For years, Rodrigo Duterte ruled the Philippines with impunity. His so-called "war on drugs" was a blood-soaked campaign of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and brutal state repression. He mocked international justice and withdrew the Philippines from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in an attempt to shield himself from prosecution.
And yet, today, Duterte is under serious legal scrutiny, facing the very court he thought he could escape. He is the first Philippine president to face an international tribunal and the first leader from Asia to face trial before the ICC.
It is a stark warning for Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who presided over Sri Lanka’s own era of mass atrocities. For decades, the Rajapaksas have also relied on political cover and a broken domestic legal system to shield themselves from accountability. But as Duterte has learned, the law moves slowly - until it doesn’t.
Could the Rajapaksas be next?
How Duterte ended up at The Hague
Duterte’s journey to the ICC was not immediate. For years, Filipino leaders resisted international justice, much like Sri Lanka’s successive governments. In 2018, Duterte even withdrew the Philippines from the ICC, a month after it opened a preliminary investigation, claiming it had no jurisdiction over him. This is the same excuse Sri Lankan officials routinely give to avoid prosecution for war crimes.
But in the end, it wasn’t the ICC alone that brought Duterte down. It was domestic political change.
After Duterte left office in 2022, Marcos Jr and Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, ran as an alliance and secured a landslide victory, with Marcos winning the presidency and Sara Duterte becoming vice president. But alliances in politics are rarely permanent, especially when power and self-preservation are at stake. Billed as one of convenience, it started to show cracks even before they assumed power and tensions would only grow in the years to come.
For year, Duterte’s successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., refused to cooperate with the ICC, repeatedly stating that the Philippines would not recognise its jurisdiction. In January 2023, he declared "I consider it as a threat to our sovereignty".
"Therefore, the Philippine government will not lift a finger to help any investigation that the ICC conducts," he said.
However, their alliance began to crumble in late 2023, as Marcos Jr’s allies launched corruption investigations into Sara Duterte. By late 2024, Sara Duterte was impeached by Marcos Jr’s allies in Congress.
And this month Marcos Jr, reversed course. The new administration signalled its willingness to cooperate with the ICC, and crucially, Duterte lost his political immunity.
For Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa clan, this is a stark warning.
The Rajapaksas’ genocide
If Duterte’s drug war left thousands dead, the Rajapaksas’ war left tens of thousands murdered in 2009 alone. As Sri Lanka’s President and Defence Secretary respectively, Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa oversaw the Mullivaikkal genocide, where hospitals were bombed, civilians were starved, surrendees were executed, and entire families were wiped out.
After the war, the Rajapaksas continued their reign of terror. Tamil journalists were assassinated, activists disappeared, and torture camps continued.
Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system would never hold them accountable. For years, they have escaped justice. But Duterte’s fate shows that immunity is not permanent.
Sri Lanka and the ICC: A legal barrier?
Unlike the Philippines, Sri Lanka never signed up to the ICC, meaning it is not automatically under the court’s jurisdiction. Filipino officials at least had to justify their withdrawal, but Sri Lankan leaders have always relied on this legal loophole to claim immunity.
Does this present an obstacle? Yes. But is it insurmountable? Absolutely not.
The ICC has found ways around such barriers before. In 2018, the court began investigations into Myanmar’s crimes against the Rohingya, despite Myanmar also not being a signatory. It argued that since Rohingya victims fled into Bangladesh, a state party to the ICC, the court could exercise jurisdiction. In November 2024, it issued its first arrest warrant in the case.
A similar argument could be made for Sri Lanka’s Tamil victims, thousands of whom now live in countries like Canada, the UK, Australia, and Switzerland— all ICC members. If international prosecutors wanted, they could bring cases against the Rajapaksas and their generals for war crimes, using universal jurisdiction or other international mechanisms.
In addition, a referral from the United Nations Security Council, the global system’s highest body, could see Sri Lanka referred to the ICC, regardless of whether Colombo has signed up to the court. This has been done in the situations in Darfur (Sudan) and Libya.
The United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLap) has already been gathering evidence, and Western nations have begun imposing sanctions on Sri Lankan war criminals. It’s only a matter of time before the pressure grows.
Could domestic politics turn against the Rajapaksas?
The biggest factor that led to Duterte’s legal troubles was political change within the Philippines. Could Sri Lanka see the same?
There are signs that growing political tensions in Colombo could spell trouble for the Rajapaksas. Current Sri Lankan president Anura Kumara Dissanayake has already begun cracking down on them, exposing their financial crimes and reopening investigations into corruption scandals they thought were long buried.
Just last week, Dissanayake’s administration tabled the Batalanda Commission Report, implicating Ranil Wickremesinghe in torture and extrajudicial killings. There is undoubtable political theatre at play, but it is also a warning. If the government is willing to go after Wickremesinghe for human rights violations, could the Rajapaksas be next?
For now, Dissanayake has avoided touching war crimes against Tamils, but that could change if international pressure mounts or if his administration decides the Rajapaksas are too much of a liability. If a future government cooperates with international prosecutors, revokes Mahinda and Gotabaya’s legal protections, or sees them as expendable, the path to justice could rapidly open up.
If the political tide shifts, Sri Lankan leaders could one day hand the Rajapaksas over to international justice, just as the Serbian government ultimately handed Slobodan Milošević over to The Hague.
International pressure will be key to ensuring this happens.
A warning to other Sri Lankan war criminals
Duterte’s case isn’t just a warning for the Rajapaksas—it’s a warning for Sri Lanka’s entire military establishment. Shavendra Silva, Kamal Gunaratne, Jagath Jayasuriya, and the other architects of the 2009 massacres should pay close attention.
For years, they have hidden behind legal loopholes and state protection. But so did Duterte. So did Charles Taylor. So did Ratko Mladić. Look at them now.
The Rajapaksas may not be in The Hague yet, but Duterte’s case proves that justice has a long memory. Sri Lanka’s refusal to sign the ICC will not protect them indefinitely. Universal jurisdiction cases, UN-backed accountability projects, and shifting political dynamics all pose real threats. If Duterte can fall, so can they.
The Rajapaksas should take note. Their time is running out.
_____
Theepan is a staff writer at the Tamil Guardian.