: High-Stakes Legal Clashes and a Crucial Court Ruling in Sri Lanka’s Immunoglobulin Scam Trial
A fierce legal battle erupted yesterday (29) before the Permanent High Court at Bar regarding the admissibility of evidence and the “subsequent conduct” of the accused, during the ongoing trial into the massive financial fraud surrounding the procurement of substandard Immunoglobulin vaccines.
The case, widely considered one of the most severe procurement scandals in Sri Lanka’s healthcare sector, involves former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and 11 other defendants. The core of yesterday’s hearing centered on a major technical objection raised by the defense counsel regarding the temporal limits of admissible evidence.
The Timeline Dispute: The Defense’s Argument
President’s Counsel (PC) Priyantha Nawana, representing the 10th accused, raised a critical preliminary objection. He argued that the prosecution has no legal right to lead evidence based on documents issued outside the specific timeframe stipulated in the indictment.
“My Lords, I strongly object to the leading of evidence based on this letter, which was issued during a period outside the timeframe specified in the indictment against the accused. Admitting this document will cause severe prejudice to the defendants. This 2023 letter cannot be reconciled with the charges in any manner. Furthermore, there is no separate specific note in the witness list indicating that a document outside the relevant period would be presented. Therefore, I request the Court not to allow evidence to be led regarding this letter.”
This objection was mounted when the prosecution attempted to introduce a letter dated 2023 into evidence.
The Evidence Ordinance and ‘Subsequent Conduct’
Mounting a robust counter-argument, Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Lakmini Girihagama, leading the prosecution, cited provisions from the Evidence Ordinance to clarify the legal standing of the document. She emphasized that the “subsequent conduct” of the accused following the alleged incident is highly relevant and can be proven irrespective of the indictment’s specific timeframe.
“My Lords, there is no provision in the Evidence Ordinance that restricts the presentation of evidence strictly to the relevant timeframe of the indictment. The ‘subsequent conduct’ of the accused in relation to the charges is a fact that must be proven, and this letter was utilized specifically for that purpose. This is entirely consistent with the Evidence Ordinance, and the details regarding this letter have been clearly included in the production list of this case.”
The Landmark Ruling by the High Court Bench
Having considered the extensive legal submissions from both parties, the Trial-at-Bar—comprising High Court Judges Priyantha Liyanage (President), Viraj Weerasuriya, and Thilakaratne Bandara—delivered a pivotal ruling:
- No Temporal Restriction: There is no legal mandate that the presentation of evidence must be strictly confined to the time period mentioned in the indictment.
- Prior Notice: The relevant document had been listed under item number 126 in the production list of the indictment, meaning the defense had been given prior notice.
- Relevancy of Conduct: The prosecution presented the document to establish the subsequent conduct of the 7th accused. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Ordinance, such conduct is considered a relevant fact.
Consequently, the Court granted the prosecution permission to lead evidence based on the disputed document.
A Second Legal Skirmish: Witness Competency
Following the Court’s ruling, as the DSG prepared to question the witness—Ms. Kalpana Tharindi Dabare, a Development Officer at the Ministry of Health—by displaying the document, another objection was raised by Counsel Nayantha Wijesundara, representing the 8th accused, former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella.
Counsel Nayantha Wijesundara:
“My Lords, this document was not drafted by the witness. It is stated that it was given to her solely for filing purposes. Under such circumstances, how can she testify regarding its contents? Her legal competency to testify on the substantive matters within this letter is highly questionable.”
DSG Lakmini Girihagama:
“My Lords, although she did not draft this letter, within the scope of her official duties, she has the capacity to read its contents and provide evidence before this Court.”
Revelations from the Stand: Financial and Administrative Deviations
Testifying for the fifth day amid these legal clashes, Ms. Dabare’s evidence brought to light several alleged violations of Financial Regulations (FR) and established procurement protocols.
She admitted that while standard procedure dictates that procurement documents for purchase orders should be forwarded to the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation (SPC) after selecting a supplier, in this specific transaction, the documents were routed directly to the Medical Supplies Division (MSD).
Pricing Discrepancies: Particular attention was drawn to the pricing submitted by the supplier, Isolez Biotech Pharma. The witness testified that the supplier had quoted a unit price of USD 130 and had agreed to provide a 5% discount. Consequently, on December 29, 2022, an agreement was reached to supply the drug at USD 123.50 per unit. However, the witness confirmed before the Court that the Ministry of Health had authorized payments to the bidder based on the undiscounted original rate of USD 130.
Furthermore, she testified that letters authorizing the emergency procurement process were drafted under the instructions of Mr. Buthpitiya, and she recognized the signatures of former Health Secretary Janaka Sri Chandraguptha and Dr. Saman Rathnayake on those documents.
The Scale of the Trial
The Attorney General has filed 13 indictments against the defendants, including charges of conspiring to misappropriate and criminal breach of trust regarding Rs. 144.4 million of public funds by supplying 6,195 vials of substandard materials masquerading as Human Immunoglobulin and Rituximab.