It happened years ago: Yoshitha Rajapaksa was sent to Britain for specialist naval training. Now CIABOC alleges that he did not possess the required qualifications and that arranging the training caused a financial loss to the State. The Colombo High Court has ordered the corruption case against Rajapaksa and former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda to proceed to a pre-trial conference.
A controversy over Yoshitha Rajapaksa’s naval training has moved another significant step through the criminal justice system, with the Colombo High Court ordering that the corruption case against him and former Navy Commander Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda be called for a pre-trial conference.
Both men appeared before Colombo High Court on September 17 and are presently on bail. The case has been brought by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, and the allegations remain to be proved in court.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
At the centre of the prosecution is Rajapaksa’s training at the Britannia Royal Naval College in the United Kingdom. CIABOC alleges that arrangements were made for him to undergo the training despite his not possessing the qualifications required for it and that the circumstances resulted in financial loss to the Government.
That takes the story beyond the familiar argument about privilege enjoyed by the relative of a powerful politician. It is now a criminal prosecution in which the precise decisions taken, who authorised them, what rules applied and what expenditure was incurred will have to be tested through the judicial process.
Karannagoda was Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy during the period relevant to the allegations, while Rajapaksa is the son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The prosecution therefore inevitably attracts political attention, but the questions before the Court are ultimately much narrower: whether the elements of the corruption offence alleged by CIABOC can actually be established against the two accused.
The pre-trial conference is important because it allows the Court and the parties to identify the issues that will require determination, deal with documentary and procedural matters and prepare the case for trial. It is therefore considerably more meaningful than another announcement that an investigation is continuing.
There is a broader public-interest question too. Training military officers overseas can be expensive, particularly when the State meets course fees, travel, allowances and associated expenditure. Such opportunities are also potentially career-changing for the officers selected. The integrity of the selection process consequently matters both to the taxpayer and to other officers competing for the same opportunities.
If CIABOC’s allegation is that normal qualification requirements were bypassed, the trial should establish exactly what those requirements were at the relevant time, whether exemptions were permitted, who possessed authority to grant them and precisely what role each accused is alleged to have played.
The financial-loss allegation similarly requires precision. It should become clear what expenditure the prosecution says should never have been incurred and how that loss has been calculated. A corruption prosecution cannot ultimately rest upon the political prominence of an accused person; it must succeed or fail upon admissible evidence capable of proving the alleged offence.
That principle works both ways.
No person should receive preferential treatment because of political connections, but neither should political prominence lower the evidential threshold required for conviction. Yoshitha Rajapaksa and Wasantha Karannagoda are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anybody else standing before a Sri Lankan court.
What makes this case important is therefore not simply the Rajapaksa name. It is an opportunity to examine how decisions were made inside one of the country’s most important institutions and whether the rules governing public expenditure and professional advancement were applied equally.
