-By Legal Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -07.Feb.2025, 11.30 PM) In Sri Lanka’s ever-evolving legal landscape, the question arises: Is it time to establish an independent Prosecution Service Inspectorate to monitor the Attorney General's Department? With the public’s confidence in the judicial process waning due to recent controversies, this question seems more pressing than ever.
The Attorney General’s (AG) Department, historically tasked with safeguarding justice, has recently come under intense scrutiny, especially following the withdrawal of prosecution in the Lasantha Wickrematunge murder case. This decision sparked outrage across the nation, with journalists protesting outside the AG’s office and demanding the resignation of Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe.
Adding to the furor, Ahimsa Wickrematunge, the daughter of the slain journalist, has publicly called for the impeachment of the AG, accusing him of gross negligence or deliberate abuse of power. Her letter to Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya denounced the AG’s office for fostering a culture of “nonchalance, callousness, and complacency.”
The release of key suspects—including former Army Intelligence Officer Premananda Udalagama, SI Tissasiri Sugathapala, and DIG Prasanna Nanayakkara—has only intensified calls for transparency. Udalagama, in particular, had been remanded for allegedly abducting and threatening Lasantha’s driver, a crucial witness who implicated the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) in the murder.
Enter the Law Commission of Sri Lanka, established in 1969 under the Law Commission Act No. 3 of 1969. Section 2 of this Act empowers the Commission to create bodies such as a Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. This Inspectorate would have a statutory duty to inspect the AG’s office, the Bribery Commission, and Serious Fraud Officers, ensuring that these institutions operate with integrity and accountability.
The proposed Public Prosecution Service Inspectorate would not merely serve as a watchdog but as an active reform agent. It would conduct systematic inspections, evaluate evidence-gathering methods, and report findings transparently to both the AG’s office and the public. This process would not only highlight best practices but also expose areas needing urgent reform.
In the wake of high-profile failures, restoring public confidence requires more than apologies and promises—it demands structural change. An Inspectorate would offer an independent lens through which the prosecution process can be scrutinized, ensuring that decisions like those in the Lasantha case are made with transparency and accountability.
Moreover, the Inspectorate would collaborate with key legal bodies such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the Judiciary Commission, and the Bribery Commission. By working together to streamline case backlogs, improve prosecutorial efficiency, and provide training for law officers, the legal system can begin to heal its fractured relationship with the public.
For the Inspectorate to be effective, it must operate under guiding principles that ensure fairness and integrity:
1. Independence – Free from political influence.
2. Transparency – Open and clear reporting to the public.
3. Accountability – Holding prosecutors responsible for misconduct or negligence.
4. Efficiency – Ensuring timely prosecutions without undue delay.
5. Fairness – Upholding the rights of both victims and the accused.
6. Integrity – Maintaining the highest ethical standards.
7. Competence – Ensuring prosecutors are well-trained and knowledgeable.
8. Consistency – Uniform application of the law across all cases.
9. Public Confidence – Building trust through openness and reliability.
10. Continuous Improvement – Regular reviews to identify and implement reforms.
The Lasantha case has exposed deep flaws in the prosecution process, shaking the very foundation of public trust in Sri Lanka’s legal system. Establishing a Prosecution Service Inspectorate is not just a bureaucratic exercise; it is an essential step toward restoring integrity, accountability, and transparency in the justice system.
As the nation grapples with the implications of recent legal failures, one thing is clear: Sri Lanka can no longer afford to leave its prosecution processes unexamined. The time for an Inspectorate is not just near—it’s overdue.
In the wake of mounting public scrutiny and high-profile legal controversies, particularly surrounding the withdrawal of the prosecution in the Lasantha Wickrematunge murder case, Sri Lanka’s legal landscape faces a pivotal question: Is it time to establish a Prosecution Service Inspectorate to monitor the Attorney General's Department?
The Attorney General's (AG) Department has long been the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s prosecution process. However, recent developments, such as the AG’s controversial decision to withdraw charges in the Lasantha case—a decision that sparked protests and calls for resignation from journalists and civil society—have cast a long shadow over the integrity and transparency of the office. Even President Anura Kumara felt compelled to summon the AG for explanations, a rare move underscoring the depth of concern.
The question is no longer whether public confidence is eroding—it’s how to restore it.
One proposal gaining traction is the creation of a Public Prosecution Service Inspectorate, modeled after international best practices and established under the framework of Sri Lanka’s Law Commission Act No. 3 of 1969. Section 2 of this Act allows the Law Commission—an entity established in 1969 to review and recommend reforms in the legal system—to appoint bodies such as a Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.
This Inspectorate would be tasked with inspecting, monitoring, and reporting on the performance of the AG’s Department, the Bribery Commission, and Serious Fraud Offices. It would have a statutory duty to ensure these institutions uphold the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability.
The Inspectorate wouldn’t just be a watchdog—it would be a reform catalyst. By systematically inspecting the prosecution process, methods of evidence gathering, and case management, it would identify both best practices and critical failures. These findings would not only inform the AG’s strategies but also serve as a public record, helping to rebuild trust in the legal system.
Moreover, the Inspectorate would collaborate with other key legal bodies, including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the Judiciary Commission, and the Bribery Commission, to streamline backlogs, improve efficiency, and ensure proper training for law officers. This multi-faceted approach would ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
With journalists demanding accountability and public trust in the AG’s office wavering, the establishment of a Prosecution Service Inspectorate seems not only timely but necessary. The Inspectorate would not merely serve as a watchdog but as an essential mechanism for reform, capable of restoring faith in Sri Lanka’s legal system.
As legal systems worldwide evolve towards greater transparency and public accountability, Sri Lanka must decide whether it will follow suit—or risk further erosion of public confidence in the very institutions tasked with upholding justice.
The real question isn’t whether we need an Inspectorate, but rather: Can we afford not to have one?
---------------------------
by (2025-02-07 20:49:45)
Read 16356 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news