The Colombo Magistrate’s Court has ordered that its ruling on the bail application filed by Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa, who is in remand custody over an alleged Rs. 100 million bribery incident, will be delivered on the 29th.
Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama ordered that the suspect, Namal Rajapaksa, remain in remand custody until then. The Magistrate directed the defence to submit written submissions relating to the bail application on the 22nd, and instructed the Bribery Commission to file its written submissions on the 25th.
Submissions in court
When the case was called today, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara, appearing for the Bribery Commission, informed the court that the suspect had, two days earlier, been produced before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court in a separate case connected to the same bribery allegation and placed in remand custody, in a matter filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He said that because both bribery charges and money-laundering charges had emerged under this case, the investigation was being conducted jointly by the Bribery Commission and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), adding that under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act, the Commission was also entitled to seek the assistance of the Attorney General for such investigations.
Briefing the court further on the progress of investigations, the Deputy Solicitor General said that the Bribery Commission had recorded a statement from former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa in connection with the probe, relating to a board meeting of SriLankan Airlines held at the official Speaker’s residence, and regarding the presence abroad of a suspect named Shamindra Rajapaksa. He said statements had also been recorded from two other individuals, Susantha Chaminda Ratnayake and Dimuthu Sanjaya, noting that the investigation dated back to 2012.
He told court that the first suspect in the case, Kapila Chandrasena, had since died; the second suspect, Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, had fled to Australia; and the third suspect, Shamindra Rajapaksa, had fled to the United States. He said the Director General of the Bribery Commission had issued a certificate under Section 149 of the Anti-Corruption Act in respect of this suspect, and that once such a certificate was issued, the court could only grant bail where exceptional circumstances were established — noting that on the previous occasion, the court had ruled that the grounds submitted by the suspect’s lawyers did not amount to exceptional circumstances and had accordingly refused bail.
The Deputy Solicitor General accordingly requested that the suspect be further remanded.
Court queries on absconding suspects
Addressing the Deputy Solicitor General, the Magistrate inquired what steps had been taken regarding the two suspects in the case for whom the court had issued warrants.
In response, the Deputy Solicitor General said that steps had been taken to obtain an Interpol Red Notice in respect of Shamindra Rajapaksa, who had fled to the United States, and that action was under way to obtain a Red Notice for the second suspect, Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, who had fled to Australia. He said that indictments against the suspects were required in order to expedite these processes, and that the CID had submitted its investigation files relating to the case to the Attorney General’s Department, which was currently studying them. He said the intention was to conclude investigations expeditiously and file indictments against all suspects without delay.
Defence submissions
President’s Counsel Shamindra Fernando, appearing for suspect Namal Rajapaksa, submitted to court that while the court had previously refused bail on the basis that no exceptional circumstances existed, fresh exceptional circumstances had since emerged.
He submitted that an international-level investigation had been conducted into the Airbus transaction, and that his client’s name did not appear anywhere in the resulting report. He said the suspect was in remand on the basis of a statement made by one Nimal Perera, and that Nimal Perera, who is in Australia, had on one occasion stated that the funds in question had not been credited to his account. He further submitted that the CID had, on one occasion, stated in “B” reports that Nimal Perera had made false statements, and argued that if the bribery funds connected to this case had indeed gone into Nimal Perera’s account, he ought to be produced as an accomplice.
The President’s Counsel further submitted that his client, while in remand, had received an invitation from the Indian government to visit India, which he would now be unable to honour, and asked that this too be treated as an exceptional circumstance. He also cited an upcoming invitation from the chief incumbent of a temple in Hingurakgoda — extended for a kotha (pinnacle) consecration ceremony on 26 September at 7.42 p.m., timed around the Hingurakgoda Annual Esala Perahera, said to be second in scale only to the Kandy Esala Perahera — noting that his client’s continued remand would prevent him from attending, which he described as a discourtesy to the inviting monk. He requested that these matters be considered as exceptional circumstances warranting bail.
Prosecution’s response
Responding to the bail application, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara noted that the court had, on a previous occasion, issued an order concerning the credibility of witness Nimal Perera, and submitted that a determination on a witness’s credibility could only be made at trial, not at this stage — and therefore could not be treated as an exceptional circumstance. He submitted that neither the Indian visit nor the temple ceremony could be regarded as exceptional circumstances either.
He referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling by Justice Janak De Silva, which, drawing on the Anguttara Nikaya and the Sutta Pitaka, had emphasised — in line with Buddhist philosophy — the importance of remaining free of corruption and acting in accordance with the Dhamma. The Deputy Solicitor General said that while such conduct was commendable, the matters raised could still not be treated as exceptional circumstances.
He further disclosed that an investigation was under way into a separate matter referred to as the “Weligama Bay” case, in which information had emerged regarding suspicious funds exceeding Rs. 175 million, which had also been credited to Nimal Perera’s account.
The Deputy Solicitor General accordingly maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established in respect of suspect Namal Rajapaksa, who remains in remand.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Magistrate issued the above orders.
