Update, 6 October: she has returned
Rajapaksa landed in Sri Lanka at about 11:20 p.m. on 5 October, hours after the bail application was filed, NewsFirst reported. That answers the question left open below — when she intended to return.
No outlet reports that she was arrested at the airport. The application was filed precisely because she said she feared being detained on arrival; nothing in the filings on her return says whether the court had ruled by the time she landed, or whether the FCID attempted to detain her.
She has been summoned to the FCID for 13 October
Rajapaksa has been notified to appear before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division on 13 October to record a statement in connection with the investigation, Hiru News reported. That answers the second question left open below.
The Malaysia–Singapore conflict is resolved: both were right
An apparent contradiction between the first filings has now been settled by a third account. NewsFirst said she flew in from Malaysia; Newswire and Hiru said she returned from Singapore.
The Daily Mirror, reporting from Katunayake, names the flight: she arrived at Bandaranaike International Airport at about 11:20 p.m. aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH-179 from Kuala Lumpur, after completing a visit to Singapore. Malaysia was the immediate origin of the arriving flight; Singapore was where she had been. Neither outlet was wrong.
The Daily Mirror adds that she had travelled to Singapore with Anne de Livera, the mother-in-law of her son Rohitha Rajapaksa, who returned to Sri Lanka a few days later.
She cleared the airport without being detained
On arrival Rajapaksa used the airport’s Gold Route facility for special guests, paying a fee of US$216, according to the Daily Mirror. The facility allowed her to bypass the general passenger areas and proceed directly to a designated terminal, where staff handled her luggage and Immigration and Customs officials completed clearance.
That account describes her passing through the airport normally, which indicates she was not detained on arrival — the outcome her bail application had been filed to guard against. No filing states whether the FCID sought to detain her, or whether the court had ruled before she landed.
NewsFirst’s return filing also settles the respondent question raised below in its own favour, naming the Officer-in-Charge of the Financial Crimes Division of the CID — and states directly that the summons was issued in connection with an investigation into transactions linked to the Siriliya Saviya Foundation, which operated under her leadership.
Former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa has asked the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court to order that she be released on bail if she is arrested on her return to Sri Lanka, saying she fears being detained at the airport.
The wife of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa filed the anticipatory bail application today (05) while still abroad, Hiru News reported. The application asks that she be granted bail on any conditions the court sees fit in the event of an arrest.
The matter was taken up before Magistrate Janani Perera. It was filed through Attorney-at-Law Jayabalan, names Mary Louise Shiranthi Rajapaksa as the petitioner and cites the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department as the respondent, Newswire reported.
NewsFirst carried the same application, confirming that she told the court she could be arrested at the airport on her return from medical treatment abroad and asked to be released on bail “under any conditions deemed appropriate by the court”. The two outlets name different respondents: NewsFirst says the respondent is the Officer-in-Charge of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division of the CID, where Newswire says the Director of the CID. These are different offices, and no filing reconciles them.
The background is the FCID summons
Rajapaksa had been notified to appear before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division to record a statement. She is currently overseas, where she travelled for medical treatment.
She left for Singapore early on 16 September, flying out of Bandaranaike International Airport a day after being admitted to a private hospital in Colombo. Police had reportedly told her to appear before the FCID on 24 September. NewsFirst independently confirms all three points — that she had been receiving treatment at a private hospital in Sri Lanka, that she departed on the 16th for further treatment abroad, and that she did so despite being notified to appear on the 24th.
The FCID afterwards said she had gone abroad despite being summoned. A member of the Rajapaksa family disputed that account, saying no summons had reached her before she arrived at the airport and that it was served only once she was there preparing to leave. Our earlier coverage reported that she had not returned to the FCID after travelling to Singapore.
What the investigation concerns
The FCID inquiry centres on the finances of the Siriliya Saviya organisation, an account Rajapaksa headed during her husband’s presidency. She was previously summoned over a CT scanner said to have been bought for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children.
Update, 6 October: the court has set 12 October, and the respondent question is clearer
The Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court has taken up the application and set a date. Magistrate Janani Perera issued notice on Tuesday to the Officer-in-Charge of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division to appear in court on 12 October and present facts regarding the anticipatory bail application, Hiru News reported.
That answers the question flagged below. The application is live, it will be heard on 12 October, and the FCID appearance follows on 13 October — the court hearing comes first, by one day.
The Hiru filing also goes some way towards resolving the respondent discrepancy noted above. It reports that the Director of the CID was named as the respondent in the complaint filed through Attorney-at-Law Jayabalan, while the notice to present facts was issued to the FCID OIC. On that account the two offices named by NewsFirst and Newswire are not alternative versions of one fact: one is the respondent on the papers, the other is the officer the court has called to answer. No filing states this distinction in terms, and it remains an inference from a single report.
The respondent question is not settled after all
A later NewsFirst filing contradicts that reading. It reports that “the Director of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division has been named as the respondent in the anticipatory bail application” — the FCID, not the CID.
The two accounts cannot both be right about which Director is on the papers, and the inference set out above rested on Hiru alone. NewsFirst is also inconsistent with itself on the notice: its opening paragraph says the court issued notice on the Officer-in-Charge of the FCID, while its account of the hearing says notice was issued on the Director of the FCID. Treat the office named as unresolved; the date, 12 October, is agreed by both outlets.
NewsFirst adds one fact neither earlier filing carried: the magistrate acted after considering submissions from President’s Counsel Anil Silva, appearing for Rajapaksa. Hiru named Attorney-at-Law Jayabalan as the lawyer through whom the application was filed, which is not necessarily the same role — filing and appearing are distinct — but no outlet sets out who leads the defence.
NewsFirst’s chronology of the return also differs in one detail from the account above. It says she arrived from Malaysia, consistent with the flight-versus-trip resolution set out earlier, and that those speaking for her had said in September she was expected back on 19 September — a commitment not previously reported, and one she did not meet.
Not reported
It is not reported when the court will rule on the anticipatory bail application, or whether a date has been set for that hearing. — answered 6 October: notice returnable 12 October. Whether the court will rule that day, or only hear the FCID’s facts, is not reported.
When Rajapaksa intends to return to Sri Lanka — answered 6 October: she landed at about 11:20 p.m. on 5 October. When she will appear before the FCID — answered 6 October: 13 October. Whether she was stopped or arrested on arrival — effectively answered: the Daily Mirror describes her clearing immigration and customs through the Gold Route facility, though no outlet says so in terms.
Still open: whether the FCID will seek her arrest at that appearance — overtaken by events on 7 October: she was arrested, but not by the FCID and not at that appearance. See below. Still open: whether the summons covers the Siriliya Saviya accounts alone or the CT scanner matter as well. Ada Derana filed on her return too, but its site has been returning a CloudFront block for 14 days and that report could not be retrieved.
Update, 7 October: she has been arrested — by a third agency
Rajapaksa was arrested on Wednesday morning by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, at the Kirulapone residence where former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is staying. The allegation is that she obtained Rs. 10 million from a state bank and committed offences under the Public Property Act through its alleged misuse. Full report.
The arrest answers the question flagged above, but not in the terms it was asked. The anticipatory bail application tracked in this article was directed at the FCID — or the CID, the point left unresolved above — and was returnable on 12 October, with the FCID appearance set for 13 October. CIABOC is neither body, and the Rs. 10 million state bank matter is not the subject identified in the reporting on the FCID summons.
An application drafted to prevent one agency detaining her on arrival did not prevent a different agency arresting her at home, five days after she landed and five days before the application was due to be heard. What now becomes of the 12 October hearing and the 13 October FCID appearance is not reported.
