Witnesses Testify Over Dehiwala Land Deal in Yoshitha Rajapaksa Case

COLOMBO (News 1st); The Attorney General's Department informed the Colombo High Court that the prosecution's evidence in the money laundering case filed against Yoshitha Rajapaksa, son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, could be concluded on the next hearing date.

The announcement was made by Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, when the case was taken up before court.

The Attorney General has filed the case against the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, alleging that five land parcels valued at more than Rs. 73 million were unlawfully acquired.

When the case was called before Colombo High Court Judge Udesh Ranatunga on Thursday (10), evidence for the prosecution was recorded under the direction of Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara.

Prosecution witness Irene Silva, giving evidence before court, stated that the land located at No. 163/2, Galle Road, Dehiwala, had been purchased from her by Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Here's an extract of the statement give by Prosecution Witness Irene Silva:

"My siblings and I owned the land at No. 163/2, Galle Road, Dehiwala. We later decided to sell the property, and I agreed to the sale. We were informed that Mr. Yoshitha was purchasing the land. Afterwards, we went to the house next door, which belonged to Mr. Yoshitha, to discuss the price. Mr. Yoshitha told me that he would pay Rs. 3.32 million for my share of the property. After the sale was completed, I received Rs. 3.37 million. The deeds were signed on two occasions. A person named Daisy Forrest did not come to sign any of the documents."

Subsequently, another prosecution witness, Gamage Violet Fernando, testified that the land situated at No. 163/2, Galle Road, Dehiwala, had been sold to Yoshitha Rajapaksa and explained how payment for her share of the property had been made.

Here's an extract of the statement give by Prosecution Witness Gamage Violet Fernando:

"My brothers and I decided to sell the property located at No. 163/2, Galle Road, Dehiwala, and I agreed to the sale. It was Mr. Yoshitha who discussed the purchase of the land. Later, we were invited to the residence of Mr. Yoshitha's mother, Mrs. Shiranthi, to discuss the price. Mr. Yoshitha handled the negotiations and initially offered me Rs. 2.5 million for my share. I told him that I wanted Rs. 5 million. After the sale of the property, I received Rs. 3.3 million. The payment was made to me at the office of Mr. Yoshitha Rajapaksa's elder brother, Mr. Namal Rajapaksa. I always understood that the land was being purchased by Mr. Yoshitha. I was never aware that someone named Daisy was buying the property. I do not know anyone named Daisy Forrest and have never met such a person."

Thereafter, prosecution witness Palitha Gamage was called to testify. During examination, he repeatedly provided testimony that contradicted answers he had previously given.

At that stage, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara informed court that it appeared the witness had continuously provided contradictory and false information both to investigators and before the court.

Janaka Bandara further stated that the witness had, on several occasions while giving evidence, admitted that some of his previous statements were untrue.

Accordingly, the Deputy Solicitor General informed court that the prosecution intended to initiate legal proceedings against the witness under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He therefore requested the court to release the witness in a manner that would enable him to be summoned again if required.

After considering the submissions, the High Court Judge ordered that the witness be released on Rs. 2 million personal bail and directed him to appear before court on every future hearing date.

The case was fixed for further hearing on October 2, and the court directed the remaining prosecution witnesses to be present on that date.

During proceedings, Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara informed court that the recording of evidence from prosecution witnesses could likely be completed on the next hearing date.

He further stated that the prosecution expects to conclude its evidence by then and, if necessary, would seek permission to call any additional witnesses by filing a motion before court.

The case is scheduled to be recalled on October 2.