Court Of Appeal Hears Former President’s Application Over Easter Sunday Investigation
The legal aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks entered another significant chapter yesterday as the Court of Appeal considered an application by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa seeking relief against any possible arrest arising from the continuing criminal investigations into the bombings.
The application does not determine whether the former Head of State bears criminal responsibility for the attacks.
Rather, it raises an important procedural question: whether a citizen who believes arrest is imminent may seek the protection of the superior courts before any arrest is effected.
The application comes against the backdrop of continuing investigations into one of the darkest chapters in Sri Lanka’s modern history.
Seven years after coordinated suicide bombings claimed more than 260 lives and injured hundreds more, investigators continue examining questions surrounding intelligence failures, decision-making and possible criminal liability.
The former President’s legal team argues that he faces the prospect of arrest and has therefore sought judicial intervention to ensure that any investigative steps are carried out within the framework of the law.
The State, meanwhile, is expected to maintain that investigators must be permitted to perform their duties without undue judicial interference unless there is evidence of illegality or abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal now finds itself balancing two fundamental constitutional principles.
On one hand lies the individual’s right to liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest.
On the other rests the State’s responsibility to investigate one of the gravest terrorist atrocities in the nation’s history thoroughly, independently and without obstruction.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the proceedings are likely to be closely watched by lawyers, constitutional scholars and victims’ families alike.
The case also serves as a reminder that criminal investigations involving former Presidents inevitably test the strength of democratic institutions. The question before the Court is not whether history should be rewritten, nor whether public opinion has already reached its conclusions.
It is whether the law will be permitted to take its course while ensuring that constitutional safeguards remain available equally to every citizen – former Presidents included.
Be that as it may, the true measure of the rule of law is not how it treats the ordinary citizen, but how faithfully it applies the same principles to those who once occupied the highest office in the land.
