Swift justice for corruption

The recent sentencing of former Cabinet Ministers Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Nalin Fernando to 20 and 25 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively marks an important milestone in the often-disheartening fight against high-level corruption. The verdict delivered by the special three-judge Trial-at-Bar is commendable and sends a long-overdue message that no individual, regardless of status or political affiliation, is above the law.

Yet, the fact that it has taken more than six years to reach this judgement—even under a mechanism specifically designed to expedite justice—is a sobering reminder of how inefficient and politicised our judicial process has become. Swift justice is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a core requirement of a functioning democracy. When justice is delayed, it is ultimately denied—not only to the victims of corruption, but to the public whose trust in governance continues to erode.

Even more troubling is the pattern of judicial inconsistency and selective enforcement that has plagued our system for decades. Numerous corruption cases involving high-profile figures have been dismissed or delayed, often conveniently aligned with the political winds of the time. Such swings in the legal process have severely undermined public faith in the independence of our judiciary and the prosecuting authorities. The perception—and in many cases, the reality—that political influence can distort the course of justice has turned the courtroom from a place of truth-seeking into a theatre of impunity.

To the credit of the current administration, there appears to be less overt interference in ongoing corruption cases. But this must not be celebrated as an achievement—it is the bare minimum expectation in any democratic society. The real test of this Government’s commitment to judicial independence will come if and when people within its own political ranks are brought before the court on charges of corruption. Only when justice is applied impartially—without fear or favour—can the system begin to restore public trust.

Looking forward, Sri Lanka must overhaul how it handles corruption cases. Investigations and trials must be concluded within months, not dragged out over years. For this, several immediate steps are necessary, including the strengthening of the Attorney General’s Department, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and the judiciary, providing adequate staffing, technological resources, and logistical support to eliminate administrative bottlenecks, ensuring independence of investigative bodies, ensuring that institutions like the CIABOC are structurally and financially independent and protecting then from political manipulation.

It is also necessary to reform trial procedures where special trial mechanisms must be evaluated and restructured to prevent delays. Procedural loopholes that allow cases to be postponed indefinitely must be closed. Establishing clear timelines for the adjudication of corruption cases, especially those involving public officials, and enforcing accountability for those who cause undue delay is also needed. Transparency and public oversight are key to this process and progress of high-profile corruption cases should be made publicly accessible to ensure transparency and reinforce public engagement with the justice system.

The recent convictions may represent a glimmer of hope, but they are not enough. True reform will come not from individual victories, but from the creation of a judicial framework that is consistent, impartial, and expedient. Having witnessed blatant corruption for years which had significantly contributed to the financial collapse of the country, the people of Sri Lanka deserve nothing less.