Ranil’s Case sets Dangerous Precedent for Public Sector : Dayasiri

By Yohan Perera 

The institution of legal action against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in terms of the provisions of the Public Property Act set a precedent that paves the way for prosecuting thousands of public servants for the perceived misuse of public property, warned Opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekera yesterday.   

Speaking to the media, MP Jayasekera expressed concern that the case could open the floodgates for widespread legal action against public sector employees, many of whom, he claims, routinely use government property—particularly official vehicles—for personal use.   

“We see thousands of vehicles bearing ministry and department seals parked outside elite schools in Colombo every afternoon. Many public servants use their official vehicles to pick up their children. What would happen if cases were filed against all of them? Public servants would become so cautious that they might hesitate to perform even their official duties,” the MP said.   

Jayasekera also questioned what he sees as inconsistencies in the interpretation of public versus private conduct by political leaders, highlighting activities of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake during his recent overseas trips.   

“The President visited party members during his trip to Germany. He also worshipped at the Temple in Bodh Gaya, India, and at a temple in Vietnam. Are these considered official or personal visits?” he asked, emphasising the difficulty in clearly distinguishing between the personal and official life of an Executive President.   

He further criticised the application of the Public Property Act in this context, recalling its origins under the J.R. Jayewardene administration.   

“This Act was introduced to address thefts of jewelry, money, and even national identity cards during the insurrections, at a time when there were no existing laws to deal with such issues. It was designed to target JVP members during the uprisings. Is this an act of political revenge for how they were once treated under this very law?” he asked. Responding to recent comments by NPP-affiliated lawyers who claimed that protesting the remanding of Wickremesinghe could constitute contempt of court, Jayasekera drew attention to historical protests led by the JVP.   

“We recall how the JVP protested the arrest of Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka in 2010. Do they now consider those protests to have been in contempt of court as well?” he asked.