The case filed against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe under the Public Property Act is scheduled to be taken up again today (29) at the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court.
The case was filed on allegations that the former President misused government funds to travel to the United Kingdom in 2023 to attend a ceremony honouring his wife, Professor Maithree Wickremesinghe, at a British university, while serving as Head of State.
The former President was arrested on August 22, 2025, after appearing before the Criminal Investigation Department to provide a statement, and was subsequently remanded until August 26, 2025, after being produced in court.
Following consideration of medical reports, Colombo Fort Magistrate Nilupuli Lankapura later ordered his release on three surety bails of Rs. 5 million each. The case was then fixed for October 29, 2025.
When the case was taken up on that date, the Magistrate directed that investigations be completed by January 28, 2026.
When the case was called, the Attorney General informed the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court that investigations into former President Ranil Wickremesinghe will be completed within a month, and that formal charges are expected to be filed in March.
The submission was made by Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, when the case was taken up before the Colombo Fort Magistrate.
The complainant party also requested that the former President’s bail be revoked. However, Magistrate Neththikumara stated that he did not intend to review the bail order previously issued by the former magistrate.
According to the case, the Criminal Investigation Department arrested the former President on August 22, 2025 over allegations that he misused Rs. 16.6 million in public funds during a one-and-a-half-day visit to the United Kingdom, which was presented as an official trip.
However, the lawyers representing former President Wickremesinghe had submitted that the visit was made following an invitation from a British university, and that there is no clear separation between official and private visits made by a sitting President. Therefore, they argued, no misappropriation of state funds had occurred.
