News
Court says key document in Weeratunga inquiry not filed deliberately
The Colombo Fort Magistrate, Ranga Dissanayake, this week questioned the police over the decision to change the investigator responsible for investigating financial irregularities related to the MiG deal involving former ambassador Udayanga Weeratunga.
Udayanga Weeratunga leaving court on Monday. Pic by Lahiru Harshana
The Magistrate ordered the Acting IGP to explain to court as to why Chief Inspector Nihal Francis who investigated the MiG deal for five years had been removed. CIP Francis had signed the documents submitted to court from the start in March 2015.
Udayanga Weeratunga was escorted to Sri Lanka by CID detectives from Dubai and his statement was recorded by the CID. He was remanded last Monday.
On Monday, when Weeratunga was produced in court and the Magistrate questioned about the previous officer who investigated, a CID officer explained that CI Francis has been transferred to the Negombo division.
He said that the investigation had been done by the FCID but since the FCID was brought under the CID, this investigation too had been brought under the CID. He said since the FCID was taken over by the CID, several officers including CIP Francis was transferred out.
The Magistrate questioned whether in the absence of the police officer who investigated the case for five years, will the officer now in charge be able to answer questions. The file too has not been signed.
The Magistrate noted that it was unusual that the report of an Assistant Superintendent of Police was not submitted when the offence falls under the Public Property Act.
He said that it was also unusual that after five years of investigations under the Public Property Act for the prosecution to state the specific offence was committed and it appears that the background has been prepared in a manner that bail could be obtained for the suspect.
The Magistrate rejected bail for the suspect and said he had considered that the investigations had done under the Public Property Act on the grounds that a loss has been caused to the government and that the possibility of unrest if bail were granted, cannot be ruled out.
Weeratunga was remanded until February 26.
Magistrate: “What is the loss caused to the government?’’
Deputy Solicitor General, Thusith Mudalige: “The loss caused to the government is around US$7 million.’’
Magistrate: “US$7 million is a large sum. If the CID cannot understand that the sum is equal to more than Rs 25,000 how can they do the investigations. If this comes under the Public Property Act where is the certificate of the Assistant Superintendent of Police.’’
CID Officer: “We don’t have such a certificate.’’
Magistrate: “The CID files a certificate from a ASP even if 1,000 envelopes is stolen or if Rs 25,000 state money is stolen, but this allegation is about US$7 million and there is no certificate. Why wasn’t this certificate submitted, is it because it is a big amount. The people are watching you. The people are not in a position to come and present facts to the court and you should submit this to court. A person who does not know anything about the case comes to court with the suspect and says they do not know anything about the case.’’
DSG Mudalige: “Under the extradition laws, the CID went to Dubai and brought the suspect back. IP Sanjeewa recorded the statement from the suspect. He cannot be blamed. There should be justice to the prosecution as well as the suspect. Therefore, the services of CIP Nihal Francis and his senior officer SSP Pavithra Dayaratna are required for further investigations. We request that an order be issued to get the services of the two officers.’’
Magistrate: “I have to question whether appointment of these officers will be an obstacle to the investigations. I can remove the persons involved in the investigations. But according to the Act I cannot appoint a person. Before the DSG made the request, I observed this position. CIP Nihal Francis’s services are needed in this investigation. Therefore I am ordering whether this officer involved in this investigation and his supervising officer should be reappointed and if they cannot be appointed, the Acting IGP should give reasons.’’
Anil de Silva, PC for the suspect: “There is doubt about the manner [in which] the investigations were carried out. Though investigations were carried out under the Public Property Act there is no certificate submitted. The suspect has not made any influence on witnesses. His statements have not been recorded. We requested on two occasions to withdraw the warrant that he would appear in court. That was not taken into consideration. My client has served as ambassador in several countries. In Russia he operated a restaurant and tourism business. He has served for about 30 years. We appeal for bail under any condition.’’
Magistrate: “The report submitted to court says it is an offence under the Public Property Act. Therefore why wasn’t the certificate submitted?’’
CID officer: “I have been reading the reports in relation to this case for the past month. There was questions as to what the charges were. The officer who investigated this has been doing the investigations on his own. He was assisted by foreign experts. In the event of the death of the investigating officer somebody else needs to take over the case.’’
Magistrate: “If that is the case that he is being charged under the Public Property Act where is the certificate?’’
CID Officer: “I need time as I have been handling the case only for a month.’’
Magistrate: “If the offence involves an amount exceeding Rs 25,000 an officer of the level of ASP or above should submit a certificate. If that is not the case, the Bail Act becomes relevant. The suspect is being produced in court five years later and now the prosecution is asking under what act is the investigations being carried out. This is an unusual situation. Whoever did it, it is the police which has submitted this. The losses are to the government. It is clear that the certificate has not been submitted deliberately. The investigating officers have prepared the conditions to obtain bail. The offence involves an amount of US$7 million and how can it be said that the public would not be disturbed. In this case if the Attorney General is also appearing he should be able to respond to these questions. Where is the certificate, if it is an offence under the Public Property Act. The AG is there to respond to that if the AG is for the prosecution. There cannot be two ways. Therefore, I am further remanding the suspect.
“On the previous occasion the CID said they needed 10 days to record the statement. The court was told that recording statements in prison is difficult. Isn’t the prosecution seeking permission to record the statement?’’
The court told the CID to submit a further report on February 26.
The FCID had submitted to court details of 16 bank accounts of Udayanga Weeratunga which has US$1.7 million, and 50 bank accounts of five relatives of Weeratunga. They also had submitted details of four foreign bank accounts of Weeratunga and reports from 15 countries related to the investigations.
The court on January 19, 2019, issued an order preventing the disposal of properties of Weeratunga valued at over Rs 60 million. They include two lands and a two-storey house in Borella.