Response to ‘Ravi Karunanayake: Fall guy or saviour of the monarch?’

With reference to the ‘opinion’ article titled ‘Ravi Karunanayake: Fall guy or saviour of the monarch?’ by Muhammed Fazl, published on Monday, legal experts have sent the following statement since the article in their opinion contained several misstatements when referring to the testimony given by witness Anika Wijesuriya to the Presidential Commission inquiring into the Issuance of Treasury Bonds. 

Quoted in the article: “In this context, as claimed by her, if Miss AW was not willing to transact directly with politicians for reasons best known to her, would leasing out her apartment to a third party through a mutual friend (AA in this instance) be tantamount to a criminal offense by either party?”

Response: Ms. Wijesuriya never stated that she was not willing to transact with politicians. She maintained under examination-in-chief by Mr. Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C. and cross-examination by Mr. Kalinga Indatissa, P.C. that she had absolutely no objection to renting her apartment to Mr. or Mrs. Karunanayake in the first instance. She further stated that it is because she had no objection that she offered to show the apartment to Mrs. Karunanayake without inviting third parties. 

Quoted in article: “As claimed by her in her testimony, if Miss Wijesuriya was all sceptical about leasing out her apartment to the family of RK through Aloysius, why did Miss Wijesuriya show the apartment and the functions of keys to the family of Mr. Karunanayake in the first place and using a similar sales pitch as that of a used-car salesman? And why did Miss AW state her uncorroborated opinion in a manner that is favourable to the prosecution side at the CIBS two plus years after the deal was done and dusted?”

Response: Ms. Wijesuriya did not state in evidence, nor has any other witness to date, that she was sceptical about leasing out her apartment to the family of Mr. Karunanayake. She was emphatic that this is indeed why she offered to show the apartment to his wife. The commissioners clearly stated to her and to the audience that she was summoned against her will, compelled to testify and could have been held in contempt if she refused to do so. In the context of the Presidential Commission, there is no “prosecution”. No one is on trial. The commission’s mandate is one of fact-finding. 

Quoted in article: “If the trust placed in Miss AW by her business associates can so easily be broken by her with regards to confidential information, could the possibly malicious testimony of Miss AW still be admissible in a court of law?”

Response: If the editors of the Daily FT read the transcript of these court proceedings, and reported on them accurately, they would appreciate that it would have been a criminal offence for Ms. Wijesuriya to knowingly withhold information from the CID investigators who interviewed her or to commit perjury by giving false testimony to the commission. She was clear that the only reason she had kept silent was that she had not been contacted by law enforcement, and that when approached by the police, she did what any law-abiding citizen should do and cooperated fully, against her own wishes and the wishes of her family. 

Quoted in article: “While there may be some truth in Mr. Arjun Aloysius intervening and getting the lease under his name or under a company that he owns, to imply that the upfront costs of the lease was borne entirely by Mr. AA and to prematurely castigate the Karunanayakes as “freeloaders” or accuse them of never repaying the original amount to Mr. AA is simply a malicious accusation as per my understanding.”

Response: This is a false statement. Neither Ms. Wijesuriya nor any other witness has made an accusation of this nature before the commission.