Defense counsels launched a formidable critique of the prosecution’s evidentiary loopholes and procedural lapses during the Trial-at-Bar at the Colombo Permanent High Court, where 12 accused—including former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella—are standing trial over the alleged procurement of substandard pharmaceuticals.
Appearing before the three-judge bench comprising Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage, Judge Viraj Weerasuriya, and Judge Thilakarathne Bandara, Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Lakmini Girihagama, representing the prosecution, sought special leave from the Court to add seven new witnesses to the prosecution’s roster, thereby bringing the total number of state witnesses to 362.
Crucially, this application was moved following the conclusion of the testimony of the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) lead investigating officer. The DSG apprised the Court that the prosecution is still in the process of scrutinizing the daily trial proceedings and case records.
The prosecution conceded before the bench that while original copies of certain documents had been tendered, compared, and subsequently released during the trial, this vital chain of custody had not been properly minuted in the court record for over 50 documents. Furthermore, the DSG disclosed that several original documents are currently in the custody of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), thereby necessitating their recall from the respective institutions.
At this juncture, President’s Counsel (PC) Priyantha Nawana, defending the 10th accused, vehemently challenged the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation. He raised a formidable legal objection when the prosecution indicated its intent to summon documents pertaining to the 10th accused from the Public Service Commission (PSC).
PC Priyantha Nawana: “My client’s appointment was officially made by the Public Service Commission. The original copy of that appointment letter has already been submitted to this Court!”
Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage: “If the original appointment letter has already been adduced, what additional documents do you intend to summon regarding this matter?”
Deputy Solicitor General: “The appointment letter in question can be accepted. However, due to certain anomalies surrounding the appointment, the ancillary documents cannot be accepted. The personal file of the tenth accused contains only four documents. A subsequent inquiry revealed that the remaining documents are missing. The prosecution is still actively searching for these documents.”
PC Priyantha Nawana: “An appointment granted by the Public Service Commission can exclusively be challenged by instituting a Fundamental Rights petition before the Supreme Court!”
By capitalizing on the prosecution’s startling admission that they are “still searching” for evidence in the midst of a trial, the defense successfully demonstrated that the indictment had been filed sans a comprehensive documentary review. Consequently, the prosecution was compelled to concede in open court that they were not challenging the appointment of the 10th accused.
In a parallel development favorable to the defense, PC Anuja Premaratne, representing the 8th accused, tendered two documents on behalf of his client. The DSG was obligated to accept these as true copies of the originals under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without raising any objections.
A procedural debate also ensued over a list of documents submitted by Counsel Aravindu Manatunga Arachchi on behalf of the 7th accused. Although the prosecution argued against accepting certain meeting minutes as they bore the signature of the 7th accused himself, the defense counsel countered that these were official records retrieved directly from the file of the Deputy Director General of the Medical Supplies Division (MSD). Consequently, the prosecution acceded to formally summon those official records. Counsel Surangi, appearing for the 5th accused, also tendered a document list to the Court.
To formally establish the provenance of these documents, the prosecution sought leave to summon a new cohort of institutional witnesses, including the Director General of Health Services, the Secretary to the Ministry of Health, the Deputy Director General of the MSD, the Chairman of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), the General Manager of the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation (SPC), the Director General of CIABOC, and the High Court Registrar, or their authorized representatives. Noting no objections from the defense, the bench granted the application.
Despite initially relying on a witness list exceeding 350 individuals and nearly 300 exhibits after years of investigation, the prosecution’s eleventh-hour scramble to summon new state officials to formally adduce documents—long after the lead investigator’s testimony had concluded—has provided the defense ample ammunition to thoroughly expose the glaringly incomplete nature of the CID’s investigation before the High Court.