Gammanpila has a question about Shani's travels.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila accuses former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Mr. Shani Abeysekera, and his team of misusing public funds for a trip to France. Speaking to the media, he stated that the CID team had gone to France to meet and question a person named Asad Maulana, and that the information obtained there had been presented to the court by Additional Solicitor General Dilip Peiris.

Mr. Udaya Gammanpila points out that the 'biggest piece of information' allegedly uncovered by the team of officials through this foreign trip is that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan, who was detained at Batticaloa Prison between 2015 and 2020. He emphasizes that this is an extremely normal matter. He further stated that visiting Pillayan, who was imprisoned at a time when he had provided crucial support in the war against terrorism as the Commander-in-Chief, and who was also the first Chief Minister of the Eastern Province and a State Minister under his own government, is a normal act that any sensitive human being would do.

Mr. Gammanpila states that there was no need to spend such a large amount of public money to travel to France to confirm this information. He added that this fact could have been very easily confirmed in writing simply by obtaining the 'Special Visitors' Register' from the prison, or by questioning Pillayan, who is currently in custody, and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The leader of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya specifically emphasized that since Asad Maulana, who is connected to the incident, currently lives in Switzerland, the CID team should have gone to Switzerland, not France, if they wanted to meet him. For this reason, he stated that he has a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Shani Abeysekera might have planned this trip for a personal medical examination or to meet relatives and friends in France. Furthermore, Mr. Udaya Gammanpila added that the evidence provided by Asad Maulana falls into the category of 'hearsay' (hearsay), as it is merely what he heard from someone else, and therefore its legal evidentiary value is very minimal.