Sri Lanka has long struggled with a troubling pattern in its political landscape — one where justice becomes a tool of convenience rather than a pillar of democracy. Across administrations of every political stripe, the presumption of innocence, a foundational legal principle recognized under international human rights law, has been routinely discarded whenever political rivals find themselves under arrest. The latest government to fall into this deeply entrenched trap is the JVP-NPP administration, which swept to power on soaring promises of a new political culture, only to demonstrate that old habits die remarkably hard in Sri Lankan politics.
The Presumption of Innocence: A Principle Repeatedly Betrayed
The presumption of innocence is not merely a legal technicality. It is the bedrock upon which fair justice systems are built. It holds that every individual accused of a crime must be considered innocent until proven guilty through a transparent and impartial judicial process. This principle exists precisely to prevent governments from weaponizing the justice system against political opponents, a practice that erodes public trust and undermines democratic institutions.
In Sri Lanka, however, this principle has historically been treated as optional. When political rivals are arrested, governments across the ideological spectrum have allowed — and at times actively encouraged — their politicians, supporters, and media allies to publicly pronounce guilt before any court has delivered a verdict. The accused are paraded in the court of public opinion long before they appear in a court of law. This behavior has been observed under governments of the left, the right, and the center, suggesting it is not a matter of ideology but of political culture itself.
The JVP-NPP's Broken Promise of a New Political Culture
When the JVP-NPP alliance campaigned for power, it positioned itself as a transformative force. Its rhetoric was built on accountability, transparency, and a decisive break from the corrupt and hypocritical practices that had defined Sri Lankan governance for decades. Voters, exhausted by years of economic mismanagement, political nepotism, and institutional decay, responded enthusiastically. The mandate they delivered was not merely for a change of faces but for a genuine change in the way power is exercised.
Yet the administration has failed to honor that promise in one critical area. Its politicians have fallen into the same pattern of behavior that they once condemned so loudly from the opposition benches. When political rivals have been arrested, voices within the JVP-NPP have been quick to treat accusations as established facts, abandoning the very principle of presumed innocence that a government committed to the rule of law must uphold. The hypocrisy is stark and deeply disappointing to those who believed that this administration represented something genuinely different.
Why Political Hypocrisy on Justice Matters
Some may argue that politicians commenting on ongoing legal cases is a minor concern compared to larger issues of economic recovery or national security. This view is dangerously shortsighted. When governments selectively apply the presumption of innocence — protecting their own while condemning their rivals before trial — they send a clear message that justice in Sri Lanka remains politicized. This has several serious consequences.
First, it discourages public confidence in the judiciary. When citizens observe that guilt or innocence appears to be determined by political affiliation rather than evidence, they lose faith in courts as neutral arbiters of truth. Second, it creates a chilling effect on political opposition. If arrest alone is treated as proof of guilt, the threat of prosecution becomes a powerful weapon to silence dissent and intimidate rivals. Third, it perpetuates a cycle of retributive politics in which each incoming government uses the justice system to settle scores with the previous one, while shielding its own from accountability.
Breaking the Cycle Requires Political Courage
The solution is not complicated in theory, though it demands genuine political courage in practice. Governments must establish a clear and consistent policy of allowing the judicial process to operate without political interference or commentary that prejudges outcomes. Ministers and party officials must be disciplined enough to refrain from declaring the guilt of accused individuals, regardless of how politically convenient such declarations might be.
Civil society, the media, and the legal community all have roles to play in holding governments accountable to this standard. Public pressure, consistent media scrutiny, and robust bar association advocacy can together create an environment where respecting the presumption of innocence becomes a political necessity rather than an optional virtue.
Conclusion
Sri Lanka's democracy cannot mature as long as justice remains hostage to political calculation. The JVP-NPP administration had a rare opportunity to model a higher standard of political conduct. By repeating the hypocrisy of its predecessors, it has squandered a significant part of that opportunity. The presumption of innocence must be defended not selectively, but universally — for political rivals and allies alike. That is the true measure of a government committed to justice rather than merely to power.