctly lament the delay in the Lasantha Wickrematunge case, there is a conspicuous silence regarding many other cases such as the Easter Sunday attacks or the VFS visa fraud — cases where evidence is fresh and more readily available. This selectivity suggests that the current agitation is less about “justice for all” and more about “justice for a specific narrative.”

The hidden hand: Political targeting

There is a growing suspicion among independent observers that the issue of the Attorney General is being used as a proxy in a larger political game. The timing of these attacks looks suspiciously like an attempt to shape a narrative aimed at demonizing selected political figures, most notably Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Recent events regarding the investigation into Wickremesinghe’s visit to Wolverhampton highlight a disturbing trend of sidelining the AG’s office. According to a media report in the Sunday Times the Police reportedly sent officials to London to investigate without consulting the AG — a move that bypasses established protocol. Furthermore, the decision to interview only High Commission officials (as reported in the media) while ignoring the university in question raises serious questions about the depth and intent of the investigation.

The legal boundary between “official duty” and “private travel” is uncharted territory. In such sensitive and legally complicated matters, the AG’s advice is not just a formality; it is an absolute necessity. When the police act independently of the AG’s guidance, they risk erroneously transforming a potential administrative irregularity — which could be handled via a surcharge under the Establishment Code—into a criminal spectacle. This tension between the Police and the AG’s office is a dangerous symptom of institutional decay.

The perils of “Trial by social media”

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), an independent and vital voice in the legal fraternity, has issued a stern warning against undermining the office of the AG. They recognise a fundamental truth: if the AG’s office is weakened to satisfy the whims of a street protest or a trending hashtag, the entire administration of justice collapses.

Sri Lanka’s history offers an important lesson. Years ago, then-Attorney General Sarath Silva made the “cardinal mistake” of holding press conferences to rebut allegations made against him by journalist Victor Ivan. By descending into the arena to defend himself against personal attacks, he inadvertently began a process that diminished the dignity and perceived neutrality of his office.

Parinda Ranasinghe Jr finds himself in a similar crucible. While the pressure to respond to “keyboard warriors” is immense, the AG’s defense is best left to independent bodies like the BASL as well as the government. The moment the Attorney General begins debating protesters in the streets is the moment the office loses its aura of impartial authority.

The BASL has emphasised that the Attorney General performs a quasi-judicial role in criminal matters, making decisions based on evidence and legal standards rather than popular opinion or political pressure. It warns that current organised campaigns — especially on social media — risk undermining the independence and integrity of the Office of the Attorney General if they pressure or influence prosecutorial decisions.

The BASL as well as the Attorney General himself has also reminded the public that decisions by the AG can be challenged in court (the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court) through established legal remedies — and that this is the constitutionally appropriate way to contest decisions. While acknowledging that citizens have a right to critique public officials, the BASL stresses such criticism must stay within bounds that respect institutional independence and not become an attempt at undue interference.

Government’s response inadequate

The government’s response has not been sufficient to clear the air. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara recently stated that there has been “no Cabinet discussion” regarding the removal of the AG. To the seasoned observer, this phrasing is worrying. In the political culture of Sri Lanka, many momentous decisions are reached after discussions in the “higher echelons” of power long before they reach the Cabinet for formal approval. By failing to issue a categorical, high-level defense of the AG’s independence, the government allows the seeds of doubt to fester.

The institutional decay that has plagued our system since the late 70s cannot be reversed if one allows the AG’s office to be bullied. As argued in this column on September 28, 2025 under the headline “Handle the judiciary with care” efforts to tackle corruption can have unintended collateral consequences if pressure is applied on the judicial system itself and therefore the judiciary should be handled with care.

This duty of care should extend as well to the Attorney General, who serves as the bridge between the executive and the judiciary.

Conclusion: Strengthening, not weakening

Where the AG’s Department is found wanting, the solution is institutional reform and the provision of better resources — not a public lynching of the office holder’s reputation. Shortcomings must be corrected in a manner that strengthens the department’s capacity to act without fear or favor.

If the independence of the Attorney General is to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency or social media outrage, we are not moving toward justice. We are moving toward a state where the law is merely a tool for whoever can shout the loudest or tweet the most. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)