Ranil Wickremesinghe blames ‘pro-LTTE’ panel as he flounders over Al Jazeera interview
Former Sri Lankan president Ranil Wickremesinghe has attempted to shift blame onto “pro-LTTE” figures after his disastrous interview on Al Jazeera English’s Head to Head, in which he floundered over questions on war crimes, enforced disappearances, and his defence of war criminals such as Shavendra Silva.
Wickremesinghe, who visibly struggled under scrutiny from Head to Head host Mehdi Hasan, has now claimed that the interview was unfairly edited and accused two members of the panel of having links to the LTTE, despite the fact that his main clashes were with Hasan himself.
“This interview is unlike ours,” Wickremesinghe remarked, contrasting the programme with Sri Lankan media, which he implied was more accommodating. “Our ones are live, and everything comes—the good, the bad, and the ugly.” He complained that the two-hour recording had been edited down to an hour, stating, “Some of the juicier ones have not come today, and I don’t think it will come again.”
Blaming ‘pro-LTTE’ to avoid accountability
Attempting to discredit the panel, Wickremesinghe zeroed in on academic Madura Rasaratnam, claiming that her husband was an “advisor to Anton Balasingham”. “That should have been disclosed,” he complained. “So, in fact, we had two people who were very much with the LTTE.”
The other panellist he took issue with was Counting the Dead author and former BBC Sri Lanka correspondent Frances Harrison, whom he accused of lying about civilian death tolls.
His remarks have been widely seen as an attempt to deflect from the embarrassment he faced during the interview, where he repeatedly refused to answer direct questions about Sri Lanka’s war crimes, instead resorting to dismissive responses such as “No contest.”
Even when pushed on key issues such as the bombing of hospitals, the blockade of humanitarian aid, and the enforced disappearance of thousands of Tamils, Wickremesinghe evaded responsibility. At one point, when asked how many of the forcibly disappeared had been located, he replied simply, “No contest again,” as the audience shook their heads in disbelief.
Defending Sinhala Buddhist supremacy
Wickremesinghe also turned to another familiar defence—asserting Sri Lanka’s Sinhala Buddhist dominance.
“In our country, the majority of the people are Buddhist, and for us, the head of the total clergy is the Mahanayake of Malwatte,” he said. “But he doesn’t get involved in politics. As far as we are concerned, the Cardinal is just another head of our religion, that’s all that I regard it as.”
The Cardinal, who leads Sri Lanka’s Catholic Church, has been vocal about the state’s failure to deliver justice for the victims of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings.
Wickremesinghe had previously accused the Catholic Church of engaging in “politics” when questioned about its claims that his government shielded those responsible for the attacks. “The head of the Catholic Church [in Sri Lanka] is talking nonsense?” Hasan asked. “Yes,” Wickremesinghe replied.
Ali Sabry comes to his defence
Wickremesinghe’s attempts to discredit the interview were swiftly echoed by his longtime ally, former foreign minister Ali Sabry, who launched an attack on Al Jazeera and Hasan.
“This wasn’t about getting answers. It wasn’t about journalism. It was about pushing an agenda, an outright interrogation where the objective was to attack, not engage,” Sabry claimed, calling the interview a “premeditated attack disguised as journalism”.
He accused Hasan of “shouting over responses” and “twisting words,” asking whether he applied the same level of scrutiny to “leaders from powerful nations.”
“No one else had the courage to take responsibility when it mattered most,” Sabry added in defence of Wickremesinghe. “At the very least, we must show some gratitude.”
Deflection and denial
Wickremesinghe’s latest comments follow a pattern of deflection from Sri Lankan political leaders when confronted with war crimes allegations. Rather than addressing the core questions of accountability, he has sought to discredit critics as “pro-LTTE”.
His insistence that the interview was unfairly edited also contradicts his own recorded behaviour. Throughout the interview, he was repeatedly evasive, dismissive, and, at times, openly hostile—at one point claiming his refusal to answer questions was inspired by Gandhi.
“It’s a little bit childish for a former president of the country to not be able to answer the question,” Hasan remarked during the programme.
“The full unedited version of the interview would be even worse for Ranil,” a participant who was present in the audience, told the Tamil Guardian.
“At one stage after the break, he just remained silent, refusing to answer questions. If anything Hasan and Al Jazeera did him a favour. The line of questioning could have been much, much tougher. Ranil had a lucky escape.”