• Rajapaksa family faces renewed legal spotlight

The Rajapaksa family, which dominated politics for nearly two decades, has once again found itself at the centre of legal and political attention as courts and investigative agencies pursue a series of cases involving several prominent family members.

The latest development came with the arrest of former President Percy Mahendra ‘Mahinda’ Rajapaksa’s second son, Yoshitha Rajapaksa, on his enrollment to the Navy and the grant of a UK scholarship. He is also under probe by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC). Investigators are examining allegations related to his recruitment into the Navy in 2006. Following his arrest, Rajapaksa was produced before the Colombo Chief Magistrate's Court and granted bail pending further investigations.

The arrest comes at a time when Rajapaksa is already facing a separate money-laundering case before the Colombo High Court. Last month (in May), the Court rejected preliminary objections raised by the defence and directed that the trial proceeds after the accused pled not guilty to the charges. The matter remains before the Court.

Former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa is reportedly facing an arrest warrant in connection with proceedings linked to the use of State funds for election campaigning, adding another chapter to a long list of legal challenges involving Rajapaksa.

Former President Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapaksa has also been required to appear before court in relation to ongoing legal proceedings. Government officials have maintained that any future action will depend on the evidence presented before the judicial authorities, underscoring the principle that legal accountability must be determined through due process.

Attention has also focused on Opposition Parliamentarian Lakshman Namal Rajapaksa, who continues to face several pending court matters dating back a number of years. While some proceedings have seen him granted bail, other cases remain unresolved and continue to move through the judicial system. The Opposition has frequently pointed to the pace of these investigations, while supporters of the Rajapaksa family argue that legal processes should be allowed to proceed free from political influence.

Transparent scrutiny

The National People's Power (NPP) Government came to office on a strong anti-corruption platform, promising equal application of the law and an end to political interference in investigations. They have accelerated several investigations involving former Ministers, officials and politically connected individuals. The CIABOC has also been empowered under strengthened Anti-Corruption Legislation enacted in recent years.

However, Opposition parties argue that public expectations extend beyond investigations involving former administrations. They contend that allegations on the accumulation of assets by current Ministers, Kuragamage Don Lal Kantha, Wasantha Samarasinghe and Dr. Walakada Appuhamilage Nalinda Wajiramal Jayatissa, former Minister Punya Sri Kumara Jayakody, a few Deputy Ministers, political appointees and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) activists should also be subjected to transparent scrutiny.

The debate intensified following questions raised in Parliament and the media regarding the declarations of assets, business interests and the rapid rise in the wealth of certain political figures. Critics have called for greater public disclosure of asset declarations and more proactive investigations where allegations have entered the public domain.

The issue has also sparked discussion regarding transparency-related standards for elected representatives. Civil society groups have urged all political parties to support stronger disclosure mechanisms, the regular publication of asset declarations and the independent verification of wealth accumulation by public officials.

Questions of accountability have arisen even within the current administration. Earlier this year (2026), Energy Minister Jayakody stepped down to facilitate investigations into a procurement-related controversy, illustrating the increasing public demand for scrutiny regardless of political affiliation.

Political analysts note that the credibility of the anti-corruption drive will ultimately depend on whether investigations are perceived as impartial. If legal action is seen as targeting only political opponents while overlooking allegations involving those currently in power, public confidence in the broader reform agenda could suffer.

As economic hardships continue to affect many, public expectations remain high for greater transparency, stronger institutions and equal treatment before the law. Whether those expectations are met may become a defining test for the Government's commitment to the principles that helped bring it to power.

The developments have reignited a debate over accountability, governance and the rule of law in post-crisis Sri Lanka. The NPP Government has repeatedly pledged that investigations involving political figures will be pursued regardless of party affiliation, while critics argue that justice must be applied consistently across the political spectrum.

SL bureaucrats/diplomats fail to appeal against arbitrary 12.5% US/Trump duty/tax

US President Donald John Trump’s administration pivoted to the Trade Act of 1974, specifically Section 301, to unilaterally impose retaliatory duties on countries suspected of tolerating unfair trade practices, such as allowing forced labour in supply chains. It is for Sri Lankan trade officials to respond to the additional duties of 10 per cent or 12.5% the US has proposed to impose on Sri Lankan imports over failures to curb trade in ‌goods made with forced labour, arguing that there is no forced labour in the country.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka was a conspicuous absentee at the discussions when in March of this year the US Trade Representative, under the US Trade Act, initiated a 60-country investigation targeting alleged failures by trading partners to effectively enforce bans on importing goods made with forced labour. Sri Lanka is among these 60 countries. None of the diplomats from the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington attended the consultations, though in addition to the Acting Ambassador, there is a Trade Counsellor at the Embassy appointed to look after Sri Lankan trade interests in the US.

Subsequently, the US Trade Representative opened a public comment period for written submissions by the affected countries, followed by a public hearing on 28-29 April. Surprisingly, Sri Lanka failed to either make a written submission or attend the public hearing to make oral submissions as a grieved party.

After missing two earlier opportunities, the Government has time till 24 July to respond to the proposed tariffs by the US. It is a fact that while there is no forced labour in the country, raw materials obtained from certain countries which are deemed to have forced labour have resulted in Sri Lanka facing a penalty by way of increased tariffs by the US.

The Sri Lankan economy is under severe burdens, and though it is on the road to recovery following its worst financial crisis in decades, it cannot face prolonged friction with the US, one of its most vital trading partners. Sri Lankan diplomats and trade bureaucrats have missed two opportunities to point out the country’s genuine concerns to the US Trade Representative. At least now they should prepare to make amends and present the Sri Lankan case on 24 July at the Washington consultations.

JVP held Politburo meetings behind bars, now, it is the turn of former  Ministers’

Sri Lanka has always been a country of political innovation. Back in 1971 and again during 1988-1990, JVP leaders managed to hold Politburo discussions while many comrades were in prison. The revolutionary spirit, it seemed, could not be confined by walls, bars or padlocks. While Patabendi Don Jinadasa Nandasiri ‘Rohana‘ Wijeweera chaired the meeting, they were attended by several leaders, though Jayadeva Uyangoda, Bopage Nimalweera/Nimal Bopage, Mahinda Wijesekera and few others kept away due to differences with the leadership.

Fast forward to this year, and history appears to be offering a new version of the same concept. With a growing list of former Ministers, ex-officials and political heavyweights making regular appearances before courts, some political observers are wondering whether the former ruling parties have discovered an updated model of governance: the "correctional Cabinet of Ministers."

Why struggle to book a conference room when an entire cell block may be available? In the old days, Ministers travelled in motorcades to attend Cabinet meetings. Today, a shuttle between prison, court and remand facilities could provide a more efficient schedule.

Political analysts joke that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna and the United National Party might soon need a new organisational chart: Opposition Leader, Chief Opposition Whip, Shadow Cabinet, remand Cabinet, and prison affairs committee.

Security costs would certainly decline. Instead of deploying hundreds of Police officers for Cabinet security, the authorities would merely need to lock the gate and keep the key.

Meanwhile, former JVP revolutionaries now occupying Government benches might look at the situation with amusement. Decades ago, they held political discussions in prison because they were rebels challenging the State. Today, some of their former rivals may find themselves discussing politics in prison after having run the State.

The only remaining question is whether the next "Cabinet reshuffle" will be conducted by the party secretary or the prison superintendent.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication