A prosecution witness in the money-laundering trial of Yoshitha Rajapaksa has been accused by the Attorney General’s Department of giving false and contradictory evidence. The development raises an important question about how much of the prosecution case, if any, depends upon his evidence.
There was an unusual turn in the Colombo High Court this week when a man called by the prosecution in the money-laundering case against Yoshitha Rajapaksa found himself facing the prospect of legal action over his own evidence. Real-estate businessman Palitha Gamage gave testimony which the Attorney General’s Department said repeatedly contradicted statements he had previously made to investigators.
Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara, appearing for the prosecution, told court that Gamage appeared to have provided contradictory and false information both during the investigation and while giving evidence. The prosecution was permitted to treat him as an adverse witness and cross-examine him, while the Attorney General’s Department indicated that proceedings could be initiated against him under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The case against Yoshitha Rajapaksa concerns allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act relating to five parcels of land said to be worth more than Rs 73 million. Rajapaksa is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the allegations remain for the prosecution to prove through admissible evidence before court.
Other prosecution witnesses have given evidence concerning land at 163/2 Galle Road, Dehiwala. Irene Silva testified that she and her siblings owned the property and understood Yoshitha Rajapaksa was purchasing it, while another witness, Gamage Violet Fernando, also testified that she understood Rajapaksa to be the purchaser and that negotiations over the price had taken place.
Both women also gave evidence concerning Daisy Forrest, whose name has featured in the case, and said they did not understand Forrest to have been the purchaser. Their evidence is potentially important because it exists separately from the evidence now disputed by the prosecution itself.
According to evidence reported from court, Palitha Gamage had earlier told investigators that he gave Rs 14.2 million to a person named Tharindu, allegedly an employee at Temple Trees during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency, for the purpose of obtaining government tenders. He subsequently said those earlier claims were false, prompting the Deputy Solicitor General to argue that allowing witnesses to behave in such a manner risked making a mockery of the judicial process.
Colombo High Court Judge Udesh Ranatunga released Gamage on Rs 2 million personal bail, ordered him to appear whenever the case is called and cautioned him over his conduct. The development inevitably raises questions about what effect, if any, the witness’s apparent reversal may have upon the prosecution against Rajapaksa.
A prosecution witness giving contradictory evidence can damage any part of a case which depends upon that witness, but it does not automatically invalidate evidence given by other witnesses or independent documentary, banking or property records. Equally, the prosecution cannot simply disregard a witness once his evidence becomes inconvenient if statements previously made by him materially influenced the investigation.
That is precisely what the trial process must now establish. The defence is entitled to test how Gamage’s earlier statements were obtained, how investigators assessed their reliability and whether any other part of the prosecution case was constructed upon information which the witness now says was false.
The prosecution expects to conclude the evidence of its witnesses at the next hearing on October 2, although it may seek permission to call additional witnesses. By then the more important question may become clearer: whether Palitha Gamage was simply an unreliable witness in a case supported by substantial independent evidence, or whether his statements were important to the architecture of the prosecution itself.
