The Attorney General vs Others
By Kassapa
A controversy is brewing over the alleged conduct of Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe. He is accused of being either lethargic or partial in the prosecution of several high-profile cases with some parties calling for his removal. As with anything and everything in Sri Lanka, the issue has political undertones and potentially significant consequences for the government.
Ranasinghe’s conduct was first put under the microscope in a case related to the murder of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, where he requested the release of two suspects. The news was met with an uproar especially on social media. Wickrematunge’s family also objected. The Attorney General’s (AG’s) Department backed down and reversed its decision, issuing a convoluted statement which was an attempt to make it appear as if it was a legal technicality. That was early last year.
The most high-profile controversy involved former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. There were rumours that on the second day of the hearing, while Wickremesinghe was still in hospital, Ranasinghe had attempted to prevent Senior Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris from attending. Now, there appears to be divided opinion between Peiris and Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera, the latter suggesting there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Wickremesinghe. Many believe Ranasinghe is encouraging the latter.
The latest fiasco came when the AG’s Department had to prosecute Buddhist monk Balangoda Kassapa and others in a case related to encroaching on protected land. The Department was keen on granting bail to the monk despite objections from the Police and the offence being non-bailable in a magistrate’s court, critics claim.
Ranasinghe is being viewed by many as being part of the old ‘establishment’, though not being a controversial personality prior to his appointment. He was appointed over and above the more senior Ayesha Jinasena by Wickremesinghe when he was President. Jinasena, who had a reputation of being an absolutely impartial and efficient professional, was appointed as Secretary to the Ministry of Justice by this government. Ransinghe’s father, Parinda Ranasinghe (Snr.) served as Chief Justice when Ranasinghe Premadasa was President.
Where politics comes into play is this government’s pledge to punish the corrupt and the criminal, with most of the offences having been allegedly been committed under the Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe presidencies. It is a key promise that swept President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National Peoples’ Power (NPP) into government. The majority of voters wanted them to ‘clean up’ government, even if they did not deliver on issues such as the economy. If they fail on this promise, the NPP will be defeated at the next national elections.
Dissanayake is aware of this. After the drama over Wickrematunge case, Ranasinghe was given a broad hint that his actions needed to align with the government, not with his previous masters. However, Ranasinghe and the AG’s Department, his detractors claim, appears to be still dragging their feet on many high-profile prosecutions and playing a waiting game. They point out that this is in stark contrast with the conduct of the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Ranga Dissanayake who has successfully prosecuted several high-profile cases and sent former ministers to jail.
Matters have now come to a head. This week saw a group of civil society activists protest against Ranasinghe at Hulftsdorp, opposing his alleged inaction in a case involving the disappearances of several youths where the accused are Navy officers. Simultaneously, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, very much a part of the legal establishment, issued a statement supportive of Ranasinghe.
The government finds itself in a dilemma. They do have the option of removing Ranasinghe but that wouldn’t be easy. Under existing legislation which falls within the purview of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act, No. 5 of 2002, they would have to take the same course of action as they did with former Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon. However, the charge sheet against Tennakoon was long, with verdicts of fundamental rights violations from the Supreme Court to boot. The allegations against Ranasinghe are bias and inaction, not of criminal conduct, charges which are more difficult to prove. Besides, if they embark on a path of removing Ranasinghe, they run the risk of being accused of politicizing the legal system and also the possibility of failure.
Despite all this, insiders opine that Ranasinghe enjoys the confidence of Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara which is one of the reasons why the former remains unscathed. However, when Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa was questioned about Ranasinghe’s conduct, his reply suggested that the government was entertaining serious misgivings. “There is no decision to remove the Attorney General at present but if there is, I will let you know,” was his reply. The tone and tenor suggested that it was indeed a possibility.
Faced with this conundrum, there are two ‘easy’ options available to the government. It could give Ranasinghe a ‘kick upstairs’ to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, as it did with his schoolmate Rohantha Abeysuriya. Still, some believe this could lead to even more problems.
A better solution is to create an Independent Prosecutor’s Office (IPO). This was a key election promise of the NPP as well, aimed at increasing the efficiency of prosecuting the corrupt and the criminal while at the same time eliminating the AG’s Department from that role. That would make the AG’s Department a toothless tiger. It would also kill two birds with one stone, as the NPP would then be honouring an important election pledge.
The AG’s Department has already protested against such a move for obvious reasons but the government can always take the moral high ground, noting that it has received a mandate to create an IPO. It is also a practice adopted by advanced democracies where this office is allowed to act without fear or favour. For some unfathomable reason, the government is not moving to act on this promise.
As usual, the government is prevaricating on taking a final decision. Already over a fifth of its term of office is over and they have little to show in terms of prosecuting the corrupt. If this trend continues, Ranasinghe might outlast this government. That is the fear of some within the government itself.
-This article was originally featured on counterpoint.lk
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.