In an alarming deviation from the tenets of justice, the Attorney General’s Department—entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law—now finds itself embroiled in an egregious controversy. The reprehensible conduct of an Additional Solicitor General during recent legal proceedings against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) exposes a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion, judicial impropriety, and an unsettling departure from constitutional due process. This is not a mere procedural aberration; it constitutes a perilous subversion of Sri Lanka’s legal framework. If left unchallenged, it will set a dire precedent, emboldening judicial officers to jettison their duty of impartiality in favour of demagoguery and extra-legal denunciations.
The controversy reached its nadir when the IGP sought Supreme Court intervention to prevent his arrest. Following the petition’s failure, he surrendered voluntarily. However, rather than adhering to the prescribed constitutional framework, the Additional Solicitor General launched a vitriolic tirade in open court, declaring: “Your suspected IGP is no different than an underworld criminal.” This incendiary rhetoric is not only unprofessional but patently prejudicial. The courtroom, a sanctum of due process, is no place for theatrical invective or personal animus. When senior representatives of the Attorney General’s Department engage in such partisan rhetoric, the judiciary’s supposed neutrality is irreparably compromised.
Sri Lanka’s Constitution unequivocally enshrines the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Article 13(3) states: “Any person charged with an offence shall be entitled to be heard, in person or by an attorney-at-law, at a fair trial by a competent court.” Article 13(5) affirms: “Every person shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.” Further, a seminal Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that suspects retain fundamental rights equivalent to those of any other citizen, devoid of discrimination. Yet, the Attorney General’s Department—an institution ostensibly bound to uphold these constitutional imperatives—has, through its own functionaries, abrogated these protections in an astonishing display of prosecutorial malfeasance. If an IGP can be subjected to such public calumny absent due adjudication, what sanctuary remains for the average citizen against institutional overreach?
The symbiotic relationship between the Police Department and the Attorney General’s Department is foundational to a functioning justice system—the former investigates and presents suspects, while the latter ensures prosecutorial integrity within the bounds of lawful due process. While the Police Department has conducted itself with measured professionalism in this case, the Attorney General’s Department has permitted a senior legal representative to transform the courtroom into an arena of unrestrained vilification. Such actions betray a systemic rot that, if unaddressed, will irreversibly tarnish the credibility of Sri Lanka’s prosecutorial apparatus.
This judicial debacle unfolds against the backdrop of an escalating crime wave—gun violence, contract killings, and rampant lawlessness continue unabated. Paradoxically, while law enforcement officers face judicial scrutiny, organised criminals operate with impunity. When prosecutorial misconduct is normalised, it dismantles the very institutions meant to uphold justice, emboldens malefactors, and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. As a concerned citizen, business leader, and advocate for judicial propriety, I have formally petitioned the Attorney General, demanding immediate corrective measures, including a comprehensive inquiry into the Additional Solicitor General’s judicial misconduct, rigorous enforcement of ethical and professional standards within the Attorney General’s Department, and public assurance that prosecutorial discretion will be exercised in strict adherence to constitutional norms, devoid of prejudice or personal vendetta.
If legal custodians themselves subvert the rule of law, what recourse remains for the ordinary citizen? If the Attorney General’s Department abdicates its constitutional duty, who then stands as the vanguard of justice? This is not merely a dispute over an intemperate courtroom statement—it is an existential reckoning for Sri Lanka’s legal system. Justice must not only be done but must be manifestly seen to be done. The Attorney General’s Department must act decisively to rectify this judicial transgression before the very foundations of our legal order collapse under the weight of institutionalised impunity. Sri Lanka’s judiciary stands at a critical juncture. The pressing question remains—shall we uphold the sanctity of justice, or shall we stand idle as it is systematically dismantled from within?
