When two Mount Lavinia judges handling a corruption case against a powerful minister were suddenly transferred, and police ignored arrest orders not once but twice, questions exploded over whether Sri Lanka’s justice system is truly free. Adding fuel to the fire, the judge who once remanded Ranil Wickremesinghe was quietly promoted. In a country already scarred by political interference, this revelation in Parliament has reignited fears that the rule of law is being traded for the rule of power.
Two judges attached to the Mount Lavinia court, who were handling a case involving the illegal acquisition of a building by a powerful government minister, have now been transferred, raising serious questions about judicial independence and political interference. The revelation was made in Parliament by Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP Mujibur Rahuman during the debate on the Penal Code Amendment Bill.
According to the MP, the Mount Lavinia Magistrate had issued arrest orders for the minister on two separate occasions. However, despite these court directives, the police failed to carry out the arrests, fueling allegations that political power continues to overshadow the rule of law in Sri Lanka. Such instances highlight growing concerns among citizens about selective justice and the erosion of trust in state institutions.
Mujibur Rahuman also pointed out that a judge who once ordered the arrest of former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has instead been promoted. This development, he argued, reflects a troubling pattern where judicial appointments and transfers appear to serve political interests rather than justice.
The disclosure in Parliament has intensified debate on the independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary, particularly in cases where senior politicians and ministers are implicated in corruption, abuse of power, and illegal land acquisitions. Critics warn that unless impartiality is restored, public faith in the legal system will continue to deteriorate.
The case has reignited demands for stronger accountability measures, unbiased law enforcement, and genuine separation of powers to protect the integrity of the courts.
