Defense counsels subjected the investigative process to severe scrutiny during the Trial-at-Bar at the Colombo Permanent High Court, where 12 accused—including the former Health Minister and the Health Secretary—are being tried over the procurement of substandard pharmaceuticals. Under cross-examination before the bench comprising Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage, Judge Viraj Weerasuriya, and Judge Thilakarathne Bandara, the 339th prosecution witness, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Inspector of Police Eranga Prabhash Laksiri, faced rigorous questioning. The defense presented compelling arguments suggesting that the prosecution’s indictment is based on an incomplete investigation, marred by language deficiencies, and driven by malicious intent.
Language Deficiencies and Incomplete Document Review
During his cross-examination, President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana, representing the 10th accused, demonstrated that the CID investigating officer had failed to properly examine essential stock reports, email correspondence, and cabinet memoranda. Notably, it was heavily exposed how the written endorsements of the 10th accused were misinterpreted due to the investigating officer’s lack of proficiency in the English language.
- President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana : “Were you capable of independently reading and comprehending the subsequent minute made by Dr. Rathnayake on that day?”
- CID Witness: “I comprehended it by having an officer proficient in English read it to me. However, I did not make a record of doing so.”
- President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana: “Even after three years, as we reach the end of this trial, you are still unable to read the note made by the tenth accused.”
- CID Witness: “The handwriting is unclear, My Lord.”
- President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana: “Did you attempt to read it? Did you make a record of that attempt?”
- CID Witness: “No, My Lord, I did not make a record. It was revealed during the investigation.”
The investigator had failed to properly comprehend the instructions given by the 10th accused to ‘retender’ essential drugs upon obtaining approval from the Health Sector Emergency Procurement Committee. Furthermore, based on the testimony of prosecution witness Tharindi Dabare, the prosecution had erroneously interpreted this directive as a ‘re-evaluation’.
- President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana: “Do not use the investigation as a shield to cover up this case and hide your shortcomings. I suggest that you are doing exactly that. I also suggest that you investigated these matters with the malicious intent of imposing criminal liability upon the accused.”
- CID Witness: “I reject that, My Lord.”
The incompleteness of the investigation was further corroborated by the CID’s failure to examine the weekly emails sent by the Medical Supplies Division’s Chief Stock Controller, Nandana Bandara, to his superiors. Additionally, statements were not recorded from Shiranthi Dissanayake, who prepared the cabinet memorandum, or the relevant subject management assistant, and no investigation was conducted into the crossing out of the word ‘visit’ on a critical document.
Counsel Nayantha Wijesundara Challenges Telephone Records and Technical Evidence
Issues raised by Counsel Nayantha Wijesundara, representing the 8th accused (the former Health Minister), exposed prevailing weaknesses in how the CID analyzed telephone records. While telephone records were utilized to trace the whereabouts of the 1st accused, no technical verification was conducted to confirm whether the individuals had actually attended the alleged meetings.
- Counsel Nayantha Wijesundara: “As an investigator, when you received certain meeting minutes, did you obtain telephone records to technically verify whether the individuals purported to be at those respective meetings were actually present?”
- CID Witness: “In this instance, I did not. I only recorded the statements of the individuals who participated in the meeting.”
Although the counsel attempted to direct further questions regarding the examination of telephone records on the relevant dates, Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage highlighted a legal impediment to that line of questioning.
- Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage: “This question is presented as a hypothetical query regarding whether a participant was absent, rather than focusing on a specific meeting on the face of it. Presenting evidence regarding hypothetical events is excluded under Section 3 of the Evidence Ordinance. An order has already been issued stating that the eighth accused cannot present evidence of an alibi. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
Furthermore, the counsel brought to the Court’s attention that when the 8th accused arrived at the CID to provide a statement on February 02, 2024, he was detained for nearly 11 hours, from 9:15 AM to 8:00 PM. During this extended period, he was only provided with rolls, patties, and vegetable roti during breaks, after which he was formally arrested. It was also established that this entire investigation was initiated based on a complaint lodged by Sanjaya Rajeewa Gerard Perera, an advisor to the 8th accused himself.
Through the testimony of the investigating officer, the defense counsels effectively demonstrated that this entire investigation is profoundly incomplete, structured upon bypassing essential documents, covering up language deficiencies, and harboring the intent to unjustly impose criminal liability upon the accused.
(Source: Original Court Report via The Leader website)