By Adolf
The controversy surrounding the arrest of an Opposition MP, the son of a former Justice Minister, and a former state official on allegations of corruption and money laundering has become far more than a criminal investigation. It has evolved into a test of whether President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government is genuinely committed to equal justice or merely practising selective accountability.
The arrests came unexpectedly, creating immediate political shockwaves. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake quickly addressed Parliament, clearly hoping the developments would reinforce the National People’s Power (NPP) government’s anti-corruption credentials while placing the opposition on the defensive.
If evidence exists, the law must take its course irrespective of political status or family connections. The problem is not the arrests themselves, but the glaring inconsistency in how related allegations have been treated.
The investigation was reportedly triggered by statements and audio recordings submitted by the wife of the alleged drug kingpin Harak Kata. According to investigators, the material implicated the accused in a scheme involving money allegedly paid to secure protection and facilitate his release.
However, another allegation arising from the same sequence of events has received remarkably different treatment. Harak Kata himself publicly alleged that he paid Rs. 300 million to a former Public Security Minister and a former senior police officer. While the allegations made by his wife resulted in swift arrests, his own claims appear to have vanished into official silence.
This inconsistency lies at the heart of the controversy. If one allegation connected to the same suspect is considered credible enough to justify arrests, why has the other not even prompted a visible investigation?
The issue is not whether these allegations are true or false. That is for investigators and the courts to determine. The issue is consistency.
Sri Lankan law allows any citizen to provide information regarding a cognizable offence, irrespective of that person’s own criminal status. The threshold for commencing an investigation is far lower than the threshold required to secure a conviction. Article 12 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Investigators cannot simply choose which allegations deserve attention based on the political identity of those involved.
This perception is becoming increasingly damaging. Critics argue that individuals such as Rakitha Rajapaksha and Opposition Stalwart Charith Abeysinghe have become convenient examples through which the government can demonstrate action while avoiding potentially more politically damaging allegations emerging from the same investigation.
Whether that perception is fair is almost beside the point. In politics, perception often becomes reality.
The allegations concerning Rakitha Rajapaksha are especially troubling because they involve someone closely connected to Sri Lanka’s legal establishment. His father served as Minister of Justice when the alleged events took place. No allegations have been proven, and every accused person enjoys the presumption of innocence. However, if even part of the accusations ultimately withstand scrutiny, the implications for public confidence in the justice system would be profound.
Restore Integrity
The NPP came to power promising to restore integrity to public institutions. If it is seen to investigate only politically convenient targets while ignoring others connected to the same facts, it risks undermining its own credibility. Selective enforcement would reduce what should be an independent criminal investigation into little more than political theatre.
The controversy also exposes a deeper national problem. The narcotics trade appears capable of penetrating politicians, law enforcement, lawyers, bureaucrats and other influential figures. Drug trafficking survives not merely because of criminal syndicates but because elements of the state itself may have become compromised.
The real challenge facing Sri Lanka is therefore not simply arresting drug dealers but dismantling the political, financial and institutional networks that protect them.
President Dissanayake’s statement to Parliament intensified rather than eased these concerns. While he addressed several aspects of the case, he made no reference to the allegations involving the former Public Security Minister or the alleged Rs. 300 million payment.Legally, silence proves nothing. Politically, however, silence carries consequences.When governments address one part of a controversy while ignoring another arising from the same facts, they inevitably invite accusations of selective justice. Such perceptions are especially damaging for an administration elected on promises of accountability and equal treatment under the law.
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. If the public concludes that anti-corruption laws are being used primarily against political opponents while politically useful figures remain untouched, the NPP’s moral authority will erode rapidly.
Justice must be equal
The simplest solution is also the strongest: investigate every allegation without fear or favour. No sacred cows. No protected individuals. No politically convenient blind spots.Equally important is ensuring the safety of key witnesses and suspects. Sri Lanka has witnessed too many controversial cases where individuals with potentially vital information died before investigators uncovered the larger networks involved. If Harak Kata possesses information capable of exposing corruption within powerful circles, the state has a responsibility to ensure he remains alive to face justice and disclose everything he knows. The controversy has also placed the legal profession under uncomfortable scrutiny. Following the arrests, reports that large numbers of lawyers appeared in court supporting Rakitha Rajapaksha generated considerable public criticism. Although the Bar Association of Sri Lanka later clarified that it had not authorised anyone to represent it and was merely observing proceedings involving one of its members, the episode highlighted growing public concern about the perceived relationship between sections of the legal profession and powerful interests.Ultimately, however, the greatest contradiction lies elsewhere.Government leaders have repeatedly challenged the Samagi Jana Balawegaya to explain what action it intends to take against Charith Abeysinghe. They are entitled to ask that question. But the public is equally entitled to ask what action the government intends to take against individuals within its own orbit who continue to face serious allegations that appear to have stalled. One standard for political opponents and another for political allies is not justice—it is hypocrisy. The NPP’s anti-corruption campaign now stands at a defining moment. It can either become a genuine effort to cleanse public life or descend into another exercise in selective accountability. The difference will not be determined by speeches or parliamentary debates but by whether every allegation is pursued with equal determination, regardless of whose interests are threatened. The public is no longer asking only who has been arrested. Increasingly, they are asking who has not—and why. The NPP was elected on a promise to end impunity and privilege. If it now repeats the very practices it once condemned, it will have betrayed not only its mandate but also the hopes of a nation demanding genuine change. Selective justice is not justice. It is politics disguised as principle. And increasingly, that disguise is wearing thin for AKD.