Shiranthi Rajapaksa has returned to Sri Lanka and is seeking anticipatory bail while the FCID investigates transactions connected with Siriliya Saviya. The court has called for the FCID’s response and she has been instructed to appear before investigators. There is plenty of political theatre available here. NEWSLINE is more interested in whether the investigation produces evidence.
Former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa is back in Sri Lanka after travelling overseas for medical treatment while an investigation into transactions associated with Siriliya Saviya continues.
Her return has immediately moved the matter back into the courts.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court has issued notice requiring the Officer-in-Charge of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division to appear on October 12 and make submissions concerning an anticipatory bail application filed on her behalf.
Police have meanwhile informed Rajapaksa to appear before the FCID on October 13 to provide a statement.
Her lawyers have sought protection against arrest. Submissions made on her behalf maintain that she travelled abroad for medical treatment, that she has no intention of avoiding the investigation and that she is prepared to provide a statement.
Those submissions will now be considered through the proper judicial process.
The underlying investigation concerns financial transactions linked to Siriliya Saviya, an organisation associated with Rajapaksa during the presidency of her husband, Mahinda Rajapaksa.
That is where NEWSLINE believes attention should remain.
Whether somebody belongs to the Rajapaksa family cannot determine whether that person should be arrested. Neither should membership of that family prevent a lawful investigation.
The test is evidence.
Sri Lanka has developed an unfortunate political culture in which an investigation itself is frequently treated as a verdict.
A summons becomes a scandal. An arrest becomes a conviction. Remand becomes punishment. Political supporters and opponents then select whichever interpretation suits them.
The law is supposed to operate differently.
Investigators must be permitted to investigate. A person under investigation must be permitted to defend herself. A court must decide questions of bail and detention according to law rather than political appetite.
The Government has repeatedly promised that law enforcement institutions will operate independently.
This is precisely the sort of case in which that promise will be tested.
Shiranthi Rajapaksa is not an ordinary political name. She is the wife of a former President, mother of a sitting parliamentarian now himself in remand custody and a member of a family that dominated Sri Lankan politics for much of the past two decades.
That makes the investigation politically important.
It does not make the evidentiary standard any lower.
There is also a responsibility on investigators.
If an investigation has been continuing for a substantial period, the public is entitled eventually to know whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute somebody or whether there is not.
Investigations cannot become permanent political clouds hanging over individuals without resolution.
Shiranthi Rajapaksa has returned. Her anticipatory bail application will be considered. The FCID wants her statement.
All of that is process. The important part comes afterwards. Does the investigation produce a case?
