SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa yesterday urged safeguards for Sri Lanka’s judiciary and Attorney General’s Department, claiming that political interference is threatening the independence of legal institutions.
Speaking to reporters at Nelum Mawatha, Rajapaksa said he was confident that the judiciary and the Attorney General’s Department would resist political pressure. He criticised the government’s overall performance, saying it had “passed five classes but failed six years,” and called for accountability in governance.
Rajapaksa highlighted concerns over what he described as attempts to create divisions within the country, alleging that the government was fostering hostility toward political parties, state institutions, and public officials. He warned that such actions risked undermining public trust in both political and legal systems.
The SLPP MP also raised issues relating to religious and cultural harmony, claiming that the government’s policies were affecting social cohesion between regions and communities. He stressed that previous administrations had worked to protect religious sites and ensure freedom of worship, and urged the current government to uphold these principles.
Criticising selective enforcement of the law, Rajapaksa alleged that discrepancies exist in the treatment of religious leaders, law enforcement officers, and other groups. He also pointed to perceived mismanagement of environmental regulations and state institutions for political purposes.
Referring to ongoing development projects initiated during former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, he noted that delays caused by successive administrations and national crises had postponed completion, but welcomed the fact that projects were finally being realised, regardless of who inaugurated them.
Concluding his remarks, Rajapaksa cautioned that attempts to influence legal processes, submit false evidence, or politicise investigations could erode the rule of law. He called for strict adherence to legal procedures and the protection of judicial independence, recalling previous instances of contested judicial transfers and appointments.
