The Attorney General, the emperor without clothes

Last week, we gave the benefit of the doubt to Attorney General (AG) Parinda Ranasinghe (Jnr.) regarding his actions (or more accurately, inaction) in prosecuting the murders of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge. This was after Ranasinghe’s directive to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) that the AG does not intend to proceed with prosecutions against the three suspects generated a storm of protest.

Summoned for a meeting with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Ranasinghe reportedly re-iterated his position that there was no evidence against the accused for a successful prosecution. If the President or the government was unhappy with this stance, they could seek the intervention of the courts, Ranasinghe had said. It now transpires that Ranasinghe’s defence was worse than his offence.

Around Ranasinghe, others were gathering to defend him. Sections of the mainstream print media which previously had a record of accuracy attempted to paint an entirely different picture of the case. The proceedings related to the abduction of Wickrematunge’s driver and the disappearance of his notebook and not his murder, they argued, conveniently ignoring that these events were linked to the murder. The AG’s reasoning was based on legal issues and was apolitical, these media outlets argued.

Much was also made of the fact that Wickrematunge’s driver had not complained of his abduction until six years later. The reason for that is obvious, though. He dared to lodge a complaint only after a different government took office, likely fearing for his life. It is the same reason that the Wickrematunge assassination case laid dormant within the AG’s Department for six years!

Then, we heard from an hitherto unheard-of outfit calling themselves the ‘Legal Officers’ Association of the Attorney General’s Department’. It said it had the “utmost confidence in the AG” and “would not be hesitant to stand up and defeat any attempt to remove the Hon. Attorney General from his office”. Clearly, Ranasinghe was getting worried about a possible impeachment.

Into this mess jumped in the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and its then President Anura Meddegoda. He told Dissanayake that that “decisions of the Attorney General in criminal matters should not be reviewed by the political authorities” and asked the President to “to ensure that there is no unwarranted interference with the exercise of the powers of the Attorney General”.

Both this new-found ‘Legal Officers’ Association’ and the BASL have maintained a deafening silence on why no charges have been filed against Wickrematunge’s alleged assailants for sixteen years. Isn’t it because this AG and his predecessors did not have the backbone to stand up to the culture of impunity and intimidation fostered by the Rajapaksa regimes which was surreptitiously nursed even during the ‘Yahapalanaya’ era, even though there was an outward show of arrests and of suspects being taken in for questioning only to be triumphantly released on bail later?

Meddegoda got a stinging return for his brash statement. In a letter addressed to him that would have made her father proud, Wickrematunge’s daughter Ahimsa revealed that Meddegoda had asked for presidential review of a decision by the AG to release suspects who were accused of murdering the spouse of a client of his. Why, the double standards Ahimsa asked, requesting Meddegoda to do unto others as he would do unto himself.

With the backlash against him growing, Ranasinghe blinked. First, following his discussion with Dissanayake, he issued a statement ‘clarifying’ his letter to the CID, implying that investigations into Wickrematunge’s killing could still proceed. Unfortunately for him, this too was highlighted on social media, saying the AG had ‘reversed’ his decision.

Reportedly, by now the higher echelons in the AG’s Department were furious. There were attempts to ascertain who was leaking information from the Department. There were some inspired leaks from those loyal to the AG to the mainstream media saying Ranasinghe had not ‘reversed his decision’. However, the AG had to face reality: his Department had sent a subsequent letter asking Police not to proceed with the release of the three suspects. If that is not reversing, what is?

This chain of events proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe is working to his own agenda. That he was Ranil Wickremesinghe’s appointee (overlooking Ayesha Jinasena), that he was schoolmates with Sagala Ratnayaka at Royal College is grist to the mill of conspiracy theorists but Ranasinghe’s actions now speak for themselves.

These recent events expose Ranasinghe’s ethical and professional nakedness. He is either extremely incompetent or of dubious integrity, or both. He is also surrounded by a ring of ‘yes men’ (and women) who sing his praises, much like the naked emperor who believed his garments were of the highest calibre.   

One of the main- if not the main- aspirations of those who voted for Dissanayake and the JJB was to cleanse the country of corruption and criminality. They will be held to account on that, not on restoring economic prosperity. The Wickrematunge fiasco enacted by the AG proves that they will not be able to achieve this objective as long as Ranasinghe is AG.

The response from the government to Wickrematunge’s case has been to announce the creation of an Office of the Independent Prosecutor. This was in the Jathika Jana Balavegaya (JJB) manifesto anyway but these events appear to have added a sense of urgency to that. Nevertheless, it is still an onerous process possibly requiring constitutional amendments, so the sooner the government gets onto it, the better. They must do so within weeks if possible and within a few months at the most. To let this process drag on, mired in constitutional hurdles as it is, will defeat its purpose. Whether Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara is equal to the task is a valid question to ask.

If an Office of the Independent Prosecutor is created it will emasculate the AG’s Department and bring its arrogant counsel down to earth with a bang. Is that enough, or should an impeachment against the AG required, as Ahimsa Wickrematunge has asked for?

The creation of an Office of the Independent Prosecutor, if done quickly enough will mean that an impeachment is not necessary but an impeachment will send a strong message to the country’s bureaucracy which is still operating on the manual written by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas. That message is, change your ways or we will change you. This should indeed be food for thought for President Dissanayake.