EDITORIAL • 10 OCTOBER 2026

Beyond Popularity: The Principle of Equal Accountability in Sri Lanka

Political power does not erase criminal responsibility, and political opposition does not establish it. True accountability requires that neither popularity nor a seat in government shields anyone from lawful investigation, evidence and due process.

In discussions of political justice, a foundational principle often gets lost amid shifting public sentiment: political power does not erase criminal responsibility, and political opposition does not establish it. If a serious crime is committed, neither an official’s current popularity nor their position in government should shield them from legal scrutiny. Every individual must be subject to the same standard of lawful investigation, presentation of evidence and due process.

Applying this test uniformly is critical to moving past partisan divisions, especially when evaluating the actions of both past administrations and the current ruling coalition.

The ruling party and the mandate for systemic change

The current administration under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power alliance secured power on a platform centred on anti-corruption and systemic institutional reform. The NPP, whose principal constituent is the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, won public support by promising to challenge the culture of impunity that has long protected political elites.

That mandate makes equal accountability more important, not less. A government promising systemic change should be prepared to apply the standards it demands of former rulers to its own movement, its own officials and its own historical record.

Historical transgressions

When examining the violent insurrections associated with the JVP’s history in the 1970s and 1980s, justice must rest on documented incidents, evidence, identified victims and, where evidence permits, specific perpetrators. Historical violence should not be erased because political circumstances have changed. Nor should collective guilt replace individual legal responsibility.

Transparent investigation is the proper route: establish what happened, preserve evidence, identify responsibility and allow independent legal institutions to determine criminal liability.

State forces and prior governments

The exact same standard must apply to alleged human-rights abuses, extrajudicial actions, disappearances, corruption and financial crimes attributed to previous administrations and state security forces. Political convenience cannot justify immunity, but neither should political rivalry substitute for evidence.

The present administration

Equal accountability also means contemporary governance must face serious scrutiny. Concerns about public procurement, state appointments, institutional neutrality, statutory compliance and the exercise of executive power should be examined through independent checks and balances rather than partisan loyalty.

If allegations involve current ministers, officials or political allies, they deserve the same evidence-based investigation demanded when allegations concern opposition figures or former governments.

The role of due process

Popularity polls, electoral supermajorities and political alignment are indicators of public sentiment, but they are not substitutes for a court of law. An accusation alone does not establish guilt, just as political authority cannot dissolve a crime.

For Sri Lanka to achieve genuine institutional transformation, the judiciary, police, prosecutors and independent anti-corruption institutions must operate according to evidence and law. No individual should be placed above the law, and no individual should be denied its protection.

Equal justice means exactly that: the same evidence, the same law and the same due process — regardless of who holds power.