Around the world, the foreign travel of Heads of State is rarely controversial. Presidents and Prime Ministers routinely attend summits, universities, cultural events and international forums — often on invitations that are neither strictly governmental nor fully private. These trips are accepted as part of the modern responsibilities of national leadership.
Yet in Sri Lanka, a recent attempt to frame a former President’s overseas visit as a criminal matter raises troubling questions — not just about one individual, but about how democratic systems distinguish between political accountability and criminal liability.
The visit in question involved a brief transit through London and attendance at an invited event in Wolverhampton. Critics have focused on travel and accommodation costs, but this scrutiny ignores a central fact: such expenses have historically been handled as administrative matters, governed by convention, audit and parliamentary oversight — not criminal prosecution.
Also, transit stop in London, including hotel and accommodation and use of a VIP lounge, is described as standard practice for Presidents in transit, especially after long and demanding travel.
The office of the President is not a conventional nine-to-five role. It is a position defined by constant responsibility, demanding schedules and decisions taken under exceptional pressure, often across time zones and jurisdictions.
Diplomatic & Symbolic Roles
Sri Lanka is hardly unique in this respect. Former Presidents and Prime Ministers from the country have addressed the Oxford Union, attended international summits, visited world expos, and taken part in events hosted by private or non-governmental organisations, all with state-funded logistical support. The same applies globally. World leaders attend climate conferences, sporting events, academic institutions and multilateral gatherings as part of their diplomatic and symbolic roles. These activities often fall outside rigid rulebooks but remain firmly within accepted international practice.
In addition, religious visits by Sri Lankan leaders to places such as Thirupathi, Buddhagaya and Lumbini have also traditionally been funded by the State.
Financial Accountability
Importantly, Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework reflects this reality. Presidential travel decisions are subject to audit by the Auditor General and oversight by Parliament, which retains full control over public finance. If expenditure is excessive or improperly justified, the remedy is financial accountability — surcharge, review or censure — not criminal courts.
Institutional Damage
To criminalise such decisions after the fact is to risk paralysing future leaders. If every overseas engagement, transit stop or protocol arrangement can later be interpreted as a potential offence, Presidents may be forced to govern defensively, avoiding international engagement altogether. The damage would not be personal; it would be institutional.
Equally significant is the absence of secrecy or deception in this case. The visit was publicly known, attended by senior diplomats, involved a formal speech, and was later recorded in official government reporting. These are not the hallmarks of covert wrongdoing.
There remain legitimate questions about procurement processes, service providers and invoicing — but those questions concern administrative systems, not presidential intent. Conflating the two risks transforming governance disputes into criminal battles, a move that undermines constitutional balance and international credibility.
Democracies depend on clear boundaries: policy decisions are judged politically and administratively; crimes are judged in court. Blurring that line may satisfy short-term political impulses, but in the long run it weakens the very institutions meant to protect the rule of law.
~ The News Girl ~
