News
Udayanga’s reasons for bail rejected; court seeks answers on probe officers’ removal
View(s):The reasons former ambassador Udayanga Weeratunga cited this week in support of his bail application in the MiG deal case were rejected by Colombo Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake.
The counsel appearing for Mr. Weeratunga, one-time Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Russia, told court the certification to confirm that the offence had been committed under the Public Property Act had not been submitted to courts at the specified time.
The magistrate said if the suspect was to be released on bail there should be special reasons to be considered. He ordered that the suspect be re-remanded until March 11 and if there were special reasons to be considered for bail they could be produced by his counsel on the next date.
He also ordered that copies of the documents filed in court be handed over to the defendant as requested by the counsel.
When the case was taken up on Wednesday, the Criminal Investigation Department submitted a further report into the investigations along with the certificate to confirm that the offence came under the Public Property Act.
Senior State Counsel Udara Karunaratna said Deputy Solicitor General Thusith Mudalige appearing in the case had already provided advice to the CID on two occasions.
The magistrate raised the question as to why the Acting Inspector General of Police had failed to respond to the query with regard to the removal of Chief Inspector Nihal Francis and his supervising officer SSP Pavithra Dayaratna from the investigations.
DSG Mudalige told court he had sought a clarification from the CID, but so far he had not received a response.
The magistrate re-issued the order directing the Acting IGP to explain whether the officials involved in the investigations could be brought back to continue the investigations and if not why.
The court was informed that Nelum Duminda Mannapperuma, a resident of Kandy and relative of Mr. Weeratunga, was being named as the seventh suspect. The CID sought that an arrest warrant be issued on Mr. Mannapperuma.
Mr. Weeratunga’s counsel Asith Siriwardena said the CID had filed the complaint based on unconfirmed information and that it was not correct to say that the suspect had made US$ 7 million from the MiG deal.
The counsel pointed out though it was mentioned that the agreement was signed at Mr. Weeratunga’s residence it was not mentioned that the office was also located in the same building.
He said the original documents of the agreement had not been submitted to court and the complaint had been lodged without verifying information.