The defence in the Airbus bribery case against MP Namal Rajapaksa has said there was no direct email exchange between him and the aircraft manufacturer, Hiru News reported on Saturday.
Attorney-at-Law Manoj Gamage, speaking to journalists outside court, said none of the emails produced before the court contains Namal Rajapaksa’s name. The exchanges referred to in proceedings were between officials connected to the company, he said, and do not establish that his client received a bribe.
Gamage said the prosecution’s case rests principally on a statement given to the authorities by businessman Nimal Perera.
The legal argument being made
The defence’s central submission is a rule of evidence rather than a dispute over facts: Gamage argued that a person cannot be convicted solely on the statement of an alleged accomplice without corroborating evidence.
That framing does two things at once. It concedes, for the purposes of argument, that Perera’s statement implicates Rajapaksa — while asserting that the statement cannot carry a conviction on its own. It also explains why the emails matter so much to both sides: if the documentary record is the corroboration the prosecution needs, the defence’s claim that no email bears Rajapaksa’s name is aimed directly at it.
Gamage separately questioned the credibility of Perera’s evidence.
A denial about a second Rajapaksa
Gamage also rejected as false reports that money connected to the transaction had been transferred to an account belonging to Shameendra Rajapaksa. Hiru does not say which reports he was referring to, who published them, or what relationship is asserted between that account and the case.
The name should not be confused with Shashindra Rajapaksa, the former minister facing separate CIABOC indictments in the Mahaweli reparations matter. Hiru gives no identifying detail — no office, no relationship — that would settle which individual is meant.
Where the case stands
Rajapaksa was remanded until 29 September at his last appearance, in a case concerning an alleged Rs. 100 million bribe linked to the SriLankan Airlines aircraft deal. He is the subject of a separate money-laundering investigation arising from the same transaction.
Gamage further alleged that sections of the government are attempting to distort the court proceedings and present them to the public in a misleading way. He did not name any individual or institution.
Not reported
Hiru does not report whether these submissions were made in court or only to reporters outside it, and gives no response from the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. It does not say how many emails have been produced, who the officials named in them are, or whether the prosecution claims Rajapaksa was copied or referenced indirectly.
No date is given for Perera’s statement, and it is not reported whether he is a suspect, a witness, or has been granted any indemnity — which is the question the accomplice-evidence argument turns on.
