What Changed Between July and September?
Less than two months before Namal Rajapaksa was remanded, Nimal Perera occupied a markedly different position in the Airbus investigation.
When the matter came before Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama on July 14, an attorney appearing for Perera sought permission to make submissions on his behalf.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The Magistrate observed that the prosecution had not identified Perera as a suspect and considered submissions on his behalf unnecessary at that stage.
That was July 14.
On September 4, an affidavit attributed to Perera had become part of the evidential foundation placed before court in an investigation that resulted in Namal Rajapaksa being arrested and remanded.
What happened between those two dates deserves examination.
Perera’s connection to the investigation was already significant. CIABOC had informed court that he was associated with the bank account into which part of the money allegedly originating from the Airbus transaction had been transferred.
He was also reported to be resident in Australia.
On July 21, it was reported that a special team comprising officers from the Criminal Investigation Department and the Bribery Commission had travelled to Australia in connection with the Airbus investigation.
The stated purpose was to locate suspects and witnesses connected to the alleged payment of approximately US$2 million arising from the aircraft transaction.
Perera was specifically relevant because investigators had previously told court that he was living in Australia and was said to be connected to the account into which money from the Airbus transaction had allegedly travelled.
That makes the chronology important.
On July 14, the court was told he had not been named as a suspect.
Investigators subsequently travelled to Australia.
By September 4, CIABOC was relying upon evidence attributed to Perera alleging that Rs 100 million had been handed to Namal Rajapaksa.
There is nothing inherently improper about that sequence. Investigations develop. Witnesses provide evidence. New documents emerge and people who initially attract investigative attention may ultimately become witnesses rather than accused persons.
But where the evidence of one individual contributes to the incarceration of another, transparency over how that evidence was obtained and corroborated becomes particularly important.
NewsLine therefore believes several questions deserve answers.
Was Perera interviewed in Australia? When was his affidavit obtained? Was it made before or after the Sri Lankan investigative team travelled there? What was his legal status when it was provided? Was any undertaking, immunity, concession or other arrangement offered or discussed?
Most importantly, what independent evidence corroborates the alleged payment of Rs 100 million?
That last question may ultimately prove more important than all the others.
CIABOC has indicated that its evidence extends beyond Perera’s account and includes material obtained from Airbus officials and documentary evidence. If those documents independently connect the alleged Airbus money to the alleged Rs 100 million payment, the prosecution case becomes substantially more consequential.
If they establish only the earlier movement of money while the alleged final payment depends principally upon one person’s account, the evidential picture becomes different.
Those are matters for investigation and, ultimately, for a court.
Namal Rajapaksa’s political identity should neither protect him nor condemn him. If investigators possess evidence that he accepted corrupt money, that evidence should be prosecuted without fear or favour.
Equally, the extraordinary power of the State to arrest and incarcerate a citizen demands that evidence be tested with the same rigour regardless of the surname of the person standing in the dock.
There is now an allegation of Rs 100 million.
There is an affidavit.
There is a businessman in Australia.
And there is a Member of Parliament in remand custody.
The task ahead is not to decide which political camp to believe.
It is to establish what can actually be proved.
Be that as it may.
The key chronology is independently supported: the July 14 court proceedings recorded that Perera had not then been named a suspect; a joint investigative team subsequently travelled to Australia; and today’s court reporting says his affidavit alleges the Rs 100 million payment.
