Getting the Airbus case right

The renewed push to confront corruption is both necessary and long overdue. After years of public frustration, economic collapse, and a crisis of governance that culminated in the bankruptcy of 2022, there is a palpable expectation that those responsible for large-scale financial misconduct will finally be held accountable. The State’s current efforts to pursue bribery and corruption cases, particularly those tied to the controversial Airbus aircraft deal, deserve recognition. Yet, in this pursuit of justice, it is vital that the law itself must be upheld without compromise.

The recent developments involving former SriLankan Airlines CEO Kapila Chandrasena have cast a complex shadow over this process. His courtroom testimony alleging that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa received Rs. 60 million in bribes was not expected but sensational. For many such revelations seemed to confirm long-held knowledge about systemic corruption at the highest levels of power in the Rajapaksa administrations. However, in a subsequent affidavit released by his lawyer, Chandrasena claims that the testimony was made under duress during interrogation by the Bribery Commission

This contradiction underscores a critical issue that justice cannot merely be done but it needs to be done lawfully. If allegations of coercion, forced confessions, or improper pressure are allowed to taint proceedings, even the most legitimate cases risk collapse. More dangerously, such practices erode public trust in institutions that are meant to restore accountability and uphold democratic norms.

The Airbus deal itself remains one of the most emblematic cases of alleged grand corruption in our recent history. Reports suggest that bribes amounting to approximately $16 million were paid in connection with the purchase of ten aircraft. When a subsequent government cancelled the deal, the country incurred an additional $98 million in penalties. These figures represent a devastating misuse of public funds in a nation that would later struggle to meet even its most basic financial obligations.

There is little doubt that the public appetite for justice is intense. Many Sri Lankans believe, with justification, that entrenched corruption contributed significantly to the country’s economic downfall. The perception that political elites, particularly under administrations widely criticised for authoritarian tendencies and opaque dealings, operated with impunity has only deepened this demand.

However, it is precisely because of the gravity of these accusations that the response must be measured, lawful, and professional. Any deviation from due process, whether through the manipulation of evidence, coercion of witnesses, or politicisation of prosecutions, will ultimately weaken the very cases the state seeks to strengthen. Worse still, it risks transforming legitimate anti-corruption efforts into spectacles of retribution, thereby undermining both domestic credibility and international confidence.

The rule of law is not an obstacle to justice but its foundation. Upholding legal standards ensures that convictions, when secured, are durable and beyond reproach. It protects the rights of the accused while reinforcing the legitimacy of the state’s actions. In a country striving to rebuild its institutions and restore faith in governance, this balance is indispensable.

The Government’s determination to address corruption must be matched by an equally strong commitment to legality and institutional integrity. Professionalism, transparency, and adherence to due process are absolute  necessities. In the effort to right past wrongs, the institutions concerned must take care not to create new ones. If we are to emerge stronger from its crises, it must prove that even in the face of overwhelming public pressure, it remains governed not by impulse, but by law.