Columns

• Documents confirm that neither Ukrinmarsh, the manufacturer, nor its state-owned parent company has signed contract with any Sri Lankan entity for purchase of any type of aircraft
• Brokered by Udayanga Weeratunga, the deal was signed, among others, by an alleged Ukrainian fraudster as ‘service provider’ and an unauthorised ‘designated party’ of front company Bellimissa
• No copies of the agreement to be found; Udayanga says someone has stolen them
• Investigations confirm FCID officers visited Singapore to sell probe findings to the highest bidders, including very suspects involved in the case
• Multimillion-dollar scandal’s money trail involves international bank accounts, including those allegedly held by Udayanga; over $7 million missing
• FCID probe into the purchase of MA 60 aircraft from China; handed over to SLAF under ‘suspicious circumstances’ contrary to agreement with Mihinlanka, stalled probe reveals
• Small group suspected in orchestrating moves to vilify Attorney General Ranasinghe Jr fails; BASL criticises manner in which Govt. reacted without verifying news report

By Our Political Editor

Behind the polished corridors of Sri Lanka’s political landscape lies a labyrinth of power and influence. One of the most prominent figures in this maze was Udayanga Weeratunga, nephew of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. From managing a modest rice-and-curry restaurant in Kiev, he skyrocketed to diplomatic prominence as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Russia with concurrent accreditation in Ukraine. His meteoric rise was not merely a coincidence but a testament to his deep-rooted connections and the strategic maneuvering of his uncle’s presidency.

Fast forward to today, the Sunday Times sheds new light on the notorious MiG-27 fighter jet deal—a topic that reverberated throughout President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s election campaign. He pledged to unearth the truth and hold the wrongdoers accountable. However, justice remains elusive, buried under layers of corruption, manipulation and ‘old buddy’ connections.

The new revelations stem from evidence meticulously gathered by the now-defunct Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID), an agency that, ironically, fell victim to the very corruption it sought to eradicate. Allegations swirled that its findings were sold to the highest bidders, including the very culprits it aimed to prosecute. Despite this, the truth persists, waiting to be unveiled. Incorporating insights from previous the Sunday Timesreports, this account aims to provide a comprehensive view of the scandal. Greed and the insatiable hunger for power and wealth have left a trail of suppressed truths and unaddressed crimes.

The first page of the agreement that is reportedly now missing

Amidst the power play, one pivotal moment stands out. On a day in February 2006, Air Marshal Donald Perera, then Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force, made a significant phone call to Air Vice Marshal Prashantha De Silva, then Director of Aeronautical Engineering. This call set the stage for a series of events involving Ambassador Weeratunga and another individual, pitching a procurement package for fighter jets and engine overhauls. De Silva’s statement to investigators revealed that Weeratunga, “a frequent visitor,” was orchestrating these deals. Further validation came from Air Vice Marshal Prakash Tennekoon, SLAF’s purchasing officer, who confirmed to investigators “Weeratunga’s relentless pursuit to expedite the procurement process for MiG-27 aviation products and services.”

The new findings are based on evidence uncovered and recorded by the now-defunct FCID. The agency was shut down amidst allegations that one of its officers sold findings to interested parties, including those accused, for large sums of money. Widespread allegations have surfaced of case files being misplaced and interested parties being shielded. Accounts from some previous reports in the Sunday Times have been included for reasons of clarity and background.

Who was the foreign national who repeatedly accompanied Ambassador Weeratunga to the Sri Lanka Air Force headquarters? According to statements made by the two officers, he had been introduced to these unsuspecting duo as a representative of UKRINMARSH, the Ukrainian manufacturer of MiG-27 fighter jets. Ostensibly it was with them that a deal was to be concluded. The man is none other than Perugodova Dmitry Alexandrovich, better identified as Perugudov. He was the Director General of UKRSPETSEXPORT, the parent company of UKRINMARSH. In the months that followed the MiG-27 deal, he was under investigation by Ukrainian authorities for criminal activity. This is confirmed by a letter from the FCID to the State Intelligence Service (SIS). It stated, “…he is presently detained in France by law enforcement authorities, subsequent to an arrest warrant issued… by the District Judge in Kiev.” The case against Perugudov is in his capacity as Director General of the state-owned enterprise UKRSPETSEXPORT. Among the allegations were selling arms to rebel groups in Ukraine. The Sunday Times has also seen an English translation of the six-page warrant issued by the Department of Procedural Guidance for Pre-trial Investigation.

Economic burden of corruption

The corruption surrounding the MiG-27 deal and other high-profile cases had a profound impact on Sri Lankans. They were already bearing the heavy financial burden of a prolonged and costly war at that time. The misappropriation of public funds and resources meant the money that could have been used for essential services like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and even for the well-being of troops, was instead siphoned off by corrupt politicians, a handful in uniform, and their associates. This widespread corruption exacerbated the economic hardships faced by ordinary citizens. The economic burden of corruption was felt in the form of inflation, unemployment, and overall economic downturns, which further strained the lives of Sri Lankans. They accumulated to events that led to the country’s bankruptcy.

The NPP administration, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, made a strong commitment to tackle bribery and corruption, a central theme of his election campaign. He specifically identified the MiG-27 fighter jet deal. His vow to probe these fraudulent transactions and bring the perpetrators to justice gave hope to many Sri Lankans yearning for transparency and accountability. However, the reality has been fraught with serious challenges.

This account endeavours to pull back the curtain on these clandestine dealings, exposing the rot at the core of Sri Lanka’s defence procurement and the players who profited from it. The pursuit of truth is relentless, for in unveiling the past, we pave the way for a transparent and accountable future.

Now to some background on the MiG-27 deal, exclusively reported for the first time in the Sunday Times of December 3, 2006: “Sri Lanka’s latest and largest military deal, the procurement of four MiG-27 ground attack craft and overhaul to seven others now with the Air Force worth over billions of rupees (or millions of dollars), has raised a number of questions, an investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed.

“A contract between the Air Force (SLAF) on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka and the Ukrainian Government-owned firm Ukrinmarsh is touted as a Government-to-Government deal. Such deals are made to obviate the need to call for tenders to pick the lowest bidder. The widely accepted principle in these deals, referred to as G-to-G, is the elimination of third parties or intermediaries who make fat commissions and become billionaires overnight. In this instance, the contract signed on July 26, 2006, identifies an offshore company, Bellimissa Holdings Limited registered in the United Kingdom, as the “Designated Party”. The cost of the four MiG-27s, freight and other charges will go direct to this company, which the contract stipulates, “…shall be involved to provide finance needed in executing this project….”

“The contract has been signed just one day before July 27, 2006, when Lanka Logistics and Technologies Limited, a wholly state-owned limited liability company, came into being to procure all equipment and services for the armed forces and the Police…. The Sunday Times investigations revealed that the purchase price for the latest deal, four MiG-27s, is US$ 2,462,000 (or Rs 265,896,000) each. The total cost without freight works out to US$ 9,848,000 (or Rs 1,063,584,000). This is for the ground attack aircraft manufactured between 1980 and 1983, in terms of the contract. The Sunday Times is in possession of documents to confirm that the Air Force concluded two previous deals for seven MiG-27s as pure commercial transactions. They were not classified as “Government to Government.” These purchases were made by the Air Force from DS Alliance Private Limited, a Singapore-based firm which offered a finance package. The aircraft were delivered by “Lviv State Aircraft Repair Plant,” which is a “State Enterprise” under the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence. Like in the latest deal, the supply of the MiGs came then through Ukrinmarsh via D.S. Alliance Pvt. Ltd…..”

According to FCID documents, it is not UKRINMARSH that later confirmed the deal. It was the parent company, UKRSPETSEXPORT. During a visit to Colombo, Ambassador Weeratunga escorted Perugodov for a meeting with Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Ministry of Defence. Later, in a letter he wrote to him, Perugudov claimed, “We would like to present to Sri Lanka Ministry of Defence our offer on a Government-to-Government basis.” He quoted a total cost of US $14,280,000 for the deal. It was not government-to-government as claimed. Three parties were involved. They were identified as the buyer, seller and designated party. The latter was listed as Bellimissa Holdings, Second Floor, 145-157 St John Street, London. Investigators found there was no such company at this address.

Investigations confirmed that Weeeratunga flew with the agreement to Colombo. He returned with it to Moscow. Later, there was a nighttime signing of the agreement at the residence of Ambassador Weeratunga in Moscow.  Rounds of vodka were served to celebrate. Signing on behalf of the Ministry of Defence whilst in Colombo was the SLAF’s new commander, Air Vice Marshal Roshan Gunatileke. He succeeded Air Vice Marshal Donald Perera as commander. Perugudov signed off as “service provider” on behalf of UKRINMARSH and a Mikalov Kuldiyarkev, signed as the “designated party,” before the vodka party in Moscow.

Another FCID document notes that Weeratunga had taken it upon himself to “personally negotiate all military transactions” and that his accomplices were Pergudov and Kuldiyarkev. Efforts by FCID investigators to question Kuldiyarkev in Kiev proved futile. They were told he was now in Lugansk. Weeratunga had urged Sri Lanka embassy’s Counsellor and Head of Chancery, Kulasena Thantrige, to sign as a witness. Air Vice Marshal Gunatitileke served as head of the six-member evaluation committee for the procurement and was a member of the purchase mission to Ukraine, according to documents seen by the Sunday Times.

The 65-page agreement—a facsimile of the front page is shown on this page—has now gone missing both from the SLAF headquarters and the Ministry of Defence. Just a week ago, Weeratunga told a YouTube channel interviewer, “Someone has stolen it.” He did not know his or her identity, he said. Also missing is a copy produced in courts on behalf of then Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. This was when he sued the Sunday Leader newspaper for accusations made against him. The case was later settled by Frederica Jansz, who became editor after Wickremetunga’s death.

An FCID report to Ravi Seneviratne, then Senior DIG in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), said, “It is alleged that Mr. Udayanga Weeratunga, Ambassador for Sri Lanka in Russia from June 17, 2006 to February 28, 2015, had made undue interferences (sic) into this transaction. It is very much suspected that Mr. Udayanga Weeratunga did have a close relationship with Bellimissa Holdings in London, which acted as a beneficiary to this transaction between the government of Sri Lanka and the Ukraine-based company….”

It adds that Weeratunga did connive “with two Ukrainian individuals” and cheated UKRINMARSH. The FCID unearthed details of the fraudulent deal with the help of enforcement agencies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, among others. It makes shocking revelations. These countries have been reached through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) programmes. These led to a major revelation highlighted below:

=  In 2006, (when SLAF purchased the fighter jets), there was no contract with any Sri Lankan entity for the sale of any type of aircraft from Ukrinmarsh, according to their Acting Director General S. V. Slieusareko. Documents with the FCID confirm this.

=  The state-owned UKRSPECTEXPORT has not concluded any international contracts with Sri Lanka for the supply or overhaul of the fighter jets and engines, FCID documents confirm. These documents also say that Mykolav Kuldiyarkev had no authority to sign.

The overhauled MiG-27 aircraft were delivered to the SLAF between December 23, 2006 and September 12, 2007. Export permits have been issued by the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine. And for this, Sri Lanka Air Force (through the Ministry of Defence) did pay US$ 13,976,000 to UKRINMARSH. This is besides freight charges. How did this come about?

Besides this, a team of technicians and pilots also arrived in Colombo after the delivery of the fighter jets. It then transpired that they had been sent by those connected to the previous supplier of MiG-27s, D.S. Alliance. Its directors were the ones who have been operating behind the scenes with a front company named Bellimissa Holdings Ltd. having a fake London address. At that time, the Police Chief, Chandana Wickremeratne, learnt that an FCID official had travelled to Singapore and sold findings from investigations to identified members of the board. The fate of an inquiry he ordered is not known. An FCID document seeking Mutual Legal Assistance from a western country gives details of the money trail for the fraudulent MiG-27 deal.

London address

Here are edited highlights from it: “Investigations have revealed that Bellimissa Holdings London, does not exist in the given address in London, but is an entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. They are reported to have been registered under the International Business Companies Act on June 28, 2000. Before entering into an agreement with the SLAF, they have amended the original registration and included a clause to enable them to conduct world operations, business with buyers, sellers, suppliers of any kind of armament, defence material including explosives, aircraft and electronic equipment etc. This clause has been introduced on May 26, 2006, two months prior to the signing of the agreement with SLAF.

“Investigations have also revealed that monies remitted to Bellimissa Holdings, London through the People’s Bank in Colombo, had subsequently been routed to Bayerische Hipo Und Veriens Bank in Hong Kong. Initially, it has been through J.P. Morgan Bank in New York, and thereafter through Bayerische Hipo Und Vereins Bank in Singapore.” Separately, the Attorney General’s Chambers in Singapore has in a communication to the FCID also confirmed that there is no registered office for Bellimissa Holdings in Singapore. “For the avoidance of doubt, different permutations of “Beimissa” and ‘Belmissa’ have also not yielded any results,” they said. Now comes the most shocking part of the deal.

Another FCID report says the SLAF paid through the Ministry of Defence, reportedly to UKRINMARSH via Bellimissa Holdings, US $ 14.7 million, which is false. Moreover, it said that Kuldirkayev had no official authority to sign a contract, according to investigation findings. It was found that UKRINMARSH had been remitted only US$ 7.833 million for the deal. That too was made by Bellimissa Holdings and not from Sri Lanka. What happened to the remaining US$ 7.7 million? Some have ended up in a bank account in Latvia. Other destinations to which the funds have found their way are to accounts in New Zealand, the Philippines, Panama, Ukraine, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the British Virgin Islands. They are alleged to include accounts held by Udayanga Weeratunga. He has, however, strongly denied any involvement. A string of his Sri Lankan bank accounts remains frozen.

The MiG-27 deal was among those pending indictments against those involved in courts that came up for discussion by Justice Minister Harshana Nananakkara. He told the Sunday Times, “I chaired a meeting to expedite the process of Mutual Liaison programmes with other countries with regard to pending cases.” Investigations into the MiG-27 fraudulent deal were first revealed by the Sunday Times. This newspaper’s Defence Correspondent then made a statement to the FCID on which investigations began and made substantial progress, as the revelations today are very clear. Other media outlets took over weeks and months thereafter. Big money and political pressure appear to have stalled a forward movement.

In December, last year, the State Department “designated” Weeratunga” for involvement in “significant corruption.“ He and his family are barred from visiting the United States. Another who was “designated for significant corruption” was Kapila Chandrasena, a onetime Chief Executive Officer of SriLankan Airlines who received an Airbus bribe of two million US dollars.

China aircraft scandal

Another FCID case that did not see the light of day is a criminal investigation into the conduct of Ranjith De Silva of Maharagama, a former Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and Kapila Chandrasena of Barnes Place, Colombo 7. The latter is now resident in Australia and was Chief Executive Officer of SriLankan Airlines. Prior to that, he was a consultant to the controversial Mihinlanka, the country’s now-defunct budget airline.

Here are edited excerpts of a mutual legal assistance request made to the Chinese government by Dhammika Priyantha, then SSP and Director of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division. As a DIG, he is now Director of the State Intelligence Service (SIS): “The FCID is conducting investigations into certain financial irregularities reported to have been committed during the purchase of MA 60 aircraft for commercial purposes by the Civil Aviation Ministry in the year 2009 from the government of China, which has been handed over thereafter to the Sri Lanka Air Force without any documentation. This transaction cost the government a sum of US$ 40,954,813.43.

“In 2009, the government of Sri Lanka did sign a commercial agreement with the government of China to purchase two MA 60 aircraft. China National Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) acted as agent for the seller and the Ministry of Port and Aviation as the buyer. A loan facility was provided by the Exim Bank of China… Under very suspicious circumstances, the two aircraft were handed over to Air Force. This was contrary to the agreement with Mihinlanka which proposed a domestic and regional air service…”

A major development this week was attempts by a small social media group thanks to some inspired leaks from interested parties to oust Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe Jnr. through a campaign. It came against the backdrop of “shadow boxing” with the Attorney General’s Department that has been going on.

The latest issue surfaced after the AG’s Department sent the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) an intimation that three suspects arrested in connection with the alleged abduction of Lasantha Wickremetunga’s driver be released due to lack of evidence. Even before the matter surfaced in courts, there was an inspired leak of the contents of the letter.  Less than a handful of YouTube outlets, strong activists, took this to mean that accused linked to the editor cum lawyer’s murder case were being released. They were wholly wrong. In the first place, no one has been indicted in courts so far. Whilst most social media outlets dedicated to the truth reported the facts faithfully, these other outlets declared that those linked to probes (they were named) were now on the verge of quitting the government. This was because the Attorney General’s Department was stumbling. A most disturbing or even sad aspect is the presence of “media activists, members of representative media bodies, political campaigners, self-acclaimed investigators who make their own findings as well as “judges,” all rolled into one, among the small social media group. They became the root cause of the issue. They campaigned, roping in even some of the mainstream media with a totally false narrative. That they were manipulated became clear.

In doing so, they ignored the time-honoured journalistic tenet of checking the facts. They concluded that the Attorney General, Parinda Ranasinghe Jnr, must go. So, a protest calling him to quit was held outside his office on Thursday. In bold letters, the posters demanded the AG’s resignation. They carried large placards and shouted slogans, too. In an era where fact-checking in the media landscape has become the norm, they seem to have failed. Little did they realise that the issue would boomerang on them. They were protesting a non-existent cause.

First, a brief account of the case in question. It was Karunaratne Dias, a driver who worked for Lasantha Wickremetunga, who first complained to the CID that he was abducted. He claimed in his statement the abductors came in civilian clothes. He had been questioned over what he knew about Wickremetunga. Dias, in a further statement made after the lapse of six years since his death, claimed that he was abducted by an unknown group of people. This abduction is alleged to have taken place approximately eight months after the death of Wikrematunga on January 8, 2009. No complaint on this alleged abduction has been made until then. Dias was also not an eyewitness to the murder. Whilst held in confinement, he had been questioned on certain statements he had made over Wickrematunga’s murder. He was warned not to mention to anyone about the encounter in question before being released. Four months later came his statement on the abduction.

A sketch has been drawn by the Police of the person who had intimidated Dias whilst he was held in confinement. This was based on the description provided by Dias. Around that time, Prem Ananda Udalagama had been questioned by the CID in the role of a witness several times for several investigations. During that time, he was in and out of the CID and had provided three different statements. The investigators possessed the sketch of the alleged perpetrator drawn with the assistance of Dias. This sketch had also been given media publicity during that time. Approximately five months after (from the time the sketch was drawn), based on an ‘anonymous’ tip received, Prem Ananda Udalagama of the Military Intelligence Directorate was arrested and produced on suspicion alleging that he resembles the face on sketch.

His arrest was made in July 2016. He was produced for an identification parade. Approximately one month after this parade, Dias, had gone before the Magistrate and had made a (section 127 Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979) statement that he was shown several suspects by the CID. He identified the one who intimidated him as Ananda Udalagama. He was later enlarged on bail. Separately they also arrested retired DIG Prasanna Nanayakkara and Sub Inspector Sugathapala for causing the disappearance of a notebook that was recovered from the vehicle driven by Wickramatunga.

Almost all cases now within the NPP government’s sights are years old. Parinda Ranasinghe Jnr. became acting Attorney General on July 1, 2024 and was confirmed in that post only on July 12, 2024. Yet, he is answerable by reasons of incumbency only to courts and the public. He is appointed by the President on a recommendation by the Constitutional Council. Hence, he holds an autonomous office.

However, here is how the alarming situation developed. The campaign by the small social media group, later marked with a protest, seeking the ouster of Attorney General Ranasinghe Jnr., appears to have misled even leaders of the NPP government. Media Minister Nalinda Jayatissa was asked about the action by the Attorney General at his weekly news briefing after cabinet meetings. His answer: the government would review that ruling. The remarks are bizarre. An extension of his ‘learned’ argument will mean the government has a right to review if the AG chooses to indict a person for murder, rape or, more dangerously, treason. Such poorly ill-informed comments place the government in a bad light in the eyes of the international community and suggest there is no rule of law in Sri Lanka.

The aftermath: Attorney General Ranasinghe Jnr. received summons from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake for a meeting last Thursday. It was highly unusual and improper for a President to summon the AG and inquire from him about matters relating to one case. This time, it was the purported release of the accused in the Wickremetunga murder case. According to a source close to the presidency, AG Ranasinghe Jnr. had explained that he had fully endorsed a recommendation that came to him through his chain of legal experts in his department. He agreed with their recommendation to discharge the three suspects. There was not sufficient evidence against them. He made clear that his department would reconsider the matter if the Police came up with fresh evidence. President Dissanayake agreed that the matter should be explained to the public and the misconceptions cleared. That was how the AG issued a two-page statement on Friday. He said investigations into Wickremetunga’s killing were not complete, and thus no indictments have been filed. The release of the three suspects was only related to the abduction case.

President Dissanayake’s move, breaking a respected convention that the Attorney General’s Department, assisting the judiciary, remained independent, angered the legal fraternity. They were also livid with Media Minister Jayatissa’s comments.  Anura Meddegoda, President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), signed a letter from his sickbed. Also signing was General Secretary Chathura Galhena. It underscored the importance of maintaining the independence of the Attorney General’s office and avoiding political interference in legal decisions. This case has certainly put a spotlight on the need for transparency and accountability in the legal system. Here is the full text:

“The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) is deeply concerned about media reports that the Cabinet of Ministers may be considering to review a decision of the Attorney General in connection with the discharge of three suspects in the Magistrate’s Court of Mount Lavinia case bearing No. B 92/2009 relating to the assassination of Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunge.

“Whilst the Attorney General is a public functionary and as such is accountable to the public for his decisions, it must be noted that the Attorney General performs a quasi-judicial role in respect of criminal matters. As such, the Attorney General has to decide whether or not to charge a suspect based on the material available and submitted to him by the investigating authority. In doing so, he will be required to consider whether such material is admissible in law and whether based on whether there exists a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

“It has been held by the Supreme Court that decisions of the Attorney General are amenable to review. Such a review can be done either by way of exercise of writ jurisdiction or by way of the exercise of the fundamental rights jurisdiction. As such any decision to either discharge or prosecute a suspect would be subject to review by the apex courts according to law.

“The BASL is firmly of the view that decisions of the Attorney General in criminal matters should not be reviewed by the political authorities, including the Cabinet of Ministers, as that would undermine the independence of the office of the Attorney General, which is crucial to uphold the rule of law.

“Whilst public debate on decisions made by any public functionary is a vital element of a democratic society, the need to safeguard the independence of these functionaries is equally important. It must be understood that judicial officers and quasi–judicial officers have to take decisions according to law, which sometimes may not necessarily reflect the popular view.

“In the case of Victor Ivon v. Sarath N. Silva, Attorney-General and Another (1998) 1 Sri.L.R. 340 at 349, it was observed by Justice Mark Fernando that: ‘A citizen is entitled to a proper investigation—one which is fair, competent, timely and appropriate—of a criminal complaint, whether it be by him or against him. The criminal law exists for the protection of his rights—of person, property and reputation—and lack of a due investigation will deprive him of the protection of the law.’

“As such, we urge Your Excellency to ensure that there is no unwarranted interference with the exercise of the powers of the Attorney General and we trust Your Excellency will continue to protect the independence of key institutions, including that of the office of the Attorney General, which is essential to protect the rule of law in our country.”

Due to ill health and bereavement in the family, officiating for the BASL chief is his deputy, senior President’s Counsel Razik Zarook. Elaborating on the subject, he told the Sunday Times, “A decision on whether an indictment should be filed is a matter for the AG (subject, of course, to judicial review by way of a writ application if that duty is not properly exercised). Therefore, the assumption by any government of a right to “review” prosecutorial decisions of the AG, who is expected to act independently, is legally dubious. This is particularly so, given that the appointment of an AG is made only with Constitutional Council approval, and any removal is only allowed to be made under the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act of 2002 which was passed to imbue the office of the AG with greater independence. This means that the AG must act impartially in matters of formal accusation based on evidence, independent of personalities and political imperatives/compulsions.”

Former President and United National Party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe charged that President Dissanayake’s summons to the Attorney General “threatens the very fabric of our constitutional democracy.” In a statement posted on X, the former Twitter, he said, “This incident necessitates a deep and nuanced examination of its implications on judicial independence, the rule of law, and the balance of power within our nation. He added, “Understanding the Judicial Independence: Constitutional Mandate: Sri Lanka’s 1978 Constitution, under Article 107 explicitly outlines the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that judicial functions are free from executive or legislative interference. The Attorney General, as an independent legal advisor to the government and a representative in legal proceedings, should operate within the protective network….” Ironically enough, the main opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) has remained silent on the matter.

It is unfortunate that a less than handful of the social media “activists” can sometimes be manipulated by interested parties to spread misinformation or biased narratives to prejudice the public. They can similarly mislead governments with disastrous consequences. This can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. With protests and a meeting by President Dissanayake over, the issue did not end there. On Friday, the same handful in the social media group claimed “victory” over their actions. The President has summoned the AG, they gloated. This time with repeated claims, false though, that the President has asked the Attorney General to resign or face impeachment. The NPP government, unfortunately, has got carried away with the machinations of both. Less than a handful in the media have not checked their facts. So have the NPP government leaders. Neither can afford the luxury of those serious lapses they caused.