By Sanjaya Dassanayake
(Lanka-e-News -07.Sep.2026,2.30 AM) The conduct of Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe has come under sharp scrutiny in recent weeks, with senior attorneys attached to the Attorney General's Department's Criminal and Civil divisions privately describing his behaviour as "totally unacceptable." Multiple ongoing cases, from the Easter Sunday bombing prosecution to the alleged misuse of state funds by a former president to a fatal police shooting, now raise the same uncomfortable question: is the Attorney General's Department acting on the law, or on a political agenda?
Retired Major General Suresh Sallay remains one of the most controversial figures in the country today, standing as a prime suspect in the Easter Sunday attack hearings before the Colombo Fort Magistrate's Court. Since the case began, President's Counsel Shavindra Silva has appeared on Sallay's behalf, mounting what independent observers describe as a very strong defence.
Representing the state, Assistant Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris, supported by two junior counsel, has been making forceful submissions backed by substantial evidence. Two senior President's Counsel who observed the proceedings independently told this publication that Peiris was "doing a good job."
On July 1st, when the Sallay case was heard at the Colombo Magistrate's Court, ASG Peiris informed the court that evidence from a very important individual would be revealed in a forthcoming statement, with the next hearing date set for September 2nd.
Ahead of that September 2nd hearing, Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe summoned ASG Peiris to his chambers and instructed him not to appear in the Sallay case, directing that Senior State Counsel Oswald Perera appear in his place instead. Compared to the defence's legal team, SSC Perera was, by several accounts, simply not in the same league, raising concerns that important evidence would not be placed before the court.
The witness in question is Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, alias "Karuna Amman," who is understood to have had significant contact with former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Suresh Sallay, and Pillayan. Given the apparent importance of this evidence, questions arise: why did the Attorney General block it from being presented? Is he acting in favour of Suresh Sallay?
Separately, former Air Force officer Shantha Jayathilaka has publicly protested against ASG Peiris, prompting further questions as to whether the Attorney General has been swayed by pressure from a single individual. Sallay's lawyers have also lodged a complaint against Peiris with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), though the Magistrate reportedly found no fault with his conduct. This raises a further question: is the Attorney General wary of the Bar Association?
In light of these developments, sources within the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) say officers are "highly demotivated" by the Attorney General's actions, leaving open the question of exactly where the Attorney General truly stands.
The Allegations
The CID alleges that former President Ranil Wickremesinghe misappropriated more than Rs. 16.6 million in government funds during his presidency. Investigators accuse him of using state funds for a private visit to attend a ceremony at the University of Wolverhampton involving his wife, Professor Maithree Wickremesinghe, while returning from the G77 summit in Havana.
A Stalled Indictment
The CID gathered evidence and submitted it to the Attorney General, who appointed a panel to evaluate it. That panel reported back that there was sufficient evidence to indict Ranil Wickremesinghe. The Attorney General publicly stated on March 30th that he would approve the indictment, yet seven months later, no signature has followed.
Why has the Attorney General not signed off? Is it because Wickremesinghe appointed him to the post, bypassing two other, more senior candidates, and is the Attorney General now repaying that favour? As the state's chief law officer, the Attorney General is bound to uphold the law under the Constitution. Is his continued inaction a violation of that constitutional duty? Is the Attorney General acting on a political agenda?
Background
In September 2026, the Attorney General formally filed a criminal indictment in the Matara High Court against former Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon and seven others, in connection with the fatal shooting at the W15 Hotel.
Investigation Timeline
December 31, 2023: An eight-member armed team from the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) was sent on a covert mission to Pelena, Weligama. Local Weligama Police and the Special Task Force, unaware of the unauthorised operation, confronted the team. A shootout followed, killing CCD Police Sergeant Upul Chaminda Kumara and injuring others.
Early 2025 - A Committee of Inquiry investigated the incident. Testimony from former CCD officers indicated that senior leadership had issued "improper and illegal instructions" to open fire near the hotel to intimidate partygoers, under the guise of a narcotics raid, =though no drugs were ever found.
February- March 2025 - The Matara Magistrate's Court issued open arrest warrants for Tennakoon and several CCD officers. Tennakoon initially evaded arrest and attempted to block proceedings through a writ petition, which the Court of Appeal rejected. He later surrendered to the Matara Magistrate's Court.
June 2025 — The Acting IGP and CID confirmed that the unauthorised deployment had severely damaged public trust. Tennakoon testified before a parliamentary committee, denying personal involvement and describing the allegations as politically motivated.
February 2026 — Former Police Inspector Jagath Nishantha was arrested at Katunayake Airport by the CID upon his return from overseas and was subsequently remanded.
September 2026 — The case moved from the Magistrate's Court to trial stage, with the Attorney General formally indicting the eight suspects in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
Unlawful orders and conspiracy - the prosecution alleges Tennakoon and senior commanders bypassed standard operating procedures to order a hazardous, unauthorised raid.
Contempt of court - Tennakoon separately faced scrutiny after his security detail breached court-ground restrictions during early hearings.
In the W15 case, too, the Attorney General's Department was represented by Assistant Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris. A team of state counsel reportedly recommended to the Attorney General that the matter proceed to trial-at-bar, but the Attorney General refused and removed Peiris from the case. This pattern raises a pointed question: does the Attorney General harbour some kind of personal grievance against ASG Peiris?
The Attorney General holds a constitutionally protected position, designed to insulate the office from sudden political interference. Under Sri Lankan law, removal must strictly follow the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act No. 5 of 2002.
Parliament cannot remove an Attorney General simply over a disagreement on legal opinion. Under Section 5 of the Act, removal may only be triggered on serious grounds, including:
Misconduct or corruption
Gross abuse of power
Gross neglect of duty
Mental or physical incapacity
The Parliamentary Procedure
The Resolution — A formal impeachment motion listing specific allegations must be signed by the required number of Members of Parliament and presented to the Speaker.
The Investigation — The allegations cannot be put to an immediate vote. A formal committee of inquiry must be established, before which the Attorney General has the right to respond to the allegations and be legally represented.
The Final Vote — If the committee finds the allegations proven, its report is tabled in Parliament, which must then debate and vote on the resolution recommending removal to the President
Taken together, these cases point to a pattern worth Parliament's attention: an Attorney General accused of gross neglect of duty and gross abuse of power, with only a few months remaining before his retirement. The question this record leaves behind is a simple one — will the Attorney General uphold the dignity of the office, and of the judiciary
"Honourable Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe, do not bring shame or disgrace upon your late father, the eminent former Chief Justice Parinda Ranasinghe. Please uphold your father's dignity; otherwise, you disgrace his name."
Acting Editor Lankaenews
---------------------------
by (2026-09-06 21:36:24)
Read 55992 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news