Lawyers for former minister Namal Rajapaksa have challenged investigators to place before a court any emails that are said to link him to money from the Airbus aircraft deal, after media reports said such emails had been found following his arrest.

The reports, which cited investigating agencies, said the emails related to payments from the Airbus transaction. Namal Rajapaksa’s lawyers said that if any such emails exist they should be produced in court. A commentary on the case argues that the email claim itself is untrue, but that is the writer’s view and has not been tested in court.

Separately, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption has arrested Sanje Samarasinghe, who served as Namal Rajapaksa’s private secretary. The same commentary alleges that the arrest is aimed at building evidence for an account that money passed from businessman Nimal Perera to Namal Rajapaksa. That claim about the commission’s motive is the writer’s allegation and has not been confirmed by the commission.

The writer also says there is no evidence to back Nimal Perera’s version of events.

Background

The Airbus affair came to light through the work of the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office. Its reports, made public in 2020, brought the name of Kapila Chandrasena into the Sri Lankan matter, and he was arrested at that time.

After the change of government, the Bribery Commission summoned Chandrasena again. He went to the commission on the advice of lawyer Riyanzie Arsakularatne. It has been reported that he carried a memorandum of understanding that would make him a state witness in return for immunity.

Under that arrangement, Chandrasena said he had given Rs. 60 million (Rs. 6 crore) to former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. He later stated in a sworn affidavit that he had made the claim because of threats from the commission. Days afterwards he died. The commentary says there was no evidence to prove that he had paid Mahinda Rajapaksa.

According to the commentary, the account changed after Chandrasena’s death. It is now said that the money was given to Namal Rajapaksa, and that it reached him through Nimal Perera. None of these allegations has been proved in court.

What it means

For readers, the dispute turns on a simple question: what evidence will actually be placed before a court. Allegations made in media reports, in affidavits or in commentary are not findings, and every person named is presumed innocent unless a court decides otherwise.

The lawyers’ challenge also puts pressure on investigators to disclose the material they say they hold. The case is one of several politically sensitive corruption investigations in which the public is hearing competing accounts, and the courts are the place where those accounts will be tested.

The Bribery Commission has not been quoted in the material available on the latest arrest, and readers should treat claims about its motives as the view of one commentator until the commission or a court says otherwise.