A court rejects Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s overseas travel application over a technical discrepancy. But beyond procedural arguments lies a larger question: how are Sri Lanka’s former political elite financing their legal battles and lifestyles?
The Fort Magistrate’s Court recently rejected former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s application to travel to Singapore for post-surgical medical care because of conflicting dates in the submitted documents. The rejection was procedural rather than a determination that he was legally ineligible to travel. Nevertheless, it raises questions about proportionality, judicial discretion and the treatment of politically exposed individuals.
Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris informed the court that Rajapaksa had not been formally named as a suspect in the ongoing Easter Sunday attacks investigation. The prosecution acknowledged that permission to travel could be considered on humanitarian grounds through a properly presented application. If that is the position, should a clerical discrepancy delay access to medical treatment when the error could potentially be corrected?
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Courts must apply the law consistently, regardless of political identity. Former presidents deserve neither preferential treatment nor additional punishment simply because they once occupied high office. Procedural correctness matters, but justice must also remain proportionate, particularly where medical considerations arise.
Be that as it may, portraying the Rajapaksas exclusively as victims of political persecution risks obscuring a considerably larger question: the origins, extent and transparency of their personal wealth.
The travel application comes amid continuing investigations and legal proceedings involving figures associated with the former administration. Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s former Private Secretary, Sugeeshwara Bandara, has faced allegations involving salary payments and misuse of state resources. Other members of the Rajapaksa family have also encountered financial investigations and judicial scrutiny, although allegations must never be confused with established guilt.
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court previously found senior political figures responsible for breaches of public trust associated with the economic crisis. That landmark determination established accountability at the highest political levels, but it did not resolve every question concerning the financial affairs of those involved.
For ordinary Sri Lankans, legal representation, medical treatment overseas and international travel can represent enormous financial burdens. Yet prominent former officeholders appear capable of maintaining expensive legal representation and international mobility. Their ability to meet such expenses is not evidence of wrongdoing, but legitimate questions arise about declared income, accumulated assets and financial transparency.
Are these expenditures supported by legitimately acquired domestic wealth, inherited resources or overseas holdings? Have relevant asset declarations been properly examined? Where credible grounds for investigation exist, have financial authorities followed the money rather than merely pursued politically attractive prosecutions?
An administration elected on promises of accountability cannot measure success through arrests, remand orders or procedural victories alone. Investigations must be lawful, evidence-based and equally applicable to political allies and opponents.
The Rajapaksas deserve due process. Sri Lanka’s taxpayers deserve answers. Neither political victimhood nor public anger should determine the outcome.
The real test is whether investigators can establish where the money came from, whether it was lawfully acquired and whether every rupee can withstand scrutiny.
