Editorial
In recent weeks, the conduct of government prosecutors in Sri Lanka has become a subject of increasing disquiet, as the once-distinguished office of the Attorney General is slowly metamorphosing into a murky cauldron of untempered zeal and perilous political allegiance. The prosecutorial ethos, long governed by strict standards of impartiality, professionalism, and ethical conduct, appears to be eroding in the face of the volatile forces of political influence and opportunistic displays of power. Where once the voice of the prosecutor was a harbinger of justice, it is now sounding increasingly like an instrument of state-sponsored vindictiveness, designed not to illuminate truth, but to obliterate it under the weight of caustic rhetoric and questionable methods.
This creeping regression is not an isolated anomaly, nor is it an inadvertent departure from decorum. Rather, it seems to represent a calculated shift in the modus operandi of prosecutorial conduct, where the perverse alignment of the prosecuting arm of the state with the vicissitudes of political power is becoming disturbingly visible. The once revered office, embodying the dignified sanctity of the law, is now beset with prosecutorial performances that are anything but judicial. With every passing case, there is an observable trend: an increasing reliance on emotive, populist rhetoric, intended not only to secure a conviction but to inflame the passions of the public in pursuit of ephemeral, partisan triumphs.
It is crucial to interrogate the broader implications of this disturbing trend. Historically, the role of a prosecutor has been one of measured judgment, tempered by a commitment to legal fairness and the safeguarding of constitutional rights. As Sir Hartley Shawcross, the eminent British prosecutor, famously declared, “The first duty of a prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is done.” This blunt declaration echoes the core responsibility of prosecutors, enshrined not only in legal principles but also in the trust placed upon them by the public. To serve as a prosecutor is to act as a guardian of justice, upholding the law without fear, favour, or bias. Yet, when a prosecutor begins to act with a fervour that borders on theatrics, disregarding the meticulous balancing of evidence and law, it betrays the sacred covenant of the legal profession.
Recent statements made by an Additional Solicitor General during a high-profile case illustrate the perilous descent into prosecutorial impropriety. Standing in front of the court, he vehemently condemned the accused, who, he claimed, had entered the courtroom in “a tuxedo, riding in a Benz, parading in front of the public as though above the law.” Such inflammatory language, while perhaps designed to evoke public outrage, is a direct assault on the notion of presumption of innocence. A prosecutor’s responsibility is not to wage war on the accused but to present a case based on evidence. Yet, the government prosecutor here appears to have abandoned the dignified and impartial role expected of his position, favouring instead an unrestrained attack on the character of the individual before him, reminiscent of a public spectacle rather than a judicial process.
Furthermore, his attempt to shift the focus from facts to theatrical descriptions, like calling the accused an “accomplice to organised crime” without any substantiated proof before the court, only deepens the already festering wound of legal misconduct. “This is not merely a trial; it is a performance,” his actions suggest. In this case, as in others, it is not the pursuit of justice that stands at the forefront, but the desire to manipulate the narrative to fit a particular political or public agenda. In the words of the late Justice Learned Hand, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” When a prosecutor grows too certain of their righteousness, they risk losing the very essence of what it means to seek justice.
This growing penchant for inflammatory rhetoric under the guise of legal argument raises serious concerns about the neutrality of the prosecutorial office. As one noted jurist, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, so poignantly observed, “In the end, the law is not about the judge, the prosecutor, or the parties in the case. The law is about the people, their trust in the system, and the integrity with which the system operates.” The reliance on sensationalised narratives in the courtroom, rather than the careful, reasoned presentation of evidence, undermines that trust and questions the very integrity of the judicial process.
The rhetoric employed by this government prosecutor in recent cases has, however, gone even further. He spoke of the accused’s alleged connections to criminal elements in the most graphic terms, suggesting that these ties were so evident they “undermine the very fabric of this nation’s justice system.” Such statements, while powerful, bypass the necessary step of proving allegations in the court of law. They transform what should be a solemn judicial process into a grandiose performance where conclusions are drawn based on character assassination rather than sound legal reasoning. The prosecutor’s role, as defined by legal tradition, is not to play judge and jury, but to ensure that both the prosecution and defence are given a fair hearing, and that the truth is sought through reasoned debate and the careful application of law.
In a democracy, the power of the state to prosecute must be wielded judiciously, with a recognition that the primary duty of the prosecutor is to uphold justice rather than to secure victory. But what happens when those entrusted with prosecutorial discretion begin to view themselves as partisans in a political game rather than public servants seeking justice? As an American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, once warned, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. It is a grave responsibility.”
This unsettling development is not merely a theoretical concern but a tangible risk that can lead to the erosion of due process and the rule of law. There is an undeniable pattern emerging within Sri Lanka’s Attorney General’s Department — a departure from the sober, reasoned application of legal principles to the adoption of a more aggressive and polarising style. In a nation where the rule of law is already precarious, the advent of prosecutorial overreach is an alarming sign of things to come.
What, then, can be said of an office that has slowly come to resemble a political theatre, where legal integrity is secondary to the whims of political expediency? When prosecutors begin to wield the power of the state not as a tool for justice but as a weapon to manipulate outcomes for political gain, the very foundations of justice are imperiled. This path leads not only to a degradation of the prosecutorial function but to the undermining of the very system of law that we hold dear. As the former Chief Justice of India, P. N. Bhagwati, observed, “The judge must be a sentinel on the qui vive for the protection of the individual’s rights and freedoms.” A prosecutor’s duty is no less profound, for they too are bound by an unassailable obligation to protect the integrity of the legal system.
The increasing tendency of some prosecutors to engage in hyperbolic, politically tinged rhetoric is a pernicious trend that must be reversed. The office of the Attorney General should not be a bastion of partisan power plays but a sanctuary for the impartial application of justice. It is not too late for the department to reclaim its professional dignity and recalibrate its mission to reflect the timeless principles of fairness, integrity, and reasoned justice. For the preservation of democracy and the rule of law, Sri Lanka’s prosecutorial apparatus must return to its foundational role: not as a servant of political power, but as a vanguard of justice in its purest and most unblemished form.
