By Bhagya Silva

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption yesterday informed court that it has been revealed that former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was in Dubai at the time the alleged bribe was received.

The bribery case filed against Rakitha Rajapakshe, son of former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Samagi Jana Balawegaya Horana former Organizer Charith Abeysinghe and former Director of the Civil Aviation Authority, Varushahennadige Aruna Sri Chathuranga, was taken up before Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama.It was revealed that the suspects were previously remanded till yesterday over allegations that they had sought and obtained an advance bribe of Rs. 12 million from the wife of organised criminal Nandun Chinthaka Wickramaratne alias ‘Harak Kata’, to facilitate the removal of his detention orders, prevent his alleged killing, and transfer him from the Boosa High-Security Prison to another prison.

When the case was called, CIABOC Assistant Director Anusha Sammandapperuma informed court that further investigations had revealed that the father of the second suspect had also travelled to Dubai during the same period in which the alleged transactions were said to have taken place.Assistant Director Anusha Sammandapperuma

Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption

“Your Honour, I submit a further progress report on the investigation. Investigations have now revealed that the father of the second suspect also travelled to Dubai. Accordingly, it has been established that the former Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, the father of the second suspect, departed for Dubai on March 21, 2023, from Bandaranaike International Airport. The three suspects travelled to Dubai for the transaction on March 29, 2023. The father of the second suspect returned to Sri Lanka on March 28, 2023, while the suspects returned after completing the transaction on March 29, 2023. Accordingly, it is clear that during the period the suspects were in Dubai to carry out the transaction, the father of the second suspect was also in Dubai. Although it is not confirmed that he travelled with them or returned with them, it appears that all these events occurred within the same time frame. Therefore, investigations are being conducted to determine the persons he met and activities he engaged in while in Dubai, and whether he was in any way involved in the bribery transaction.”

The Assistant Director further stated that the first suspect, Charitha Abeysinghe, had facilitated the transfer of Rs. 20 million obtained from the wife of Harak Kata through the late chairman of the Midigama Pradeshiya Sabha, Lasantha Wickramasinghe, at Wijayaba Mawatha, Nawala Road, Nugegoda.It was also revealed through investigations that the residence of the second suspect’s father, is also located on the same road.

Assistant Director Anusha Sammandapperuma further informed court that after the transaction, due to the failure to remove Harak Kata’s detention orders or transfer him to another prison, his wife had continuously urged her associate, known as ‘Herbie’ alias Nirmala Bandara, to request further payments. She stated that this information was subsequently conveyed to the first suspect, who then arranged the return of Rs. 20 million received as a bribe to the complainant.

It was further stated that the funds had been handed over to Lasantha Manjula Silva, an associate of Herbie, who in turn had transferred them to the late Lasantha Wickramasinghe at Wijayaba Mawatha, Nawala Road, Nugegoda. The Assistant Director noted that it was significant that the residence of the second suspect’s father was also located on the same road, and that investigations are ongoing into the financial transactions.She further informed court that investigations are being conducted into WhatsApp messages and telephone records exchanged among the suspects, as well as their assets and liabilities.

Appearing for the first suspect, Counsel Asoka Weerasuriya submitted that there were no sufficient grounds to refuse bail and requested that his client be released on bail.

Counsel Asoka Weerasuriya stated,

“Your Honour, a person cannot be remanded solely based on statements made by individuals currently in remand custody in connection with serious criminal allegations. Those matters must be proven through evidence at trial. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to deny bail at this stage. My client’s professional activities have also been affected, and I respectfully request that he be released on appropriate bail conditions.”

President’s Counsel Anil Silva, appearing for the second suspect Rakitha Rajapakshe, submitted that the certificate issued by the Director General of CIABOC in connection with the arrest was not lawful and therefore there was no impediment to granting bail.

Counsel submitted to court that under Section 149(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption has no authority to issue such a certificate in the present circumstances, and therefore the said certificate is unlawful.

He further stated that the Bribery Commission has formulated the alleged offence under Sections 19 and 20 of the Bribery Act, and therefore the ordinary bail provisions are applicable to the case. Accordingly, he submitted that his client is entitled to be released on bail.

He further argued that granting bail to his client would not result in any interference with witnesses or the investigation and stated that the accused is willing to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

He therefore requested that the suspect be released on bail under appropriate conditions, considering these special circumstances.

He also stated that the father of the second suspect is a politician who no longer holds power and is currently a “nobody,” adding that the suspect cannot exert influence over any witnesses through his father.

Counsel Geeth Karunaratne, appearing for the third suspect Aruna Varushahennadige, informed court that his client faces threats to his life and therefore should be released on bail.

Counsel Geeth Karunaratne stated,

“Your Honour, the certificate issued by the Director General of the Bribery Commission against the third suspect has been submitted with the intention of preventing him from being released on bail. The Director General of the Commission has no legal authority to issue such a certificate in this type of matter. Furthermore, the witnesses in this case are serious offenders. In such circumstances, continued remand of my client poses a threat to his life. I respectfully request that he be released on bail.”

After considering the submissions, the Chief Magistrate rejected the bail applications and stated,

“The court has considered the submissions made by both parties. The defence has argued that the certificate issued by the Director General of CIABOC under Section 149(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act is unlawful. This court does not accept that position. According to the further report submitted yesterday by CIABOC, new facts relevant to the investigation have been revealed, which the court takes into consideration. It has been stated that the suspects face threats to their lives, and therefore remanding them would be inappropriate. However, necessary instructions have already been issued to the Prison authorities to ensure the safety of the suspects. This does not constitute exceptional circumstances for granting bail. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds have been established to grant bail at this stage. The bail applications are refused. The suspects are remanded till July 17.”