SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam arrested after remarks concerning the Police Chief, then released on bail – raising questions about political speech, intimidation and where the law draws the line
COLOMBO, Monday – Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna General Secretary and Attorney-at-Law Sagara Kariyawasam was arrested on Monday over an alleged death threat against Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasooriya, turning remarks made during a political confrontation into a criminal investigation and raising an important question about where robust political speech ends and criminal intimidation begins.
The controversy arose from remarks attributed to Kariyawasam concerning the conduct of the Police Chief. Reports of the incident said the SLPP General Secretary had warned that the IGP could be killed if he continued acting in what Kariyawasam characterised as a partisan manner. Police treated the remarks as sufficiently serious to warrant his arrest, while Kariyawasam’s position has been that his comments were not intended as a death threat.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
That distinction will now be important. Political language in Sri Lanka is frequently provocative, personalised and sometimes reckless. But arresting the General Secretary of a major political party over words spoken in a political context inevitably requires careful examination of precisely what was said, the circumstances in which it was said and whether the remarks satisfied the legal threshold necessary to constitute a criminal threat.
The identity of the person at whom the remarks were directed makes the issue still more sensitive. An Inspector General of Police must be able to discharge the functions of office without intimidation or fear of violence. Threatening the life of the country’s most senior police officer, if that is what occurred, cannot reasonably be dismissed merely as political rhetoric.
When Does a Warning…
Equally, criminal law should not become an instrument for policing every intemperate statement made by an opposition politician. The distinction between criticism, prediction, warning and threat therefore matters enormously, particularly when the Police themselves investigate remarks directed at their own chief.
The arrest also occurs against a wider political backdrop in which a number of figures associated with previous administrations and opposition politics have faced arrest or investigation.
That does not establish that any particular prosecution is politically motivated, nor should political office provide immunity from investigation. It does, however, make transparency in the application of the law particularly important.
The strongest answer to allegations of selective enforcement is consistent enforcement. If threatening language constitutes an offence when directed at the IGP, the same standard should apply when comparable threats are directed at journalists, public officials, political opponents or ordinary citizens.
The courts will ultimately determine the legal consequences of Kariyawasam’s remarks. The political consequences may arrive considerably sooner.
And, be that as it may, Sri Lanka should be capable of protecting its Police Chief from genuine intimidation without requiring its Police Chief to be protected from legitimate political criticism.
