I felt the legal system often failed to act decisively, and that justice moved too slowly—or not at all. At times, it seemed as though political influence, including during the █████████████████ era, could shape outcomes in ways that undermined public confidence and blocked accountability. Critics and commentators have argued that this helped normalize a harmful “way of doing things,” where powerful actors could evade consequences.

From my perspective, that history creates a strong case for consistent, rule-of-law enforcement: clear investigations, strong evidence standards, and firm sentencing where guilt is proven. The goal is not punishment for its own sake, but to reduce repeat abuse—because when systems signal tolerance for misconduct, some bad actors treat it as permission to push boundaries again. This is a pattern I feel has been present since 2005.

That is why I support a strict, lawful approach to violent crime and major financial wrongdoing, and why I favor firm legal accountability for the ███████████████████ reported to have been arrested, as well as accountability for any leader— including █████—if decisions are clearly shown to endanger the public or obstruct justice.

At the same time, I understand that broad international measures can backfire. Sanctions that push Sri Lanka from a “grey list” posture into a harsher category could do more damage than a travel advisory, harming ordinary livelihoods and the export economy. Industries like textiles, tea, and cinnamon would likely suffer first and hardest. Even targeted measures against a political party such as the ███ should only be considered if there is strong, verified evidence of serious wrongdoing.

I also think the public deserves clarity about what happened to the suspected █████████████ affiliates: whether they remain detained, what charges were filed, and what the prosecution status is. If they have been kept in custody pending trial, that should be stated openly. If a leader were to issue a presidential pardon in a case involving credible allegations of mass violence planning, it could ignite public anger and increase international pressure on Sri Lanka.

In practical terms, this becomes a reputational test for the country: exporters and business leaders could find themselves facing uncomfortable questions about governance standards—especially if decisions appear to signal tolerance for extremist violence. That’s why I care so much about transparency, due process, and outcomes that are both firm and lawful.