Defense Erupts Over Prosecutorial Conduct in Sri Lanka’s Immunoglobulin Trial
A tense legal showdown unfolded before the Permanent High Court at Bar during the trial concerning the fraudulent procurement of substandard Human Immunoglobulin and Rituximab. The defense vehemently objected when the prosecution allegedly attempted to instruct a court officer directly to amend court records without prior notification to the bench, sparking a crucial debate on judicial transparency and due process.
This high-profile trial, which involves the misappropriation of LKR 144.4 million in public funds, implicates 12 defendants, including former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella. The case is currently being heard by a three-judge bench comprising High Court Judges Priyantha Liyanage (President), Viraj Weerasuriya, and Thilakaratne Bandara.
Courtroom Friction: The Dispute Over Court Records
In any criminal trial, preserving the absolute transparency of the court record is imperative. It safeguards the ‘Right to a Fair Trial’ guaranteed under Article 13(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and aligns with the strict provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.
The conflict ignited during yesterday’s proceedings when Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Lakmini Girihagama, leading the prosecution, purportedly handed a note directly to a court officer to amend a record regarding a witness’s testimony.
President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana and Attorney-at-Law Rahul Jayatilake, representing the defense, immediately raised strong objections. They argued that amendments to the official court record cannot be executed solely at the behest of the prosecution without the explicit oversight of the presiding judges.
“Amendments to the trial records cannot be made by directly instructing court officers to suit the requirements of the Deputy Solicitor General. Doing so without informing the bench is completely unacceptable in a trial of this magnitude,” the defense counsel argued.
The defense emphasized that in the event of an appeal to a higher court—such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court—the appellate process relies entirely on the integrity of this written record. Consequently, Attorney Jayatilake requested the court to formally minute the objection to accurately reflect how the trial was being conducted.
The Bench’s Directive: Intervening impartially to uphold the rule of law, the President of the Bench directed the prosecution that any necessary amendments must be brought directly to the court’s attention, rather than communicated to the court staff. He affirmed that the bench would facilitate any legitimate corrections once properly informed.
In response, the DSG clarified that she had merely provided a document containing reference numbers to facilitate the court officer’s duties and had no intention of improperly altering the record.
Procurement Tragedies Revealed: Flagrant AR and FR Violations
The cross-examination of the prosecution’s 150th witness, Kalpana Tharindi Dabare, a Development Officer at the Ministry of Health, exposed severe procedural lapses. Her testimony highlighted blatant violations of the Government’s Financial Regulations (FR) and the Establishments Code (AR) during the emergency procurement process.
- Post-Dated Minutes: Dabare admitted that while an emergency procurement committee meeting was supposedly held on October 23, 2022, she prepared the official minutes days later, after October 25. Furthermore, she confessed that she had not attended the meeting herself. Instead, she drafted the minutes entirely based on rough notes and verbal instructions provided by the 7th accused, Dr. Jayanath Buthpitiya (who is currently overseas).
- Absence of Specifications: She conceded that the bidding documents lacked vital product specifications—such as whether the drug was required in powder or liquid form. This omission is a direct violation of standard government procurement guidelines.
- Arbitrary Drug Substitutions: The witness also testified that drugs not initially on the priority list were arbitrarily added to the procurement documents, based merely on instructions that they were “similar” to other listed items.
🏛️ Legal Arguments on the “Best Evidence Rule”
Attorney-at-Law Rahul Jayawardena, representing Dr. Buthpitiya, challenged the prosecution’s strategy of examining a clerical officer who merely typed the documents, rather than summoning the actual members of the procurement committee to testify.
While this argument aligns closely with the ‘Best Evidence Rule’ under the Evidence Ordinance, the President of the Bench ruled strictly within the criminal procedure framework, affirming:
“The prerogative to decide which witnesses to call to establish the case lies entirely with the prosecution.”
Summary and Outlook
With over 350 witnesses and nearly 300 case productions, this trial remains one of the most complex in Sri Lanka’s legal history. The fierce objections raised by the defense regarding direct instructions to court officers highlight a foundational legal maxim: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
While the Permanent High Court at Bar retains the ultimate authority to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, the public continues to monitor the proceedings closely, expecting a fair trial where the rule of law remains paramount.