Sri Lanka’s latest financial-crime investigation into a Rs. 10 million donation intended for a children’s hospital has exposed a troubling question: was money obtained for a critical medical machine actually used for that purpose, or was an already available scanner presented as the product of a private donation?
The Financial Crimes Investigation Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department is investigating the alleged misappropriation of funds released by the National Savings Bank to the Siriliya Foundation, chaired by former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa. The inquiry also covers foundation board members and other officials connected to the transaction.
According to preliminary findings, the foundation requested the money to purchase a CT scan machine for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children in Colombo. However, instead of acquiring a machine with the donated funds, a scanner supplied to Sri Lanka by the Chinese government under a loan agreement was subsequently donated to the hospital.
If established, the allegation would raise serious questions about the purpose for which the NSB funds were obtained, the accuracy of representations made to the bank, and the accountability of those who authorized and received the money.
The issue is not merely whether a CT scanner reached a hospital. Lady Ridgeway Hospital serves children requiring specialized medical care, and the availability of diagnostic equipment can directly affect the speed and quality of treatment. A donation made in the name of improving healthcare carries a public expectation that the promised resource will be acquired, funded and delivered transparently.
The investigation is being conducted under the instructions of Additional Solicitor General President’s Counsel Dilipa Peiris, acting on behalf of the Attorney General. CID officers have already questioned several individuals and recorded statements, including former NSB Chairman Pradeep Kariyawasam, who allegedly authorized the release of the funds based on verbal instructions.
That alleged authorization is another important dimension of the inquiry. Public-sector financial institutions are expected to maintain documentary evidence, approval procedures and clear audit trails when releasing substantial sums. If a Rs. 10 million payment was approved without adequate written authorization or verification, the investigation could expose weaknesses extending beyond the foundation itself.
The CID is expected to summon Shiranthi Rajapaksa, other foundation directors and responsible officials to record their statements as the inquiry progresses. Their explanations will be important in determining whether the funds were misused, whether the bank was misled, and who was responsible for the eventual donation.
The case also revives scrutiny of the Siriliya accounts, which had previously attracted attention over irregular documentation, including the alleged use of the national identity card number “222 222 222V” in banking transactions.
The central issue now is whether charitable fundraising was used to create the appearance of a contribution while public money financed the actual medical equipment. The investigation must establish the facts through documentary evidence, financial records and witness testimony. Until then, the allegations remain unproven but the questions surrounding the Rs. 10 million cannot be dismissed as a routine donation dispute.