Questions over overseas pursuit prompt Police to explain legal limits confronting Sri Lankan investigators abroad – but the central question remains: where is Kanjipani Imran?
COLOMBO, Thursday – Sri Lanka Police have rejected suggestions that a recent operation in Malaysia connected to the pursuit of alleged organised-crime figure Kanjipani Imran amounted to a failure, arguing that investigations conducted on foreign soil are necessarily governed by the laws and procedures of the country concerned.
The clarification comes amid questions surrounding efforts to locate and secure the return of wanted Sri Lankan suspects believed to be operating or sheltering overseas.
Police have stressed that Sri Lankan investigators travelling abroad do not possess independent powers to arrest suspects in another sovereign jurisdiction. Any detention, questioning, arrest or subsequent transfer must take place through the appropriate local authorities and in accordance with that country’s law.
ASP Rohan Olugala, addressing the controversy, defended the Malaysian operation and rejected the characterisation that it had failed.
The explanation highlights an increasingly important difficulty confronting Sri Lankan law enforcement as organised criminal networks extend beyond the country’s borders.
Police disclosed separately Thursday that Interpol Red Notices have been obtained against 93 Sri Lankan suspects believed to be overseas, while 38 wanted persons have been returned to the country through international cooperation between 2024 and 2026.
The figures demonstrate that the authorities are increasingly attempting to take the pursuit of alleged organised crime beyond Sri Lanka’s geographical boundaries.
Recent operations involving Malaysia have already resulted in wanted Sri Lankan suspects being brought home, reinforcing the importance of cooperation between Police, Interpol and foreign law-enforcement agencies.
But the controversy surrounding Kanjipani Imran illustrates the difference between identifying or locating a wanted person abroad and actually securing that person’s lawful return to Sri Lanka.
Extradition arrangements, immigration law, evidentiary requirements and the domestic law of the country in which a suspect is located can all determine what happens next.
Police are therefore entitled to point out that an overseas operation cannot be judged by precisely the same standards as an arrest operation conducted in Colombo.
Yet public accountability requires another part of the equation too.
When significant resources are deployed internationally to pursue a high-profile suspect, the public is entitled to know what the operation was intended to achieve, what it actually achieved and what happens next – without compromising continuing investigations.
The broader campaign against organised crime will ultimately be judged by outcomes rather than operations.
Be that as it may, Police may well be correct that Malaysia was not a failure. But until Kanjipani Imran is in lawful custody, the most obvious question remains unanswered: where is he?
