Lawsuit over Ranil's UK trip: Attorney General's Department divided into two

Two differing opinions have emerged within the Attorney General's Department regarding the prosecution of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe over the alleged misuse of 16.6 million rupees in state funds during his visit to the United Kingdom. This divergence of opinion has arisen based on the results of investigations conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) into whether there is sufficient evidence for prosecution.

It is reported that Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera, who supervised these investigations on behalf of the Attorney General's Department, has stepped down from those responsibilities due to disagreements regarding the investigation process. The Deputy Solicitor General, who was also in charge of investigations related to this incident against former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake, has taken the position that insufficient evidence has been uncovered to file charges against Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe or anyone else.

The Deputy Solicitor General has pointed out that in the absence of evidence to substantiate the primary criminal charge against Mr. Wickremesinghe, it is not possible to file charges against Mr. Ekanayake under the premise of aiding and abetting that crime. He has also submitted a six-page report to Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe, stating that criminal charges cannot be filed against Mr. Wickremesinghe or anyone else based on the available evidence and investigation extracts.

However, Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris, who serves as the chief supervising officer of this investigation, holds a completely different view, having informed the Attorney General that criminal charges can be filed against Mr. Wickremesinghe based on the available evidence. Officials from the Criminal Investigation Department conducting the investigations have also confirmed this opinion.

Deputy Solicitor General Wasantha Perera, in his report, has pointed out that traveling through the United Kingdom when coming from Cuba to New York and then to Sri Lanka is not new to Mr. Wickremesinghe, and that he would likely have stayed for an intermediate stop in the United Kingdom regardless of whether he received an invitation from the University of Wolverhampton.

He has also raised concerns about the Criminal Investigation Department team traveling to the UK without obtaining proper authorization (MLA) from the UK authorities under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act to verify the authenticity of the alleged invitation letter from the University of Wolverhampton for Mr. Wickremesinghe to attend his wife's graduation ceremony. The Deputy Solicitor General has observed that due to the lack of proper authorization, the team that went to the UK was unable to record a statement regarding the said invitation letter.

Along with his opposing view, Additional Solicitor General Peiris has also submitted an 11-page report to the Attorney General, prepared by State Counsel Ms. Samadari Piyaseena after analyzing the investigation extracts related to Mr. Ekanayake. In that report, she has indicated that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the former Presidential Secretary.

Meanwhile, it is reported that although the Attorney General's Department has formally requested the extracts of further investigations conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department team that went to the United Kingdom, the CID has not yet responded.