Open Warrant Issued as Sureties Face Rs. 20 Million Question
One of Sri Lanka’s most closely watched corruption investigations returned sharply to public attention on Wednesday when the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court issued an open warrant for the arrest of Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, the wife of the late former SriLankan Airlines Chief Executive Officer Kapila Chandrasena, after she failed to return to the country following overseas travel permitted by court.
Wijenayake is a suspect in the continuing investigation arising from the controversial Airbus aircraft transaction involving SriLankan Airlines. She had previously been granted bail and was subsequently permitted to travel to Australia after satisfying the conditions imposed by court. Those conditions included two personal sureties valued at Rs. 10 million each.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Having obtained permission to leave Sri Lanka, however, Wijenayake did not return as required. Colombo Fort Magistrate Pasan Amarasena consequently ordered the issuance of an open warrant for her arrest. An open warrant remains in force until the person named in it is arrested or produced before court.
The matter took a further and unusual turn when her sister and brother-in-law, celebrated former Sri Lanka cricketer Aravinda de Silva, who had reportedly stood as the two sureties, indicated that they wished to be released from their obligations and were prepared to forfeit the Rs. 10 million pledged by each of them.
The combined value of the two sureties is therefore Rs. 20 million. The court has not, however, simply treated the money as automatically forfeited. The two sureties have instead been directed to provide reasons explaining why they seek to surrender their undertakings, after which the Magistrate will determine what order should properly be made.
That distinction matters. Neither Aravinda de Silva nor his wife is accused in the Airbus investigation merely because they acted as sureties. Their role was to give the court an undertaking connected to Wijenayake’s compliance with the conditions of bail. The legal question now before court concerns the consequences of that undertaking following her failure to return.
The underlying Airbus investigation concerns allegations that payments connected to the procurement of aircraft for SriLankan Airlines were channelled through a company associated with Wijenayake.
Those allegations remain matters for investigation and judicial determination, and no conclusion of guilt should be drawn merely from the issuance of a warrant. Additionally the Court was noticed that the CCTV recordings were not made and they were examining recordings made from neighbouring CCTV systems.
Be that as it may, the latest development places renewed focus on a case that has travelled through several courts, several years and several layers of international scrutiny. The aircraft may have crossed continents.
The legal questions have not gone away.
