“The administration of justice must be speedy, but not hasty.”
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has effectively reopened one of the country’s most explosive financial crime prosecutions, delivering a sweeping judgment that revives key charges connected to the 2016 Treasury Bond scandal while sharply criticising the manner in which the High Court at Bar discharged several accused persons nearly five years ago.
In a landmark 110-page judgment delivered on June 1, 2026, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court described the bond controversy as “one of the largest financial frauds reported in Sri Lanka,” involving alleged irregularities that caused “losses of billions of rupees to the State” and had a “significant adverse impact on the Sri Lankan economy.”
The ruling arose from legal challenges connected to the March 31, 2016 Treasury bond auction, one of three major bond-related Trials at Bar now before the courts.
Among those named in the indictment are former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake as the 2nd accused and former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran as the 3rd accused, alongside Perpetual Treasuries Limited and businessman Arjun Aloysius.
At the centre of the dispute was a controversial December 2021 order by the High Court at Bar which upheld a preliminary objection arguing that a company could not be prosecuted under the Offences Against Public Property Act. That decision led to the discharge of all accused from the first 11 counts of the indictment.
But the Supreme Court was openly critical of the speed and manner in which that decision had been made.
Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena observed that the objection “was not of a routine nature” and required “careful consideration and a proper understanding of the applicable law.” The Court then delivered one of the most striking lines in the judgment:
“The administration of justice must be speedy, but not hasty.”
The Supreme Court noted that the preliminary objection had been argued over just two days, without written submissions, before the High Court discharged the accused shortly thereafter. It further observed that the proceedings had remained effectively stalled for more than four years as a result.
In a crucial finding, the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General had every right to challenge the High Court at Bar’s order directly before the Supreme Court, and that the Court of Appeal correctly refused to intervene because appellate jurisdiction over High Court at Bar matters lies exclusively with the apex court.
The judgment also clarified a broader constitutional principle with implications extending beyond the bond case itself: that orders issued by a High Court at Bar cannot be split between different appellate forums, as doing so could create “conflicting determinations” and “an anomalous situation.”
Legal analysts say the ruling now clears the path for the continuation of the stalled bond prosecutions, potentially reopening courtroom battles involving some of the most politically sensitive allegations to emerge from Sri Lanka’s post-war financial system.
The case remains one of the defining scandals of modern Sri Lanka, symbolising for many citizens the intersection of political power, state finance and alleged institutional failure.
Be that as it may, after years of procedural detours, delays and legal technicalities, the country’s highest court has now unmistakably signalled that the bond saga is far from over.
