By Vox Civis
The ongoing controversy surrounding the arrest of a prominent Opposition Parliamentarian, the son of a former Justice Minister, and a former State Official on allegations of corruption and money laundering has evolved into far more than a criminal investigation. What initially appeared to be a politically advantageous opportunity for the government has rapidly transformed into a complex political boomerang that threatens to expose painful questions about selective justice, institutional credibility, the penetration of organized crime into the state apparatus, and the National People’s Power (NPP) government’s own commitment to the principles upon which it came to power.
The arrests that literally came out of the blue, generated immediate political shockwaves. Sensing an opportunity to place the opposition on the defensive, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake made a beeline to Parliament and appeared eager to underscore the significance of the developments. The government’s expectation was clear: the arrests would reinforce its anti-corruption credentials while embarrassing sections of the opposition that had portrayed themselves as champions of good governance.
Yet politics has a way of producing unintended consequences. The problem confronting the government today is not the arrests themselves. If evidence exists, the law must be allowed to take its course regardless of political affiliation, family connections or social standing. The difficulty arises from the source of the allegations and the glaring inconsistency that has emerged in the manner in which related accusations have been treated.
Two claims – contrasting action
The arrests were reportedly triggered by statements and audio recordings submitted by the wife of the notorious underworld figure and alleged drug kingpin known as Harak Kata. According to investigators, these materials implicated the accused trio in a scheme involving money allegedly paid to secure protection and eventually facilitate the release of the high-profile suspect from custody.
However, alongside these allegations sits another claim originating from the very same chain of events and the very same underworld figure. It was none other than Harak Kata himself who publicly alleged that a former Public Security Minister and a former top cop were given Rs. 300 million by him. The allegation was made directly and publicly before the media covering court proceedings. Yet, while one set of accusations – from the suspect’s wife – has resulted in swift arrests and dramatic headlines, the other – from the suspect himself – appears to have disappeared into a zone of official silence. And this is where the political problem begins.
The government’s critics are now asking a simple question: if allegations originating from Harak Kata’s wife were considered sufficiently credible to justify arrests, why has no visible action been taken regarding allegations made by Harak Kata himself against politically influential individuals?
The question becomes even more significant because those named by the drug kingpin are widely perceived to have enjoyed close relationships with powerful elements of the political establishment – both past and present. One of the individuals frequently associated with the controversy is the former Public Security Minister, who has himself been linked to a range of controversies over the years, including questions arising from the so-called passport scandal and allegations that surfaced in relation to offshore financial dealings. Another is a former Inspector General of Police whose tenure generated considerable public controversy.
Glaring inconsistency
Whether these allegations are true or false is ultimately a matter for investigation. But the issue before the public today is not guilt or innocence. It is consistency. Under Section 109 of Sri Lanka’s Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, any citizen has the right to provide information regarding a cognizable offence. The law does not deny this right because an individual is himself accused of criminal conduct. Even a suspected drug trafficker possesses the legal right to complain if he has been subjected to bribery, extortion or corruption.
The audio recordings that reportedly formed the basis of the arrests will, of course, need to be subjected to proper forensic authentication under the Evidence (Special Provisions) Act No. 14 of 1995. But the threshold required to commence a preliminary investigation is significantly lower than the threshold required to secure a conviction.
Likewise, Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives considerable significance to statements voluntarily made before a Magistrate. Such statements cannot simply be ignored because they are politically inconvenient. Even though Harak Kata made the allegation about the payment to the Former Minister and top cop outside of the court house, it still remains a valid accusation that requires investigation in light of the current circumstances.
If allegations of bribery, corruption or money laundering emerge during an investigation or legal process, investigative agencies including the Police and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) are under obligation to examine them. The law does not provide investigators with the luxury of selecting which allegations deserve attention based on the political identities of those involved. This is precisely why Article 12(1) of the Constitution remains so important. It guarantees equality before the law.
The perception now taking root among many observers is that individuals such as Rakitha Rajapaksha, former Justice Minister Wijayadasa Rajapaksha’s son and himself an Attorney at Law and Charith Abeysinghe, the opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP have become convenient targets through whom the government can demonstrate action while avoiding scrutiny of larger and potentially more politically damaging allegations stemming from the very same case.
Disturbing implications
Whether that perception is fair or not is almost beside the point. In politics, perception often becomes reality. The controversy surrounding Rakitha Rajapaksha is particularly significant because of what it represents. As the son of former Justice Minister, former Bar Association President and President’s Counsel, Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha, he comes from a background intimately connected with the country’s legal and justice institutions. Worse still, when the purported incident took place in 2023, Wijeyadasa Senior was the Minister of Justice.
No allegations have been proven as yet; every accused person remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. But if even a fraction of the allegations ultimately withstand scrutiny, the implications would necessarily be deeply disturbing.
Public confidence in the justice system depends heavily on the belief that those closest to it are not exploiting their access, influence or professional standing for unlawful purposes. When individuals connected to the legal establishment become linked, rightly or wrongly, with allegations involving organized crime figures, the damage naturally extends far beyond the individuals concerned. It strikes at public faith in the integrity of institutions themselves, something the NPP promised to restore.
It is no secret that proximity to power breeds greed. Many are those that have leveraged familial connections for personal gain, and the accused trio is no exception. However, if the NPP chooses to pick and choose who it seeks to investigate, the entire investigation or what passes for it will automatically be downgraded to a mere political exercise in the court of the people – a predicament the NPP will do well to avoid at all costs, in its own interest. Therefore, any investigation that does not appear independent and impartial in the court of the people will be counter-productive: resulting in the NPP being tarnished with the very same brush for the very same reasons.
Meanwhile, another and arguably more important issue risks being lost amidst the political drama. The ongoing saga has exposed the extraordinary reach of the narcotics trade and its apparent ability to establish connections that stretch far beyond street-level criminality. The allegations emerging from this saga paint a picture of an underworld capable of interacting with politicians, law enforcement officers, lawyers, bureaucrats and other influential actors at the highest levels.
Compromised state – part of the problem
For years, successive governments have portrayed the narcotics trade primarily as a law enforcement problem. Yet every major investigation appears to reveal the deeper reality that drug trafficking survives not only because of criminal networks, but because portions of the state apparatus itself have also been compromised.
The real challenge facing Sri Lanka is therefore not simply arresting drug dealers – it is identifying and dismantling the political, financial and institutional networks that allow them to operate. This is where the government’s current predicament becomes particularly serious.
A growing public discussion suggests that official reluctance to investigate certain allegations may not simply be about protecting an individual. Rather, critics argue that it may reflect fears regarding what a comprehensive investigation could potentially uncover about wider networks of influence, offshore financial arrangements and politically connected business interests.
The controversial former Public Security Minister has previously been named in public discussions relating to the Pandora Papers revelations concerning offshore entities and overseas property holdings. While allegations alone prove nothing, they inevitably fuel speculation regarding the possible movement and concealment of illicit wealth. If a major investigation were to expose broader financial networks, the consequences could extend far beyond a single individual. Whether such fears are justified or not, the government’s silence has created a vacuum that is increasingly being filled by speculation.
The President’s special statement to Parliament only intensified these concerns. While he addressed various aspects of the controversy, observers noted the absence of any reference to the former Public Security Minister or the allegation concerning the alleged Rs. 300 million payment. In legal theory, silence is not proof of guilt. Yet politically, silence often carries consequences.
Subtle hint on boundaries
When leaders choose to address one part of a controversy while conspicuously ignoring another, questions are bound to arise. Meanwhile, it appears that critics have interpreted the omission as a signal that certain investigative boundaries should not be crossed. Again, such interpretations may be unfair, but governments are judged not only by what they do but also by what they appear unwilling to do.
This poses a particular challenge for an administration that rose to power promising equal justice, accountability and a decisive break from the culture of political protection that characterized previous governments. The principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done remains as relevant today as ever. If the public begins to believe that anti-corruption campaigns are being selectively deployed against political opponents while politically useful allies remain insulated from scrutiny, the NPP’s moral authority will likely suffer terminal damage.
What the regime must keep in mind is that temporary political victories achieved through selective enforcement often carry long-term costs. In the age of digital communication, leaked recordings, documents and financial trails rarely disappear permanently. Information has a habit of resurfacing and public questions have a tendency to multiply rather than fade.
Consequently, the government’s most effective course of action is also the simplest – investigate every allegation without fear or favour: no sacred cows, no protected individuals, no politically convenient blind spots. Such an approach is also necessary for another reason. Sri Lanka’s history contains too many examples of controversial suspects dying under suspicious circumstances before they could fully disclose what they knew. Whether through alleged shootouts, mysterious illnesses or other convenient explanations, critical witnesses have often disappeared before investigators could unravel the larger networks behind major crimes.
Given the gravity of the allegations surrounding organized crime and corruption, ensuring Harak Kata’s safety while in state custody should be an absolute priority. He must be allowed to face the full force of the law.
The controversy has also dragged the legal profession into the spotlight. Following the arrests, social media exploded with criticism after reports emerged that a large number of lawyers had appeared in court in support of Rakitha Rajapaksha. Particular attention focused on submissions reportedly made by Attorney-at-Law Gunaratne Wanninayake. Media reports initially suggested that he had appeared on behalf of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and argued that lawyers should not be treated like ordinary criminal suspects when arrests become necessary. Such reports generated significant public backlash.
Backlash on black coats
The criticism was predictable. Many citizens questioned whether professional bodies should be perceived as intervening on behalf of individuals facing serious allegations linked to organized crime. The BASL subsequently clarified that it had not authorized any lawyer to make representations on its behalf and that its role was limited to observing proceedings involving members. The Association further stated that no decision had been taken to represent Rakitha Rajapaksha and that media reports suggesting otherwise were inaccurate.
That clarification was important. Yet the broader public debate reveals another reality that the legal profession, fairly or unfairly, continues to face growing scrutiny regarding its relationship with powerful political and criminal interests. Maintaining public confidence requires not only ethical conduct but also the appearance of ethical conduct.
Ultimately, however, the greatest contradiction lies elsewhere. The President and government ministers have repeatedly demanded to know what action the SJB intends to take against the arrested Charith Abeysinghe. It is a question they are entitled to ask.
But the public is equally entitled to ask what action the government intends to take against members of its own ranks who continue to face serious allegations, investigations and court proceedings that appear to have slowed to a crawl. One standard for opponents and another for allies is not justice, it is hypocrisy.
The government’s anti-corruption campaign stands at a crossroads today for that reason. It can either become a genuine effort to cleanse public life or degenerate into another exercise in selective accountability. The difference between those two paths will be determined not by speeches, slogans or parliamentary performances, but by whether every allegation is pursued with equal vigour, regardless of whose interests are threatened.
The public is watching closely. And increasingly, they are not just asking who has been arrested. They are asking who has not been – and why.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication.
Leave a comment