Ranil’s Head to Head with Al Jazeera makes quite a stir
By Gagani Weerakoon -March 8, 2025 Ceylon Today
In a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s Head to Head, former Sri Lankan President and six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe faced pointed questions regarding his administration’s actions during a tumultuous period in Sri Lankan history. Among the many issues raised, the most prominent centred around his role in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, his involvement in handling allegations of war crimes from the civil war, and his relationship with ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Wickremesinghe staunchly denied any attempts to shield Gotabaya Rajapaksa, asserting that in Sri Lanka, it is the Attorney General who decides on prosecutions, not political leaders like him. He was clear in defending his decision to allow Rajapaksa to return to Sri Lanka in 2022, stating that there was no legal charge against him at the time and questioning the logic of treating him as a criminal without evidence. The intensity of Wickremesinghe’s remarks, however, contrasted with the renewed accusations from Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of the Catholic Church, who claimed that his Government had failed to adequately investigate the 2019 bombings, allowing some to shield the true perpetrators. To this, Wickremesinghe dismissed the accusations as “nonsense,” attributing them to the Catholic Church’s political manoeuvring.
The conversation also turned to the Sri Lankan civil war, where Wickremesinghe was pressed on the issue of justice for the thousands of victims, particularly in relation to the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). While admitting that justice had not been served to any of the communities affected by the war, he denied large-scale bombing of hospitals by Sri Lankan forces, though he acknowledged some instances where hospitals were struck. His position on the reappointment of General Shavendra Silva, who the US State Department accuses of war crimes, was also defended by Wickremesinghe, who claimed it was standard practice not to replace military commanders during elections, and he was convinced Silva had not been involved in war crimes.
One of the most striking aspects of the interview was his dismissal of allegations of torture and killings under his watch in the late 1980s, particularly in relation to Batalanda, a housing complex he lived in at the time. Despite a government inquiry naming him as being aware of violations there, Wickremesinghe rejected these allegations outright and questioned the legitimacy of the report, given it had never been tabled in Parliament.
In a broader reflection on his time as President, Wickremesinghe was candid about the challenges he faced in steering the country through its economic crisis. While acknowledging that the IMF deal he brokered stabilised the economy, he remained defiant in defending his record. He suggested that the European Union’s initial stance against him, which involved calls for his resignation over his handling of protests, was hypocritical. In his eyes, the EU first sought his removal but later praised him for rescuing Sri Lanka from economic collapse. He also expressed a critical view of human rights watchdog Amnesty International, calling them “discredited” in Sri Lanka and questioning their impartiality.
In a reflective moment after the interview aired, Wickremesinghe expressed dissatisfaction with how the programme had been edited, claiming that crucial parts of his responses were omitted, and suggesting that the panellists brought in had biases he was unaware of. He highlighted that two of the panellists had alleged links to the LTTE, making the interview feel, in his words, more of an interrogation than a fair discussion. His frustration pointed to a wider concern about how media portrayals can shape the public’s perception of complex political issues.
Wickremesinghe expressed his dissatisfaction with the interview aired by Al Jazeera, questioning the integrity of the panellists who participated.
Speaking to the media shortly after the interview’s release, Wickremesinghe claimed that two of the three panellists who joined broadcaster Mehdi Hasan had pro-LTTE affiliations.
“I was informed that Human Rights Lawyer and former Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, Ambika Satkunanathan, would be part of the interview. I welcomed this, as I have known her despite our ideological differences. However, I later discovered that she had been replaced by two other panellists, whom I was told had pro-LTTE links,” he said.
“This interview was different. When I engage with local media, the interviews are live, with everything—both good and bad—being aired. However, Al Jazeera interviewed me for two hours but released only a one-hour segment. The most important parts were left out,” Wickremesinghe remarked.
“They questioned me about events that occurred under the Rajapaksa administration. I made it clear that I was not in power at the time. I also stated that the Mahanayake of the Malwathu Chapter is Sri Lanka’s foremost religious leader, while others, including Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, are just religious leaders,” he added.
Ultimately, the interview showcased the complex and often contradictory legacy of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political career. It is evident that he believes his actions were in the best interests of the country during a crisis, but his responses reveal a man deeply entrenched in defending his record, even in the face of serious allegations. The refusal to accept any wrongdoing or failings on his part could be interpreted as indicative of a leader unwilling to acknowledge the full extent of the controversies that marred his leadership.
SL faces UNHRC
A joint report evaluating Sri Lanka’s recent political and human rights developments has been submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by the Sri Lanka Core Group, led by the United Kingdom. The report, presented during the 58th session of the UNHRC, was co-authored by several countries, including Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.
The report acknowledges the peaceful elections and the smooth transition of power that took place in Sri Lanka last year. It offers a measured review of the actions taken by the incumbent Government, emphasising the potential of the new administration to address the challenges it faces. As the report states, “We recognise that the new Sri Lankan Government has only been in place for four months, and we encourage Sri Lanka to use the opportunity that this transition represents to address the challenges it faces.”
Moreover, the Core Group commended the Government’s commitment to making meaningful progress on reconciliation. This includes initial steps such as returning land, lifting roadblocks, and allowing communities in the North and East to commemorate the past and memorialise their loved ones. These measures were recognised as positive steps towards fostering a sense of healing and inclusivity in the country’s post-conflict landscape.
The report also welcomed the Government’s stated intention to implement devolution in accordance with the Constitution and to advance governance reforms. This commitment to decentralising power and ensuring greater autonomy for local communities is seen as a vital component of the reconciliation process.
Additionally, the Core Group took note of the Government’s intention to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and stressed that any new legislation should align with Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The report urged the Government to consider the release of individuals still detained under the PTA, reflecting ongoing concerns about the Act’s impact on human rights and civil liberties. The recommendation to repeal or amend the PTA has long been a point of contention, as it has been widely criticised for its potential misuse and for undermining basic freedoms.
Further, the report highlighted the importance of the Government’s continued efforts to address human rights and corruption cases. The Core Group urged that any comprehensive reconciliation and accountability process should have the support of affected communities, build on past recommendations, and meet international standards. Such a process, they emphasised, must be inclusive, transparent, and meaningful to restore trust and ensure lasting peace.
The report also called on the Sri Lankan Government to re-invigorate the work of domestic institutions focused on reparations and addressing the issue of missing persons. This reflects a deep concern for those who have suffered as a result of the civil conflict, particularly in the context of ensuring that victims and their families receive appropriate recognition, compensation, and justice.
In conclusion, the Sri Lanka Core Group reaffirmed its willingness to work with the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that any future transitional justice mechanisms are independent, inclusive, and meet the expectations of affected communities. The Core Group’s approach suggests that international cooperation and support will be critical in ensuring that Sri Lanka’s journey towards reconciliation and accountability is not only meaningful but also sustainable in the long term.
IGP vs NPC
The ongoing dispute between the National Police Commission (NPC) and Acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Priyantha Weerasooriya has brought to the forefront significant questions about the distribution of powers within Sri Lanka’s Police administration. At the heart of this disagreement is the question of who holds the authority to appoint Officers-in-Charge (OICs) of Police stations – the NPC or the IGP.
The situation escalated when Acting IGP Weerasooriya, citing an interpretation from the Attorney General’s Department, asserted that he had the authority to handle the appointment of OICs. This assertion was immediately contested by the NPC, which maintains that, according to the law, it is the Commission, not the IGP, that holds the power to make such appointments. The NPC has consistently argued that the procedures for appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions within the Police Force are clearly defined, and that the Commission is entrusted with overseeing the careers of specific officers, such as the OICs.
The NPC’s demand for a meeting with the Attorney General is not to seek clarification on the law itself, but rather to address the IGP’s interpretation of it, which, according to the NPC, was made without prior consultation with the Commission. As a body that functions independently from political influence, the NPC views this issue as part of a broader effort to ensure the depoliticisation and impartiality of the Sri Lanka Police Department.
The dispute became particularly pronounced when Acting IGP Weerasooriya requested that the responsibility for appointing OICs be delegated to him, based on the legal opinion he had sought from the Attorney General. This request was promptly rejected by the NPC, which formally communicated its decision to the Constitutional Council, further intensifying the disagreement. The NPC maintains that its role in the appointment process is a constitutional right, specifically granted under the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which empowers it to oversee matters related to the Police Force, excluding the IGP’s position.
The core of the dispute also lies in the broader tension between the NPC’s oversight role and the IGP’s operational control. The NPC has made it clear that while it holds authority over appointments, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary actions for a select group of officers, such as OICs and HQIs (Headquarters Inspectors), the IGP is responsible for the same functions concerning all other officers within the force. The NPC has further stated that it does not seek to interfere with the operational decisions of the IGP or his direct control over the Police but instead operates within the framework of constitutional and legal guidelines.
Moreover, the NPC clarified that it had approved a significant number of the Acting IGP’s requested transfers between September 2024 and January 2025, but several of the requested moves were not authorised due to insufficient supporting information. The Commission noted that while many transfers had been granted, others were held up due to procedural lapses, underlining the importance of compliance with established rules and regulations. Despite approving many of the transfers, the NPC also raised concerns about the delay in implementing the decisions, prompting them to seek clarification from the Acting IGP regarding the holdup.
The issue of the appointment of OICs also touches on a critical point of constitutional governance and the principle of accountability. The NPC’s involvement in the appointment process is seen as essential to maintaining an impartial and professional Police Service, free from political interference. The Commission has pointed out that the failure to implement decisions and the lack of communication between the IGP and NPC create an environment of uncertainty and inefficiency, which could ultimately undermine the functioning of the Police Department.
Further, despite the Acting IGP’s claim of seeking the Attorney General’s advice on the matter, the NPC has highlighted that no official notification was made to them about this consultation. This, according to the NPC, demonstrates a lack of communication and collaboration between the IGP and the Commission, which is a fundamental concern for maintaining the integrity of the Police Service.
This dispute also underlines the complexity of the relationship between the NPC and the IGP, a relationship that is essential for the proper functioning of the Police Department. The NPC’s role as an independent oversight body tasked with ensuring transparency and accountability in the Police Force cannot be overstated. Yet, the IGP’s argument that he should have the authority to transfer officers without the NPC’s oversight raises questions about the extent of the IGP’s powers and whether such authority could lead to potential abuses of power or political influence over Police operations.
In response to the Acting IGP’s claim that the NPC has interfered with the internal workings of the Police, the Commission has reiterated that it does not seek to obstruct or challenge the IGP’s authority in areas where it does not have jurisdiction. The NPC’s primary concern is to ensure that appointments and transfers are carried out in accordance with the law, without any undue political or administrative influence.
This conflict, though rooted in legal interpretations, also reflects broader concerns about governance, accountability, and transparency in Sri Lanka’s law enforcement. The NPC has maintained that its role is not one of interference, but rather one of ensuring that the Police Force operates within the confines of the law, and that appointments are made based on merit and need, rather than political connections or favouritism.
Looking ahead, the meeting between the NPC and the Attorney General will likely provide a platform to resolve this dispute, offering clarity on the legal framework governing the appointment and transfer of Police officers. However, it also serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by Sri Lanka’s institutions in maintaining the rule of law, ensuring fairness in public service, and upholding the independence of key oversight bodies such as the NPC.
As this situation continues to unfold, it is evident that the balance between administrative control and independent oversight within Sri Lanka’s Police Service will remain a topic of significant debate and scrutiny, especially in the context of maintaining a non-politicised, accountable, and effective law enforcement system.🔺
Ceylon Today (09-03-2025)
