ECONOMYNEXT – The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe is one of the most consequential developments in Sri Lanka’s post-independence political history.
For decades, Wickremesinghe symbolized continuity in the country’s politics, navigating crises, shaping economic policy, and representing Sri Lanka on the global stage.
His sudden arrest not only raises questions about the direction of Sri Lanka’s politics, but also tests the strength of its constitutional framework, which has often been manipulated for short-term political gains.
This explainer unpacks the meaning of his arrest, exploring the political ramifications, institutional consequences, and the constitutional challenges that are likely to arise.
Shocking precedent in Sri Lankan politics
Wickremesinghe’s arrest is unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s modern history as he is the first former head of state to have been arrested. While the country has seen assassinations, impeachments, and forced resignations, no former head of state of his stature has been taken into custody. In fact, Wickremesinghe had long been seen as a political survivor, someone who outlasted rivals and crises, though not through elections, despite setbacks.
The symbolism of the arrest goes beyond Wickremesinghe himself. It signals that Sri Lanka’s political culture may be shifting away from untouchable elites who once enjoyed near-immunity. For decades, allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and economic mismanagement followed presidents and prime ministers, but accountability rarely reached the top. This arrest, therefore, represents a potential watershed: a moment when political office no longer guarantees protection after leaving power.
Yet, this also carries risks. If the process appears politically motivated rather than impartial, it could deepen polarization and set off a cycle of vendetta politics, where each ruling administration seeks to prosecute its predecessors.
What it means for the Political Establishment
Wickremesinghe was not just another politician, but he was an institution. His near five-decades in office made him a fixture in both domestic and international politics. For Sri Lanka’s elites, his arrest demonstrates that even the most entrenched power brokers can be removed from the equation.
This creates a vacuum in the political establishment. Wickremesinghe was often a bridge between Sri Lanka and Western powers, international financial institutions, and global diplomacy. His exit from active politics through arrest weakens that connection. While the current administration under Anura Kumara Dissanayake has charted its own course, Wickremesinghe’s absence alters the balance of Sri Lanka’s political landscape.
Domestically, it signals to other senior figures from both the ruling and opposition camps that they are not immune to accountability. It may embolden corruption investigations against others, but it could also prompt political elites to close ranks, fearing that the precedent could turn against them in the future.
Constitutional Questions and Legal Complexities
The arrest raises profound constitutional questions. Sri Lanka’s 1978 Constitution granted extensive powers to the executive presidency, and while reforms in recent years clipped some of these powers, the office still carries significant privileges. One central question is whether former presidents enjoy immunity for actions taken while in office, and if so, to what extent.
The constitution states that “no proceedings shall be instituted against the President in any court in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in his official or private capacity” while in office. However, this immunity ends after leaving office. Wickremesinghe’s arrest therefore rests on whether the alleged offenses are tied to his official duties or extend into personal misconduct and abuse of office.
Moreover, the independence of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies will now be tested. If due process is not followed, the arrest could be struck down as unconstitutional, sparking further political crisis. On the other hand, if the legal process holds, it could mark a strengthening of Sri Lanka’s fragile rule of law.
Impact on Political Parties and Opposition Dynamics
For Wickremesinghe’s center-right United National Party (UNP), which has already been reduced to political irrelevance, his arrest is a near-final blow. The UNP lost its base to Sajith Premadasa’s Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the main opposition, and without Wickremesinghe’s presence, the party faces extinction.
For the SJB and other opposition parties, his arrest creates opportunities and challenges. On one hand, they can position themselves as the legitimate opposition voice, distancing themselves from Wickremesinghe’s controversial legacy. On the other hand, they risk being associated with what could be seen as selective justice, particularly if the arrest is framed by Wickremesinghe’s supporters as political persecution.
Meanwhile, the ruling administration will face scrutiny on whether it is pursuing justice or consolidating power by targeting a weakened, but symbolic, rival. The narrative around the arrest will play a key role in shaping voter perceptions.
International Dimensions
Wickremesinghe was well-connected globally, particularly with Western governments, India, and international financial institutions. His arrest will therefore draw international reactions.
For the IMF and other lenders, the key concern will be whether his arrest destabilizes economic policy continuity. Wickremesinghe was instrumental in negotiating the IMF bailout, and while the current government remains committed to reforms, the optics of his arrest could create uncertainty.
For Western governments, the issue will be human rights and due process. If the arrest is seen as politically motivated, Sri Lanka risks straining relations with partners who emphasize democratic norms. Conversely, if it is framed as a genuine accountability measure, it could improve Sri Lanka’s standing as a country willing to tackle corruption at the highest levels.
Public Reactions and Popular Sentiment
Among the Sri Lankan public, Wickremesinghe has long been a polarizing figure. Some admire him for his reformist vision, economic pragmatism, and diplomatic skill. Others despise him for perceived elitism, weak leadership, and policies that burdened ordinary citizens.
His arrest is likely to evoke mixed reactions. For many who suffered through economic collapse and austerity measures, it may bring a sense of justice. For his loyal supporters and sections of the Colombo elite, it will be seen as unjust humiliation of a statesman who stabilized the country during crisis.
This divide in public opinion mirrors the broader divisions in Sri Lankan society, where trust in political institutions has eroded and accountability has often been selective.
Long-Term Implications for Sri Lanka’s Democracy
The arrest of Wickremesinghe poses a larger question: will Sri Lanka move toward a culture of accountability, or will this become another episode of politicized justice?
If handled transparently, the arrest could strengthen Sri Lanka’s democracy by proving that no leader is above the law. This would mark a departure from a history of impunity, where political leaders have escaped accountability for corruption, human rights abuses, and mismanagement.
However, if the process is seen as revenge politics, it risks undermining democratic institutions further. Instead of strengthening the rule of law, it could deepen mistrust and encourage authoritarian tendencies under the guise of accountability. (Colombo/August 25/2025)
Continue Reading
