Court finds insufficient grounds to keep former Minister in custody over alleged Rs 7.97 million procurement loss
Former Minister Johnston Fernando was arrested by the Bribery Commission yesterday over an alleged procurement irregularity involving chairs purchased for the Mahinda Rajapaksa Auditorium in Polgolla – and was back out on bail later the same day.
Fernando and businessman Hemantha Lalith de Silva, owner of Design Point (Pvt) Ltd, were arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and produced before Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
CIABOC alleges that the procurement process for chairs for the auditorium was improperly handled by purchasing them from Design Point rather than the bidder which had submitted the lowest compliant quotation.
The Commission alleges that the decision caused a loss of Rs 7,973,114.50 to the Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau while providing an undue benefit to an outside party.
Fernando was arrested on allegations of corruption while de Silva is accused of aiding and abetting the alleged offence.
When the two men were produced before court, CIABOC sought their remand, telling the Magistrate that the investigation remained incomplete.
Lawyers appearing for the suspects opposed the application.
They argued that their clients had cooperated fully with investigators and that there were insufficient grounds under the Bail Act to justify keeping them in custody.
The Magistrate agreed.
Fernando and de Silva were each released on two personal bail bonds of Rs 2.5 million and travel bans were imposed upon them. The case is due to be called again on November 17.
The decision came on an extraordinary day for Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption machinery.
While Fernando walked out of court on bail, fellow opposition politician Namal Rajapaksa was ordered into remand custody until September 18 in the considerably larger SriLankan Airlines-Airbus investigation.
The two outcomes should not automatically be compared as though bail were some form of political scorecard.
Different investigations involve different evidence, different allegations and different considerations under the law. The question before a Magistrate considering remand is not whether an accused is popular, powerful or politically inconvenient, but whether sufficient legal grounds exist to deprive that person of liberty pending further proceedings.
That distinction matters particularly at a time when a succession of former Ministers and political figures are appearing before investigators and courts.
Arrest is not conviction.
Bail is not acquittal.
And remand is not punishment.
Those distinctions may be less exciting than the politics surrounding the people involved, but they are precisely what separates a justice system from a political theatre.
Be that as it may.
