by Our Correspondent in Colombo
The Sri Lankan government has initiated moves seeking the return of former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa from the United States to face criminal proceedings in Colombo, according to multiple government sources familiar with the matter, opening a potentially significant test of the extradition relationship between the two countries.
Sources at the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Secretariat separately confirmed that communications have taken place over securing Rajapaksa’s return to Sri Lanka. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the legal and diplomatic sensitivity of the process and because they were not authorised to publicly discuss details of the exchanges.
According to the sources, Sri Lankan authorities have communicated with the United States over Rajapaksa, who is believed to be in the US, as investigators and prosecutors seek to move forward with proceedings linked to alleged financial misconduct.
The sources said the government’s position is that Rajapaksa should be returned to Sri Lanka to face the country’s judicial process and respond to the cases against him. They stressed that the effort is being pursued through legal and diplomatic mechanisms rather than a political arrangement between the two governments.
Rajapaksa, a former finance minister and one of the most influential figures in the powerful Rajapaksa political family, has faced several investigations and court proceedings in Sri Lanka. He must be presumed innocent unless and until convicted by a competent court.
The latest legal pressure intensified in May when the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court ordered the Criminal Investigation Department to arrest Rajapaksa and several others over the alleged misuse of Rs. 7.8 million belonging to the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau for political campaigning during the 2014 Uva Provincial Council election. The CID informed court that the suspects were to be named under the Public Property Act following instructions from the Attorney General, according to local court reporting.
Government sources said the existence of warrants and active criminal proceedings has given Sri Lankan authorities a basis to explore the formal mechanisms available for obtaining Rajapaksa’s return from the United States.
However, an extradition would not occur automatically upon a letter from Colombo, nor would a political request by the Sri Lankan government alone compel Washington to place Rajapaksa on an aircraft bound for Colombo.
The legal foundation is the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, signed in Washington on September 30, 1999. The treaty was formally transmitted to the US Senate by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and created a bilateral framework for surrendering fugitives wanted for prosecution, sentencing or the enforcement of a sentence.
The treaty uses the principle of dual criminality. In broad terms, the central question is whether the conduct underlying an accusation is criminal under the laws of both countries and meets the treaty’s punishment threshold. The two countries do not have to use identical names for the offence or place it in the same category of criminal law. The treaty text and its official US analysis make clear that differences in legal terminology do not, by themselves, prevent extradition.
That provision could become particularly important in a case involving allegations of misuse of public money or other financial offences. Sri Lankan authorities would have to present the underlying alleged conduct and supporting evidence in a manner capable of satisfying the requirements of the treaty and United States extradition law. It would not be sufficient merely to tell Washington that a Sri Lankan court has issued a warrant.
The treaty also removes nationality as an automatic barrier to surrender. Therefore, Rajapaksa’s status as a US citizen would not, by itself, make him immune from an extradition request under the bilateral framework. The legal question would instead turn on whether Sri Lanka submits a valid request covering extraditable conduct and whether the required US process is satisfied.
On the American side, foreign extradition demands are generally transmitted through diplomatic channels. The US Department of State reviews whether a treaty is in force, whether the alleged crimes are extraditable and whether the supporting material has been properly certified. A request in proper order is then forwarded to the US Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, which plays the central role in handling foreign extradition cases involving fugitives located in the United States.
The Justice Department’s own guidance states that its Office of International Affairs reviews a formal foreign request to determine whether the documentation is in order and whether the material can establish probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the fugitive committed it. A conforming request can then be sent to federal prosecutors in the district where the person is believed to be located for the next stage of the extradition process.
This means Sri Lanka would be expected to assemble a detailed legal package identifying Rajapaksa, setting out the alleged offences, explaining the relevant Sri Lankan laws and providing the warrants, court material and evidence necessary to support the request.
A United States court would not conduct Rajapaksa’s Sri Lankan criminal trial or decide whether he is ultimately guilty of the allegations. Instead, the US extradition process would examine whether the legal requirements for extradition have been met. The judicial stage and the subsequent executive role of the US government are distinct parts of the process.
If the legal requirements are satisfied and surrender is ultimately authorised, Rajapaksa could be transferred to Sri Lankan custody and brought to Colombo to face the proceedings for which extradition was granted. The principle of speciality under extradition law can restrict a requesting state from simply obtaining a person for one set of offences and then prosecuting that person for unrelated matters outside the terms of surrender.
Sri Lanka’s own domestic extradition framework is principally contained in the Extradition Law, No. 8 of 1977, subsequently amended. The legislation provides for the extradition of fugitive persons to and from foreign states and regulates the treatment of persons accused or convicted of offences in Sri Lanka who are returned from abroad.
The current effort involving Rajapaksa is therefore potentially more complex than an ordinary arrest warrant. It requires Sri Lankan investigators, prosecutors, justice officials and diplomats to translate a domestic criminal case into a treaty-compliant request capable of surviving scrutiny inside the United States legal system.
Multiple government sources said Colombo is aware of that complexity and that the matter has involved more than one state institution. The Ministry of Justice has a central interest in the legal framework, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is relevant to diplomatic communications. The Presidential Secretariat is also aware of the effort, according to sources familiar with the government’s handling of the issue.
The precise status of any formal extradition dossier submitted to Washington remains unclear. The sources confirmed communications seeking US cooperation but declined to disclose the contents of correspondence or say whether every document required for a final treaty request has been transmitted.
That distinction is critical. Preliminary letters, requests for assistance or communications with American authorities are not necessarily equivalent to a completed formal extradition demand under the treaty.
The United States Department of Justice describes its Office of International Affairs as the country’s central mechanism for international extraditions and the lawful return of fugitives sought for prosecution in the United States or abroad.
For Colombo, the Rajapaksa matter could now become a major test of whether Sri Lanka can successfully use a bilateral extradition framework signed more than a quarter of a century ago against one of the country’s most powerful former political figures.
For Washington, any completed request would have to be considered through the applicable treaty and US legal process, regardless of the political prominence of the person sought. The outcome may ultimately depend less on political declarations in Colombo than on the strength, precision and admissibility of the legal case Sri Lankan authorities place before their American counterparts.
But the government’s decision to seek Rajapaksa’s return, according to officials across the key state institutions, signals that Colombo is attempting to move the case beyond domestic warrants and into the complex arena of international extradition.
