The Attorney General’s Department is reportedly divided over whether to file indictments against former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 16.6 million in State funds during a visit to the United Kingdom, The Sunday Times reports.
According to informed sources, the divergence of views centres on whether evidence gathered by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is sufficient to sustain an indictment, or whether it falls short of the threshold required to proceed with criminal charges.
The Sunday Times learns that Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Wasantha Perera, who had been supervising the investigation on behalf of the Attorney General’s Department, has withdrawn from overseeing the probe due to differences of opinion over its findings. DSG Perera, who also supervised the investigation into former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake in relation to the same matter, is understood to have taken the position that investigations had not revealed adequate evidence to charge either Mr. Wickremesinghe or any other individual.
In his assessment, DSG Perera has reportedly stated that in the absence of evidence to establish the primary offence against the former President, there would be no basis to pursue charges against Mr. Ekanayake for aiding and abetting. He has submitted a six-page report to Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe outlining the reasons why criminal proceedings could not be instituted against Mr. Wickremesinghe or others, citing deficiencies in the available evidence and investigation extracts.
However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, the lead supervising officer of the probe, has conveyed a contrary opinion to the Attorney General, stating that charges could be filed against the former President based on the material currently available. CID officers conducting the investigation have also aligned themselves with ASG Peiris’s assessment, The Sunday Times reports.
DSG Perera’s report has further noted that Mr. Wickremesinghe’s transit through the UK while travelling from Cuba to New York and onward to Sri Lanka was not unusual, and that a stopover in the UK would have been required regardless of whether an invitation had been received from the University of Wolverhampton. He has also raised concerns over the CID team’s travel to the UK without first obtaining Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, which he observed had prevented investigators from securing a statement from the relevant authorities on the authenticity of the alleged invitation letter.
Meanwhile, ASG Peiris has also forwarded to the Attorney General an 11-page report prepared by State Counsel Samadari Piyasena, following an analysis of investigation extracts relating to Mr. Ekanayake. In her assessment, Ms. Piyasena has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to arrest the former Presidential Secretary.
The Sunday Times further reports that the CID has yet to respond to a request from the Attorney General’s Department seeking extracts of additional investigations carried out by the CID team that travelled to the UK.
