There is something quite extraordinary about the picture confronting Sri Lanka this morning. Namal Rajapaksa, Member of Parliament and son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is in remand custody until September 18, while businessman Nimal Perera, whose evidence includes the allegation that he handed Rajapaksa approximately Rs 100 million, remains in Australia. Somewhere between the two lies the rather more important matter of justice.
The allegation against Namal Rajapaksa is serious. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption says money originating from the notorious SriLankan Airlines-Airbus transaction travelled through accounts in Singapore before US$800,000 reached a company associated with Perera, who subsequently allegedly converted money into Sri Lankan rupees and handed approximately Rs 100 million to Rajapaksa.
If admissible evidence establishes that allegation, it should be prosecuted without fear or favour. The name Rajapaksa cannot be a shield against the law, but neither can it be a substitute for evidence, particularly in a country where arrest is too easily mistaken for conviction and remand can acquire the appearance of punishment before trial.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Namal Rajapaksa is not guilty because he spent Friday night in remand. He is an accused person entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that distinction matters regardless of whether one admires, dislikes or is thoroughly indifferent to the Rajapaksas.
Then there is Nimal Perera, whose position deserves equally careful examination, not because NewsLine accuses him of wrongdoing but because his evidence has now assumed considerable importance in proceedings which have deprived another citizen of his liberty. As recently as July 14, when a lawyer sought to make representations on Perera’s behalf in the Airbus investigation, the Colombo Chief Magistrate observed that the prosecution had not informed court that Perera had been identified as a suspect.
Investigators subsequently travelled to Australia. We now know from the submissions made on Friday that investigators met Perera there and recorded a statement from him, while the prosecution says he also provided an affidavit alleging that the US$800,000 received by his company was converted into rupees and approximately Rs 100 million handed to Namal Rajapaksa. Perera reportedly declined to return to Sri Lanka, citing threats to his life.
None of that makes his evidence false, but neither does an affidavit make an allegation true simply because somebody has sworn to it. That is why the independent corroborating evidence becomes critical: the banking records, the conversion of the money, the manner in which Rs 100 million was allegedly delivered, the dates and circumstances of those payments and any contemporaneous documentary or witness evidence capable of connecting Rajapaksa to the funds.
The prosecution says there is more. It told court that Airbus has cooperated with the investigation, that senior Airbus officials visited Sri Lanka on three occasions and provided four statements, and that investigators obtained additional information concerning alleged connections between Airbus and Rajapaksa. If that evidence independently completes the money trail, then let it speak in court.
This prosecution must not become a simple contest between the word of Namal Rajapaksa and the word of Nimal Perera. The administration of criminal justice requires something considerably stronger, particularly when the State has exercised its formidable power to deprive a citizen of his liberty before trial.
There is also a perfectly legitimate question about Perera’s own status in this investigation. If investigators regard him as a witness rather than a suspect, the evidential basis for that distinction should ultimately withstand scrutiny, particularly given the allegation that money originating from the Airbus transaction entered a company associated with him before the alleged payment to Rajapaksa.
The public is therefore entitled to know whether any immunity, undertaking or concession was offered or discussed, whether Perera’s legal status changed after investigators travelled to Australia and what evidence determined that status. These are questions, not accusations, and asking them is not an attempt to rescue Namal Rajapaksa from investigation; it is precisely the scrutiny that a prosecution of this magnitude deserves.
Rajapaksa himself has questioned the timing of his arrest, pointing to the Government’s second-anniversary rally and an SLPP rally scheduled for September 12. That is his political argument and he is entitled to make it, but it should neither establish his innocence nor relieve the prosecution of its obligation to demonstrate that its actions were dictated by evidence rather than the political calendar.
Sri Lanka has spent decades demanding accountability from the powerful. We should not suddenly become nervous about accountability because the person being investigated possesses a famous surname, but accountability cannot simply mean putting famous people into prison vans and producing photographs for the evening news.
Real accountability means following the money wherever it travelled, examining everybody who handled it and testing witnesses with precisely the same seriousness with which suspects are investigated. It means protecting suspects from political prosecution while simultaneously protecting investigators from political interference, because equality before the law becomes meaningless the moment either side receives special treatment.
If Namal Rajapaksa took corrupt money, the State must prove it. If Nimal Perera handled money derived from corruption, investigators must establish precisely what occurred and determine his position according to the same law. If others participated, the trail must continue to them as well, irrespective of their surname, political connections, wealth or present country of residence.
Yesterday one man was sent into remand in Colombo while another remained in Australia. The administration of justice cannot afford to reside comfortably with either man.
It must reside in the evidence.
Be that as it may.
