Ranil defends actions before CIABOC

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe 

• Raises concerns over investigation transparency
• Claims depositing funds without appropriate authorisation would be unlawful, whereas withdrawing for their intended purpose would not constitute a crime
• Opines diverting Govt. funds into deposit accounts disrupts economic activity by withholding money that should circulate through economy to stimulate growth

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe yesterday defended his conduct whilst questioning the transparency of the investigation by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), and reiterated his concerns over the handling of public finances.

Holding a media briefing after providing a statement to the CIABOC regarding comments he made on the ongoing investigation into former Uva Province Chief Minister Chamara Sampath Dassanayake, Wickremesinghe discussed the broader issue of financial management within Provincial and Central Governments. 

Wickremesinghe had previously been summoned by the Commission on two occasions, but requested alternate dates each time. He has since communicated through his lawyer, formally requesting to appear yesterday. The Commission has warned that failure to appear without a valid reason will result in action being taken under Section 126 of the Act.

In a detailed briefing, the former President explained that he had been summoned by the CIABOC following remarks he made on 10 April, and despite informing the Commission in advance about his unavailability and noting that his legal counsel Ronald Perera was also out of the country—he received multiple notices to appear before the Commission on 25 April.

Wickremesinghe criticised the Commission for leaking information about his summons to the media, pointing out that while the CIABOC called individuals daily to provide statements, there was no precedent for publicising it beforehand. He objected to letters sent to him being disclosed to third parties and raised concerns about breaches of confidentiality, stating that during a rally on 11 April in Batticaloa, President Anura Kumara Disanayake had already mentioned his summons to the CIABOC. 

Playing an audiovisual clip of the President’s remarks to the media, Wickremesinghe asserted that this indicated the President was being informed of internal CIABOC communications, leading him to question, “How can CIABOC matters be discussed or shared with the President?” He added: “I don’t know if this is ‘Clean Sri Lanka’ or something else Sri Lanka.”

Against this backdrop, Wickremesinghe stressed the importance of legal representation, stating that due to the unfolding nature of the situation and concerns over fairness, he insisted on having his lawyers present during proceedings. 

“I don’t know if I will be served justice, and therefore I insisted on needing my lawyer,” he said, fearing that he could face inquiries similar to those conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and expressing doubt about the impartiality of the process.

Addressing the substance of the inquiry, Wickremesinghe explained: “According to the Appropriation Act, funds allocated must be used for either recurrent or capital expenditures and cannot legally be deposited into accounts unless specifically allowed by legislation.” 

He claimed that depositing such funds without appropriate authorisation would be unlawful, whereas withdrawing them for their intended purpose would not constitute a crime.

The former President opined that diverting Government funds into deposit accounts disrupts economic activity by withholding money that should circulate through the economy to stimulate growth. 

He pointed out that essential Government functions, such as the timely payment of public sector salaries, depend on the efficient use of Budgeted funds. He argued that delaying expenditures by locking funds into deposits would hamper economic growth and force the Government into unnecessary borrowing. 

He also noted that historically, there was a practice instituted around 2002 to ensure that Government money was deposited in commercial banks—the People’s Bank and the Bank of Ceylon—for higher interest rate returns, whilst noting the National Savings Bank was not a commercial bank.

In defending his earlier statements, Wickremesinghe stated that any suggestion that he acted improperly by questioning the practice of depositing public funds was unfounded. “The greater violation was the unauthorised depositing of funds, not their use,” he said.

He also criticised the issuance of circulars not grounded in law, noting that several past practices, including those in 2008 and 2016, may have lacked a proper legal basis.

Wickremesinghe elaborated on the 2023 Public Finance Management Bill, which was introduced to address these gaps in the system and ensure more transparent financial practices. “Without adherence to proper financial regulations, there was a risk of funds being misused or misappropriated,” he opined.

Ending his statement, Wickremesinghe expressed concern that his testimony could be leaked or misrepresented, but maintained that he had provided the CIABOC with all necessary information.

“I don’t know to whom they are showing my statement now,” he quipped. 

The former President’s summons relate to remarks made by him earlier this month, when he defended Dassanayake’s actions by claiming that the MP had operated under a circular issued during Wickremesinghe’s own tenure as Prime Minister. Wickremesinghe, who is now the leader of the New Democratic Front (NDF), publicly questioned whether Dassanayake’s arrest was politically motivated, noting the MP’s recent criticism of the Government in Parliament.

Dassanayake, a member of the NDF, was arrested on 27 March over three separate cases of alleged corruption. He remains in remand custody due to an order issued by the Badulla Magistrate’s Court, despite having secured bail in cases filed at the Colombo Magistrate’s Court.

The charges against Dassanayake involve the misappropriation of Rs. 1 million from the Uva Provincial Council in 2016. The CIABOC alleges that he solicited funds from three State banks under the pretext of procuring school bags for preschool children in the province. Two banks released Rs. 1 million and Rs. 2.5 million, respectively, which were later transferred to his personal foundation account. When a third bank refused, Dassanayake is accused of retaliating by withdrawing the Uva Provincial Council’s fixed deposits from that institution, resulting in a reported loss of Rs. 17.3 million to the Government.