Acid test for equality before the law

The principle that all citizens are equal before the law is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. Yet in Sri Lanka, this principle has too often been compromised by a judiciary tainted with political interference and selective justice. The recently deceased Lohan Ratwatte was a case in point for judicial incompetence to hold perpetrators of serious crimes to account. However, several opportunities have presented themselves for the judiciary to clean its abysmal record in recent times. 

Last week’s arrest of former president Ranil Wickremesinghe on charges of misappropriation of public funds is one such opportunity. The case is not merely about one man but the credibility of our courts and their ability to act without fear or favour.

Scepticism surrounding Wickremesinghe’s detention is understandable. It stems not from the facts of the current case, which remain to be tested in court, but from history. Sri Lanka’s judiciary has long been plagued by accusations of being a pliant tool of those in power, rather than a neutral arbiter. This checkered past explains why the question is raised, almost instinctively as to whether Wickremesinghe’s arrest is politically motivated.

Such doubts can only be dispelled by facts, and by the impartial application of the law. Wickremesinghe’s status as a former president does not place him above the law. If he has indeed misused public funds, he must be held accountable as any citizen would be. But equally, if his prosecution is pursued for political reasons, then justice is undermined in a different, but no less damaging, way. The measure of fairness in this case will be whether the law is applied equally, free from discrimination, delay, or manipulation.

It must be acknowledged that, prima facie, the present administration appears to have allowed the judiciary space to act without the overt interference that marred the conduct of previous Governments. This is a welcome departure. Yet public vigilance remains essential. A judiciary burdened by decades of politicisation cannot regain trust by default. It must earn legitimacy through transparent, swift, and impartial proceedings. Citizens and institutions alike must hold the courts to account for both their actions and their silences.

This case provides an important test. The accused must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself and, if innocent, to clear his name. At the same time, the public is entitled to swift justice. Lengthy and drawn-out proceedings benefit neither party nor do profound harm to the credibility of the legal system.

Equality before the law must not be treated as an abstract principle. It is the foundation on which confidence in the democratic order rests. If the courts can show that even a former head of state is subject to the same legal standards as any other citizen, then they will have taken a decisive step toward restoring public faith.

Former president Wickremesinghe’s case offers the judiciary a chance to prove that it can uphold justice impartially, efficiently, and visibly. Success will mark a turning point in restoring the rule of law and failure will confirm the cynicism of a public long accustomed to selective justice. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Our democracy deserves an impartial, independent, and yes at times a courageous judiciary. The case of a prosecution of a former head of state is an opportunity to correct many wrongs and shortcomings of the system.