The Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court yesterday (29) directed the Criminal Investigation Department to report progress on July 8 in the investigation into allegations that more than Rs. 16 million in public funds were misused during a 2023 visit to the United Kingdom by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe.
The complaint, which also names former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake as a suspect, was taken up before Magistrate Isuru Neththikumara.
Wickremesinghe did not appear in court, with his counsel submitting medical reports stating that he was unwell. Ekanayake appeared before court.
Presenting submissions on behalf of the CID, Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris informed court that investigations were nearing completion. He said the CID had already sought clarification from the University of Wolverhampton regarding an invitation purportedly extended to Wickremesinghe to attend his wife’s graduation ceremony, and that responses had been received.
Peiris further noted that authorities were examining whether formal verification was required through the Foreign Ministry under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act No. 25 of 2025. A final decision in that regard would be taken following the return of CID Director Shani Abeysekara, who is currently overseas.
He told court that a statement had been recorded from Wickremesinghe’s wife, Maithree Wickremesinghe, on April 24. According to her statement, she had received the invitation for the graduation ceremony on June 15, 2023, and the letter submitted to court was being presented for the first time through her statement.
The prosecution pointed out inconsistencies with earlier claims by the defence that the invitation had been received on September 1, 2023, alleging that the document had not been previously disclosed to court.
Peiris further challenged the defence position that the UK visit was merely a “transit,” arguing that Wickremesinghe had travelled nearly 200 km from London, stayed in the country, and incurred accommodation expenses. “If it was a transit, he should have taken the next flight to Sri Lanka,” he submitted, questioning the validity of that claim.
He also told court that the prosecution was examining whether Maithree Wickremesinghe should be named as a suspect, based on her statement and surrounding facts.
Appearing for Wickremesinghe, President’s Counsel Tilak Marapana submitted that the invitation from the University of Wolverhampton was legitimate and official, as confirmed by the university’s response. He argued that the former President had not been aware of the expenditure incurred during the visit.
Marapana contended that the key issue was not the travel itself, but how public funds had been utilised by the Sri Lankan High Commission in the UK. He alleged that approximately Rs. 3.5 million had been spent on hiring five vehicles—none of which were used by Wickremesinghe—and around Rs. 2 million had been spent on a single dinner.
“Is it possible to spend Rs. 2 million on a meal?” he questioned, adding that the former President had stayed in a modest hotel with relatively low costs.
He further maintained that the visit was not solely for a private purpose, but was linked to an official engagement marking the 25th anniversary of the university’s Vice Chancellor, and that the claim the visit was undertaken solely to attend a graduation ceremony was incorrect.
Marapana also argued that “transit” should not be narrowly interpreted as immediately boarding the next flight, stating that Wickremesinghe had required rest due to health reasons and had been provided security by the UK authorities.
He emphasised that any alleged financial irregularities lay with officials responsible for incurring and approving expenditure, not with Wickremesinghe himself, and called for a separate investigation into the actions of the High Commission.
Responding to submissions, Magistrate Neththikumara observed that public funds cannot be spent without accountability and instructed that the manner in which such expenses had been incurred must be examined.
Counsel for Ekanayake, President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa, told court that the relevant expenditure had already been audited by the Auditor General and that his client did not have authority over such financial decisions.
Peiris, in further submissions, questioned how the graduation ceremony had been scheduled to coincide with Wickremesinghe’s overseas travel, suggesting the possibility of prior coordination between the suspects and the university.
He also challenged the “transit” explanation, noting that Wickremesinghe had travelled significant distances and remained in the UK for approximately 36 hours.
The Magistrate also queried the defence on how the graduation ceremony had been aligned with the travel schedule. In response, Marapana said that, unlike in Sri Lanka, graduation ceremonies in the UK are often held over several days, allowing for such scheduling.
Delivering observations, the Magistrate stated that, based on the material presented, there appeared to be sufficient evidence against Wickremesinghe to proceed with the case. However, he noted that Maithree Wickremesinghe’s statement did not presently disclose a clear criminal intent, and that further investigation would be required before determining whether she should be named as a suspect.
He stressed that investigations must not be delayed unnecessarily, noting that prolonged delays undermine the integrity of criminal proceedings.
The Magistrate directed the CID to expedite investigations and report progress on July 8. Additional Solicitor General Peiris informed court that indictments would be filed before the next hearing.
