The defence in the Airbus bribery case against MP Namal Rajapaksa has said there was no direct email exchange between him and the aircraft manufacturer, Hiru News reported on Saturday.
Attorney-at-Law Manoj Gamage, speaking to journalists outside court, said none of the emails produced before the court contains Namal Rajapaksa’s name. The exchanges referred to in proceedings were between officials connected to the company, he said, and do not establish that his client received a bribe.
Gamage said the prosecution’s case rests principally on a statement given to the authorities by businessman Nimal Perera.
The legal argument being made
The defence’s central submission is a rule of evidence rather than a dispute over facts: Gamage argued that a person cannot be convicted solely on the statement of an alleged accomplice without corroborating evidence.
That framing does two things at once. It concedes, for the purposes of argument, that Perera’s statement implicates Rajapaksa — while asserting that the statement cannot carry a conviction on its own. It also explains why the emails matter so much to both sides: if the documentary record is the corroboration the prosecution needs, the defence’s claim that no email bears Rajapaksa’s name is aimed directly at it.
Gamage separately questioned the credibility of Perera’s evidence.
The argument turned back on Perera
Daily Mirror, reporting the same submissions, carries the defence’s sharper formulation: “If the alleged bribe money had been credited to Nimal Perera’s account, he too should be treated as an accomplice,” counsel told the court, Daily Mirror reported.
That is the accomplice-evidence rule pressed one step further. If Perera is himself an accomplice, his statement is precisely the category of evidence the defence says cannot convict without corroboration.
The prosecution’s side
Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara told the court that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption had sought the Attorney General’s advice on the investigation, and that under Section 69 of the Anti-Corruption Act CIABOC has the statutory power to do so.
The investigation dates back to 2012 and is being run jointly by CIABOC and the Criminal Investigation Department, with the CID forwarding extracts of its inquiries to the Attorney General.
Bandara said a statement had been recorded from the former Speaker of Parliament about a SriLankan Airlines board meeting allegedly held at the Speaker’s official residence. Statements were also taken from Susanta Chaminda Ratnayake and Dimuthu Sanjaya.
Where the other three suspects are
Daily Mirror sets out the status of the named suspects, which no earlier account in this thread had assembled:
- Kapila Chandrasena, the first suspect, has died — the former SriLankan Airlines chief executive was found dead in Colpetty in May.
- Priyanka Neomali Wijenayake, the second suspect, is said to have fled to Australia.
- Shashindra Rajapaksa, the third suspect and the former Speaker’s son, is said to have fled to the United States.
A correction to this article as first published. We wrote that the Shameendra Rajapaksa named by Hiru “should not be confused with Shashindra Rajapaksa” and that Hiru gave no detail to settle which individual was meant. Daily Mirror now places Shashindra Rajapaksa as the third suspect in this case, identifying him as the former Speaker’s son. On that basis Hiru’s spelling appears to be a variant of the same name rather than a different person, and our caution against conflating them was very likely wrong. Neither outlet acknowledges the other’s spelling.
Where the case stands
The case concerns an alleged Rs. 100 million bribe linked to the SriLankan Airlines aircraft deal. Rajapaksa is the subject of a separate money-laundering investigation arising from the same transaction.
The two outlets do not agree on the remand date. This article reported, from the earlier filing, that Rajapaksa was remanded until 29 September. Daily Mirror reports the Deputy Solicitor General telling the court that the suspect was produced before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court last Wednesday and remanded until 23 September. Daily Mirror does not specify which suspect that remand refers to, and the discrepancy is unresolved.
Gamage further alleged that sections of the government are attempting to distort the court proceedings and present them to the public in a misleading way. He did not name any individual or institution.
Not reported
Hiru does not report whether these submissions were made in court or only to reporters outside it, and gives no response from the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. It does not say how many emails have been produced, who the officials named in them are, or whether the prosecution claims Rajapaksa was copied or referenced indirectly.
No date is given for Perera’s statement, and it is not reported whether he is a suspect, a witness, or has been granted any indemnity — which is the question the accomplice-evidence argument turns on.
