• Mahara Prison riot, Kosgoda STF shooting, Wickrematunge murder case in spotlight
• Protests for and against AG held
• Prosecutions allegedly stalled due to investigative gaps

The Attorney General’s (AG) Department yesterday (24) rejected allegations that it is responsible for delays in justice in several high-profile cases, stating that decisions have been taken strictly based on the evidence forwarded by the Police Department and in line with the prevailing law.

Highly-placed sources at the AG’s Department told The Sunday Morning that a recent protest against Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe Jnr had been entirely driven by social media, falsely portraying him as the main obstacle to progress in three sensitive cases: the Mahara Prison riot, the Kosgoda Special Task Force (STF) shooting, and investigations into the murder of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge.

When asked whether there was any sort of pressure from the Government, specifically President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the sources said: “Generally, the AG doesn’t discuss ongoing cases and he maintains a very good working relationship with the President. In all these controversial cases, the department had to go by what the Police investigations produced. We cannot proceed without evidence.”

Regarding the Mahara Prison riot, in which 11 inmates were killed, the sources claimed there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges. “There were no charges or evidence. Therefore, the department instructed that it need not proceed with that case. There was an appeal and just last week the Court of Appeal dismissed it, proving that what the AG’s Department did was correct.”

Commenting on the Kosgoda STF shooting incident, the sources at the AG’s Department asserted that the investigation lacked eyewitnesses and tangible proof.

“There are no eyewitnesses. We had to go by what the Police sent. No suspect was properly arrested. Some weapons were allegedly concealed, but what matters is tangible evidence. Sometimes it’s not about the most evidence, but what is actually available on paper. Without that, we cannot indict,” the sources opined.

Speaking about the criticism over the long-delayed investigations into the murder of Wickrematunge, who was killed in 2009, the sources said:  “It has been going on since 2009 in different forms. There were three files. One on the murder itself, and then others linked to related investigations.”

The department noted that although the murder had occurred in 2009, investigations had been restarted five years later. “There were serious procedural issues,” they noted. 

The sources also echoed the AG’s recent comments, adding that the Attorney General exercised quasi-judicial powers and was subject to judicial review. “The AG is subjected to judicial review. Anyone can go to the Court of Appeal if they are dissatisfied. That is the safeguard in our system.”

The officials stressed that public outrage and activism should not replace legal standards. “YouTubers and social media commentators cannot substitute Police investigations. We cannot proceed without evidence. Blaming the AG’s Department for investigative failures is neither fair nor lawful.”

The department concluded that while it remained committed to pursuing justice in all cases, it could not act beyond the evidence presented by investigators, reiterating that the real delays stemmed from gaps and weaknesses in Police investigations, not from inaction by the Attorney General.

Last week, two opposing protests were held in Colombo regarding Attorney General Ranasinghe. A silent protest in front of the Attorney General’s Department and Colombo High Court called for his removal, with protesters accusing him of corruption and partiality. Later, a separate protest by a group of lawyers led by Premnath C. Dolawatte, Maithri Gunaratne, and Gunaratne Wanninayake opposed his removal.

Meanwhile, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) issued a statement expressing deep concern over social media posts targeting the Attorney General, warning that they unfairly interfered with the independence of his office. The BASL said that the Attorney General performed a quasi-judicial role, deciding whether to indict suspects based on evidence submitted by investigators, its legal admissibility, and the likelihood of securing a conviction.

The BASL noted that the Attorney General’s decisions were legally reviewable through writ applications to the Court of Appeal or Fundamental Rights cases before the Supreme Court. It emphasised that judicial and quasi-judicial officers had to act according to law, even if their decisions were unpopular.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the BASL stressed every citizen’s right to a fair, competent, timely, and proper criminal investigation. While public criticism of officials is legitimate, the BASL warned that it should not undermine the independence of the Attorney General’s office or the rule of law.

The BASL urged the Government and law enforcement agencies to protect the independence and integrity of the Attorney General’s office, stating that this was essential to uphold justice, freedom, and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. 

All attempts by The Sunday Morning to reach Police Spokesman ASP F.U. Wootler last evening were unsuccessful.