The Colombo High Court yesterday (14) ruled that there was no legal impediment to proceeding with the conspiracy charge against Yoshitha Rajapaksa in the case concerning the alleged unlawful acquisition of assets and properties worth nearly Rs. 73 million.

Accordingly, Colombo High Court Judge Udesh Ranatunga rejected a preliminary objection raised by the defence, describing it as baseless, and ordered that the indictments against the accused be read in open court.

Rajapaksa subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The defence had argued that under Section 113(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, a conspiracy charge could only be maintained if there were two or more accused persons before court.

In this case, conspiracy charges had initially been filed against two accused, including Daisy Forrest. However, Forrest had later been discharged under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

Based on that, the defence argued that there was no legal basis to continue the conspiracy charge against the sole remaining accused.

Delivering the ruling, Judge Ranatunga stated that the argument could not be accepted when considering established judicial precedents.

The Judge observed that if one accused person in a conspiracy case dies or is otherwise unable to stand trial, there is no legal barrier preventing proceedings from continuing against the remaining accused for allegedly conspiring with that individual.

He further noted that it was not essential for two accused persons to physically appear before court at all times in order to maintain a conspiracy charge.

The Court also clarified that Forrest had not been acquitted due to lack of evidence, but had been discharged based on medical reports stating that she was not mentally fit to stand trial.

The Judge stressed that the discharge granted under Section 194 merely suspended proceedings against Forrest and did not amount to an acquittal.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no legal obstacle to continuing the conspiracy charge against Rajapaksa.

During the opening address, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara outlined what he described as a significant disparity between the financial capacity of Rajapaksa and Forrest and the value of the properties allegedly acquired.

The prosecution stated that Rajapaksa, born in 1983, was only 25 years old at the time the five land plots in question were acquired.

Bandara told court that Rajapaksa had joined the Sri Lanka Navy as a cadet officer and had been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. During his service, more than Rs. 7.5 million received as salary had reportedly remained deposited in his National Savings Bank account without being withdrawn.

The prosecution further stated that it intended to present evidence regarding income allegedly earned by Rajapaksa through rugby and stock market transactions.

However, the Deputy Solicitor General argued that a public servant did not possess sufficient financial capacity to acquire properties worth more than Rs. 73 million.

The prosecution also referred to Forrest’s financial background, stating that she had worked in a hospital kitchen before serving as a hostel matron at St. Thomas’ College from 1976 to 1985.

According to the prosecution, her monthly salary during that period ranged from Rs. 2,300 to Rs. 7,300, while her Employees’ Provident Fund savings amounted to only Rs. 3,300. The prosecution argued that a person with such financial means could not have legitimately purchased properties valued at over Rs. 73 million.

The indictment alleges that between October 2012 and August 2013, assets worth nearly Rs. 73.5 million were unlawfully acquired in Rajagiriya and Bambalapitiya.

The prosecution stated that four of the properties in question, including a 31.05-perch land in Sirimal Uyana, Ratmalana valued at Rs. 35.99 million, and several lands in Dehiwala valued at Rs. 4.5 million, Rs. 22.5 million, and Rs. 3.5 million respectively, were located adjacent to the residence of Shiranthi Rajapaksa.

Meanwhile, Maduka Weerasinghe, who testified during the trial as the property manager of Daisy Forrest, told court that although she served as Forrest’s property manager, she was unaware of the properties owned by Forrest.

Responding to questions regarding a “bag of gems” raised by the prosecution, she stated that she had no knowledge of such an item.

The case was postponed for further evidence until 22 May.