Legal Analysis of Bureaucratic Blindness Exposed in Substandard Medicine Trial
The high-profile trial concerning the procurement of substandard medicines, which allegedly caused a financial loss of Rs. 140 million to the state, resumed before the Colombo Permanent Trial-at-Bar today. Instituted by the Attorney General under 13 counts against 12 defendants, including former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, the case is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising High Court Judges Priyantha Liyanage (President), Viraj Weerasuriya, and Thilakaratne Bandara.
The prosecution called T.A. Susantha Athula Kumara, the former Director General of the Department of Public Enterprises at the Ministry of Finance, to the witness stand. The examination-in-chief, conducted by Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama, elicited revelations that extended far beyond the immediate criminal charges, exposing severe systemic accountability failures and gross professional oversight within Sri Lanka’s public service.
Key Courtroom Cross-Examination Highlights
The line of questioning by the Deputy Solicitor General regarding how procurement committee members acted on “blind trust” without personally scrutinizing official files exposed critical administrative lapses:
Deputy Solicitor General: In what manner were these handwritten sheets presented?
Witness (Susantha Athula Kumara): They were presented as a file. It was disorganized and could not even be properly examined at that moment; it was not a printed document. Dr. Jayanath personally held the file and explained the details regarding the lowest price, delivery time, and quality.
Deputy Solicitor General: Didn’t the committee make a collective decision?
Witness (Susantha Athula Kumara): Yes, we questioned further. We were told that a Cabinet paper had been submitted and that medicines currently out of stock needed to be procured urgently. It was mentioned that residual funds from the Indian Credit Line were available and could be utilized. I did not personally take that document into my hands to read it.
Deputy Solicitor General: Did you or the other two committee members compare these two sets of documents? Did you personally inspect them?
Witness (Susantha Athula Kumara): No. Only a single document was presented to the three of us. The handwriting was difficult to decipher. Furthermore, having worked together since 2021, there was no reason for suspicion, so I signed it.
Legal and Administrative Analysis: Bureaucratic Blindness
The recorded testimony underscores three fundamental institutional and legal failures within public financial management and state governance:
I. The Public Trust Doctrine and the ‘Rubber-Stamping’ Culture
Under administrative law, a procurement committee member functions as a custodian of public funds, bound by the Public Trust Doctrine. Explanations citing “illegible handwriting” or “heavy workloads” possess no exculpatory validity under the law. The personal and collective liabilities imposed on committee members by Financial Regulations cannot be legally abated by passively relying on verbal summaries presented by a coordinating official. Ratifying multi-million rupee state procurements without reviewing the source documents constitutes a prima facie breach of fiduciary duty.
II. Exploitation of ‘Emergency Procurements’ as an Accountability Shield
The witness stated that because the committee was appointed pursuant to a Cabinet decision, he presumed further verification of Cabinet validation was redundant. This underscores a pervasive bureaucratic tendency to treat executive directives as total shields against personal responsibility. Authorizing extensive state expenditure based on disorganized, handwritten notes—without evaluating the foundational Expression of Interest (EOI) advertisements—under the pretext of a “national medicine shortage” demonstrates either profound professional ignorance or criminal negligence.
III. Complete Breakdown of Internal Controls
The revelation that the procurement quantity for the critical drug Human Immunoglobulin was covertly altered from 22,500 to 7,500 units—only discovered by the witness during a subsequent disciplinary inquiry—exposes a fatal lack of post-evaluation checks. That such a discrepancy bypassed standard administrative review indicates that internal institutional safeguards were non-functional. Furthermore, the committee’s failure to involve the Internal Auditor underscores a reckless bypass of mandatory oversight.
Objective Legal Balance (The Sub-Judice Rule)
In strict compliance with the sub-judice rule governing ongoing judicial proceedings, the conflicting legal theories of the case must be evaluated equitably:
- The Prosecution (The State): Seeks to establish that senior officials systematically leveraged the blind trust or willful blindness of committee members to facilitate a coordinated fraud under the guise of an emergency.
- The Defense: Is positioned to argue that the decisions were made bona fide (in good faith) amid an unprecedented national crisis to prevent total stockouts of life-saving medicines, relying on established institutional trust and executive directives.
Notably, the fact that the Ministry of Public Administration subsequently exonerated the witness during an internal disciplinary inquiry highlights the legal complexity of assigning individual criminal culpability within an inherently broken, systemic hierarchy.
Regardless of the final judicial verdict, this trial serves as an undeniable precedent highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive reforms in Sri Lanka’s public procurement laws and bureaucratic accountability frameworks.
Official Roster of Defendants and Legal Representation
The 12 defendants indicted in connection with this financial misappropriation case and their respective legal counsels are formally on record as follows:
- Sudath Janaka Fernando (Isoles Biotech Pharma) – Represented by Counsel Harendra Banagala.
- Dr. Kapila Wickramanayake (Then-Director, Medical Supplies Division) – Represented by Counsel Asela Serasinghe.
- Peace Devasanthini Solomons (Assistant Director, MSD) – Represented by Counsel Isuru.
- Marakkala Manage Niran Dhananjaya (Accountant, MSD) – Represented by Counsel Asoka Serasinghe.
- Mahamadaachchi Sujith Wasantha Kumara (Stock Controller, MSD) – Represented by Counsel Asoka Serasinghe.
- Seema Hovage Janaka Sri Chandragupta (Then-Secretary, Ministry of Health) – Represented by Counsel Nuwan Jayawardena.
- Herath Mudiyanselage Dharmasiri Rathna Kumara Herath (Deputy Director General, MSD) – [Legal representation not annotated in court records].
- Keheliya Bandara Dissanayake Rambukwella (Then-Minister of Health) – Represented by Counsel Anuja Premaratne and Counsel Nayantha Wijesundera.
- Buthpitiya Lekamlage Don Jayanath (Medical Officer, Medical Supplies Procurement Regulatory Unit) – Represented by Counsel Rahul Jayatilaka.
- Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Saman Kusumsiri Rathnayake (Additional Secretary, MSD) – Represented by President’s Counsel Priyantha Nawana.
- Arambe Gedara Thusitha Sudarshana (Deputy Director, MSD) – Represented by Counsel Amitha Ariyaratne.
- Dr. Vijith Gunasekera (Then-CEO, National Medicines Regulatory Authority) – Represented by Counsel Chaminda Athukorala.
(Further trial proceedings and cross-examinations have been deferred to May 20.)