The Attorney General has filed an indictment of 24 charges against MP Namal Rajapaksa before the Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar over the Airbus transaction, the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court was told on Tuesday. In a separate case called the same morning, his counsel asked for bail so he could see his mother before she underwent open-heart surgery that afternoon.

Rajapaksa, the SLPP’s National Organiser, was brought from remand custody to the Hulftsdorp Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday morning, NewsFirst reported at 11.43 a.m. Both matters before the court on Tuesday were filed by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), and both were heard by Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama.

The Airbus indictment: 24 charges, 59 witnesses

Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara told the court that the indictment had been filed before the Colombo Permanent Trial-at-Bar and that it lists 59 witnesses, the Daily Mirror reported at 12.42 p.m. The case concerns the alleged acceptance of a Rs. 100 million bribe connected to the Airbus aircraft procurement deal, NewsFirst reports.

This closes a sequence this desk has tracked since mid-October, when the Attorney General told the court that investigations were complete and that he would seek the Chief Justice’s directions for a three-judge trial-at-bar. The indictment has now actually been filed, and its size — 24 counts, 59 witnesses — is new.

The Magistrate’s Court steps back

The filing of the indictment changed what the Magistrate could do. Delivering his order, Bodaragama said that because an indictment had already been filed before the Permanent Trial-at-Bar, the Magistrate’s Court was no longer in a position to issue any judicial order concerning the suspect in that case — it could neither grant bail nor remand him, the Daily Mirror reported at 1.54 p.m. He added that bail would not be granted in any event, as no exceptional circumstances had been presented.

Rajapaksa is accordingly to be held in custody until he is produced before the Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar on 29 October, as NewsFirst reported at 2.45 p.m.

One date is reported inconsistently. The Daily Mirror’s opening paragraph gives 29 October, matching NewsFirst’s headline and body, but the same filing twice says the court directed that he be produced before the Trial-at-Bar “tomorrow” — 28 October. Two of the three statements available, across two newsrooms, give 29 October, and this report follows them.

The second case: bail sought on his mother’s surgery

Later the same day, President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for Rajapaksa in the Krrish deal case, filed a motion seeking bail and citing the medical condition of Rajapaksa’s mother as an exceptional circumstance, the Daily Mirror reported at 2.49 p.m.

Sabry told the court that Shiranthi Rajapaksa was scheduled to undergo open-heart surgery at 4 p.m. that day and was using a pacemaker, and that Rajapaksa’s father was also in poor health. He asked the court to take into account the submissions he had made earlier that morning in the Airbus case, which had been called first, Hiru News reported at 2.56 p.m.

The relief he sought was specific. The Daily Mirror reports that Rajapaksa wished to visit his mother before she underwent the surgery, counsel adding that it was uncertain whether he would have another opportunity to see her, depending on her condition.

Hiru’s Sinhala account carries the fuller version of the submission. It gives Mahinda Rajapaksa’s age as 81 and Shiranthi Rajapaksa’s as 74, says the former President has been hospitalised and that his treatment is administered at home by his wife, and reports counsel as telling the court that a special examination had established that she required two surgeries — one now complete, the other, the one carrying a risk to life, set for 4 p.m. Namal, the eldest son, had been living in the same house as both parents until he was remanded.

Hiru renders the close of the submission as a direct quotation:

“If we are required to give more exceptional grounds than this, we would have to invent them.”

The Daily Mirror renders the same point flatly, reporting that counsel submitted no further exceptional circumstances could be advanced in support of the application. The substance is the same; Hiru’s is the transcript and carries the rhetorical force.

What the court did

The Magistrate observed that the bail application had been made by way of a motion before the case was taken up. The Bribery Commission told the court it wished to examine the documents filed in support of the application and make submissions on it. The Magistrate directed that the documents be furnished to the Commission and fixed the bail application for an order on Wednesday, 28 October. Hiru reports the same outcome, describing the case as recalled on the 28th for the matters to be considered.

Why the ground has shifted

The argument is a direct answer to the reason bail was refused four days earlier. On 23 October the same Chief Magistrate refused bail in the Krrish case for want of “exceptional and acceptable grounds”, rejected the defence’s challenge to three certificates issued under Section 149(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, and remanded Rajapaksa to 6 November. Tuesday’s motion does not re-argue that ruling; it puts forward a new circumstance.

The surgery itself is not a new claim. On 13 October the defence told the court that Shiranthi Rajapaksa was scheduled for open-heart surgery, and the court then directed prison officials to verify it — a sequence recorded in this desk’s coverage of her custody, which also notes her admission to the National Hospital’s cardiology unit on 12 October. Tuesday’s submission puts a date and an hour on an operation first raised a fortnight ago.

Not reported

No filing says whether the 4 p.m. surgery went ahead, or what its outcome was. None states where it was performed, or whether Rajapaksa was permitted to visit his mother before the court ruled.

None of the three newsrooms sets out the 24 charges in the Airbus indictment, names the statutes under which they are framed, or says whether any co-accused are named in it. None says when the Trial-at-Bar was constituted or who sits on it.

No filing reports what the Bribery Commission’s position on the bail application is — only that it asked to see the documents first. None says whether the 6 November remand date in the Krrish case stands if bail is refused again on Wednesday.

Hiru alone carries the ages, the detail of the two surgeries and the quoted submission; the Daily Mirror alone carries the request to visit and the procedural observation about the motion. Neither account contradicts the other on any point checked. Ada Derana, which has been returning a CloudFront block to this desk for 44 consecutive days, could not be checked.

Sources