Substandard drugs trial evidence reveals procurement controls, political pressure, and questions over Sri Lanka’s health system transparency.
The substandard drugs trial took a decisive turn on its second day as High Court evidence exposed deeper questions over state procurement, political will, and institutional responsibility.
During the evidence examination led by Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama, testimony from Herath Mudiyanselage Dhaneesh Bandara, Chief Stores Supply Officer of the Medical Supplies Division, offered an important insight into how Sri Lanka’s state drug procurement process is designed to function.
Systemic realities revealed through High Court evidence
Moving beyond the formal weaknesses and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence presentation that had surfaced during earlier hearings, the prosecution on this occasion focused mainly on placing before court the “symbolic order” that should exist within the institutional structure, and the systematic nature of that process.
Through the evolution of software from the “Oracle” system to the “Pronto” system, the responsibilities of stores control officers, and the scientific method used in preparing estimates, the Attorney General’s Department attempted to clarify the facts before court.
The central objective appeared to be to demonstrate that the institution had a formal system in place, meaning that a drug shortage or procurement error could not have occurred naturally or simply through an administrative mistake. Instead, the prosecution sought to suggest that the chaotic situation which unfolded was the result of external intervention.
Systemic change and transparency
Deputy Solicitor General: Before 2015, there was the Oracle software. After 2015, the Pronto system was introduced. During the Oracle period, it was not possible to connect the institutional network. Under the Pronto software, institutions were networked. Is that what you are stating?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Then, because institutions could be connected, was it possible to monitor remaining stock?
Witness: Yes.
Duty responsibility and scientific discipline
Deputy Solicitor General: You said that not preparing estimates properly, and not being scientific, is a matter that would personally affect you. Does the stores control officer have a responsibility to continuously maintain that duty?
Witness: Yes, it is done based on data. Collectively, including the stores control officers, we make decisions and try to carry out the process correctly. Otherwise, there will be massive wastage. We operate by taking a major risk with the funds allocated by the government.
Political meetings and neglected priorities
The prosecution then moved to examine the possible space created to bypass institutional procedures through the legal opening known as “Emergency Procurement,” questioning the witness about a meeting held on September 22, 2022, regarding the Indian Credit Line Scheme.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was the list you prepared discussed at that meeting?
Witness: No.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was your opinion sought? Apart from the Minister, Keheliya Rambukwella, the Corporation’s people, and Ministry officials, who else was there?
Witness: No, my opinion was not sought. Suppliers, local suppliers — those are the people who supply us with drugs.
Direction and limits of the trial
Viewed neutrally, this evidence record reveals several dimensions that are important for the progress of a fair trial, but which remain incomplete at this stage of proceedings.
Cessation of defence counter-arguments and cross-examination
This report reflects only the initial phase of the prosecution’s evidence presentation. The “systemic correctness” built by the prosecution, and the accuracy of the witness’s statements, will be tested properly only when defence lawyers subject them to sharp cross-examination.
In particular, the defence position regarding the use of database passwords and signatures on the relevant documents will be important in determining the future balance of the case.
Intervention by the bench
In a technically and administratively complex network such as drug procurement, it is essential to distinguish the subtle dividing lines between law and administration. In the future stages of the evidence examination, the active questioning and clarifications of the Three-Judge High Court bench will help guide the case in the proper direction.
Legal nature of decentralised responsibility
The witness repeatedly stated that he only entered data into the system and acted according to the instructions and signatures of senior officers. Legally resolving this conflict between individual responsibility and “systemic failure” now stands as a major challenge before the court.
Through the second day of evidence examination, the prosecution has laid a foundation on how the formal specifications and priority lists of the Medical Supplies Division allegedly became inactive in the face of external interventions. However, the real legal weight of these allegations will be determined only by the counter-arguments developed by the defence in the coming days and by the eventual findings of the High Court.
The deeper investigation into the true responsible parties behind the importation of substandard drugs, and those behind the institutional approvals, remains the most important part of the case and is expected to unfold in the future. The trial, scheduled to be reconvened on the 8th of this month, will not only determine the fate of several individuals, but could also become a turning point in scrutinising the transparency of Sri Lanka’s entire health system.
Court Record
2026/06/05
During the trial concerning the importation of substandard drugs, which was heard before the permanent three-judge High Court on the 5th, the Chief Stores Supply Officer of the Medical Supplies Division, Herath Mudiyanselage Dhaneesh Bandara, who had been summoned to give evidence for a second day, began his testimony.
Testifying under the guidance of Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama, the witness stated the following:
Deputy Solicitor General: Before 2015, we had the Oracle software. After 2015, the Pronto system was introduced. During the Oracle period, it was not possible to connect the institutional network. Under the Pronto software, the institutions were networked. Is that what you are stating?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Then, because the institutions could be connected, was it possible to monitor the remaining stock?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Were the regional branches also connected?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Let’s take the year 2020, when the Pronto system was operational, as an example. For that year, when were the estimates taken?
Witness: Around August. The list introduced by the Formula Review Committee is implemented. It is completed by the end of November.
Deputy Solicitor General: Are estimates still taken based on the calculated average and the available stock?
Witness: Now, since it can be monitored, they indicate the monthly supply.
Deputy Solicitor General: Each institution indicates its monthly requirement.
Witness: The institutions provide the data. We collect it and prepare the orders. Items that cannot be categorised are taken into consideration.
Deputy Solicitor General: The orders received from the institutions regarding the relevant items are taken, and this task is completed by November 2020.
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the duty of the Stores Controller?
Witness: To handle the patterns of drug usage. Disease rates increase, and usage fluctuates.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the duty of the Stores Controller after the forecast?
Witness: The data held under the Chief Stores Controller is provided to the Assistant Director.
Deputy Solicitor General: Once it is referred to the Assistant Director, how is the stock calculated?
Witness: As previously mentioned, it is divided by 12 to determine the monthly requirement, and the stock available at the institutions is reviewed.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is done after the total requirement is identified?
Witness: The ordering process is initiated.
Deputy Solicitor General: You stated yesterday that the stock matches the safety stock in Chapter 5 of document P 298. Is that a duty assigned by the duty list?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: You stated that the Stores Controller must maintain effective control. What is this effective control?
Witness: It means placing orders with the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation (SPC), ensuring orders are fulfilled properly and on time, avoiding over-ordering, and ordering in sufficient quantities.
Deputy Solicitor General: Were the orders placed for 2022 executed? Please explain.
Witness: Yes. The stock received for 2021 continued to carry forward. An order placed for 2022 was received in 2021. Accordingly, it progressed systematically.
Deputy Solicitor General: At the beginning of 2022, were there safety stocks and annual stocks?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is it the Stores Controller’s responsibility to receive the ordered stock? How is this confirmed?
Witness: It is received through the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation via electronic messages.
Deputy Solicitor General: If the January 2022 orders are not received, are you safe because you have the safety stock? When does the stock become active after receipt?
Witness: It depends on the delivery schedule. If not indicated in a letter, it is notified by a letter.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is an emergency procurement?
Witness: It is placing an order with the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation to obtain the quantity that is in shortage.
Deputy Solicitor General: In an emergency procurement, is the emergency order received optimally?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: What determines the optimal time?
Witness: The time taken to call for tenders. We specify that freshly manufactured stock should be supplied.
Deputy Solicitor General: How long does it take for emergency procurement stocks to be received?
Witness: Approximately three months.
(Shows document P 5.1)
Deputy Solicitor General: Can you identify this document?
Witness: Yes. This is the duty list of the Stores Control Officers. This was issued by the Medical Supplies Division in 2011 for the duties of the Stores Control Officers.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who prepared this?
Witness: Dr. H.N.K. Wickramanayake, the Director.
Deputy Solicitor General: Do you know him?
Witness: I have served under him. (The witness identifies Dr. Wickramanayake, the second accused).
Deputy Solicitor General: According to the Stores Controller’s duty list, does it state here that the national list should be prepared?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Where does it state here that the annual commencement should be issued?
Witness: Under number 6.
Deputy Solicitor General: It also states that whether orders are received should be checked using the active stock, correct?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour. It is stated under number 7.
Deputy Solicitor General: You stated that not preparing estimates correctly and not doing so scientifically is a matter that would cost you personally. Does the Stores Controller have a responsibility to continuously maintain that duty?
Witness: Yes, it is done based on data. Collectively, including the Stores Control Officers, we make decisions and try to do the process correctly. Otherwise, there will be massive wastage. We operate by taking a big risk with the funds allocated by the government.
*(Shows document P 171-I to the witness)*
Deputy Solicitor General: What is this document?
Witness: An order.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is this what you submit to procure medicines?
Witness: Yes, it is one approved by the Drug Formula Review Committee.
Deputy Solicitor General: With this data available on the Pronto software, what must the Stores Controller do first?
Witness: Create an order list. The Stores Controller has been given a password to access the system.
Deputy Solicitor General: So does the screen show the data?
(Shows document P 172 to the witness)
Deputy Solicitor General: Under which number is the specification stated?
Witness: Under number 9.
Deputy Solicitor General: How is it entered?
Witness: The eight-digit order must be typed and entered.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is the date then added?
Witness: The date by which it must be delivered during procurement is added. The date the relevant item is to be supplied. If it is for a year, the month and date must be entered.
Deputy Solicitor General: What does ATI refer to in this document?
Witness: It is the specification regarding the required content in Human Immunoglobulin.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is there a review of the drug specifications concerning the formula?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: What does 2022 refer to in this document?
Witness: It is a document included in the procurement division.
Deputy Solicitor General: When does this reach the Medical Supplies Division?
Witness: From local manufacturers.
Deputy Solicitor General: Can a Stores Controller prepare the order lists?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: There are four signatures on this document.
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Please explain the steps.
Witness: The Stores Controller.
Deputy Solicitor General: That is the “checked by” section.
Witness: Yes, that is me.
Deputy Solicitor General: How do you access the system for that?
Witness: Using the password.
Deputy Solicitor General: Can you print it?
Witness: No.
Deputy Solicitor General: Which document contains the supply conditions?
Witness: The document labelled “Condition and Supply”.
Deputy Solicitor General: In general procurement, if the condition and supply document is shown, can it be identified?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Does N stand for the annual order?
Witness: Yes, the software that includes the annual order.
Deputy Solicitor General: (Showing page 5 of document P 260) There is also a section here called “Condition of Supply”, correct?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: How is the “Condition of Supply” on page 5 identified?
Witness: In emergency procurements, conditions are added.
Deputy Solicitor General: (Showing document file P 127) Are you familiar with seeing such documents?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Can they be identified as documents certified by the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Did you observe that this document is sealed by the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: Yes, I did, Your Honour. It is the seal that appears on the letters we receive.
Deputy Solicitor General: Are these seals used on official correspondence?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour, from the Ministry.
Deputy Solicitor General: Are they also received from the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: I don’t recall if there was a seal.
Deputy Solicitor General: (Showing a document from P 299A) Under the date on this document, whose handwriting is the phrase “order increased”?
Witness: That is the handwriting of the Deputy Director.
Deputy Solicitor General: Name him.
Witness: Dr. Herath.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who wrote “SPO / Sender SPO please order”?
Witness: That is by Assistant Director Ms. Solomons.
Deputy Solicitor General: How long have you known her?
Witness: I have worked with her for approximately fifteen years.
(In this manner, the fifth and sixth accused were identified through handwriting and signatures on the documents. The eighth accused and former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella were also identified.)
(Shows the witness document from Folio 189)
Deputy Solicitor General: Regarding this Immunoglobulin order, is it related to the drug?
Witness: It was an order for 40,000 units. 10,000 units were to be supplied, and the Medical Supplies Division had inquired whether the remainder could be supplied in 2024. That is what is stated in the other minute. Assistant Director Ms. Solomons had been informed of this. It was informed that there was stock for two months at the national level.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who is D.M.S.D.?
Witness: The Director of the Medical Supplies Division.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who was that at the time?
Witness: Dr. Kapila Wickramanayake.
Deputy Solicitor General: He is the third accused. What has been recorded?
Witness: He has signed, instructing that it is possible to supply Human Immunoglobulin through the AAIB institution for two and a half months after 06/04/2023, and subsequently to supply 17,000 units, and to proceed with that.
Deputy Solicitor General: From which institutions does the Medical Supplies Division receive orders?
Witness: From SPC, SPMC, ADB, UNOPS, etc., and from local manufacturers.
Deputy Solicitor General: If stock is not supplied on time, what can be done?
Witness: Then penalties can be imposed according to the delivery schedule. The SPC can penalize the supplier or refuse to accept the stock. The Medical Supplies Division can also instruct the SPC to do so.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is LCDS?
Witness: Even if the local agent in Lanka issues the order processing, the relevant foreign company can supply the item directly to the Medical Supplies Division.
Deputy Solicitor General: Before delivery, is there anything the Stores Controller must do by the Medical Supplies Division?
Witness: When bringing samples, the invoice, indent, registration certificate, WR, etc., must be brought.
Deputy Solicitor General: Are those originals?
Witness: Photocopies.
Deputy Solicitor General: What does the Stores Controller do using the samples along with the documents?
Witness: He takes them to the SPC. During this process, from the Medical Supplies Division to the SPC, we cannot monitor it. The stock cannot be accepted. We must wait until the stock is brought back to the Medical Supplies Division.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is it the same for ADB and AIIB? Where are they accepted?
Witness: When we hand over the items assigned to them to the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, they sign and accept the order list.
Deputy Solicitor General: You also mentioned obtaining from WB, UNOPS, etc. Is that true?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who brings them?
Witness: The Shipping Division of the Medical Supplies Division checks for accuracy and accepts them.
Deputy Solicitor General: How are goods obtained from SPMC and local businessmen?
Witness: SPMC is the only state sector institution in Lanka that manufactures drugs. They manufacture with SPC certification from the NMRA. Local suppliers are those who manufacture drugs locally, like SPMC. There are about fifteen such suppliers. They are registered with the NMRA. These are purchased under the Ministry of Health’s BUY BACK agreement.
Deputy Solicitor General: How long is that agreement valid?
Witness: Ten years.
Deputy Solicitor General: Regarding a committee for those drug purchases, what is that?
Witness: The Price Fixing Committee. They meet once every six months. A document with the production cost must be submitted at that time.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the Priority List?
Witness: Medicines that must be separated from the basic list and given priority for procurement.
Deputy Solicitor General: When preparing it, is the stock considered?
Witness: The requirement is considered.
Deputy Solicitor General: How many categories are considered for the Priority List?
Witness: Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 are categorized based on the lowest stock status.
Deputy Solicitor General: What stock level?
Witness: Based on the instructions given.
Deputy Solicitor General: How are the priorities monitored?
Witness: Number 1 is for drugs with less than one month’s stock. Number 2 is for drugs with sufficient stock for three months. Number 3 is for drugs with stock between three to six months. Number 4 is for drugs with stock exceeding six months.
*(Shows P 192-1 (page 311))*
Deputy Solicitor General: Here, priorities 1, 2, and 3 are indicated. Is this priority list prepared by the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: This priority list is not like the list usually prepared by the Medical Supplies Unit. It does not include weight, dosage, etc.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was a priority list prepared during that time period?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is that by the Ministry or the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: A meeting was held regarding the Indian Credit Line Scheme. They asked to send a list for it. Accordingly, a priority list was prepared. It was later submitted to a meeting held on September 22, 2022. That was also for the Indian Credit Line Scheme.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who conducted it?
Witness: Under the chairmanship of Minister Keheliya Rambukwella.
Deputy Solicitor General: Who told you to prepare it?
Witness: The then Director, Dr. Chandana Wijesinghe.
Deputy Solicitor General: How was this list available?
Witness: Hard copies were given to Dr. Wijesinghe.
Deputy Solicitor General: Were your opinions sought? Apart from the Minister, the Corporation’s people, and Ministry officials, who else was there?
Witness: Suppliers, local suppliers – those are the people who supply us with drugs.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was your opinion sought?
Witness: No.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was the list you prepared discussed at that meeting?
Witness: No.
Deputy Solicitor General: Can you identify that list? (The witness identifies the document) Apart from this hard copy, did you give soft copies to anyone?
Witness: Yes, I gave them to Mr. Saman Rathnayake. I emailed them.
(Shows the email message in file 57 to the witness)
Deputy Solicitor General: When was this sent?
Witness: The evening of the day the meeting was held.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is this the same email?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: Did you send it to Dr. Rathnayake’s email address?
Witness: Yes, I had it because I had sent emails to him before.
Deputy Solicitor General: Why have you noted ICL?
Witness: Because it is a matter being handled under the Indian Credit Line Scheme.
Deputy Solicitor General: Does this contain the same list you sent?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: (Gives the witness documents P 302 and P 302A, pages 11 to 15 in file 85 for examination) Is your email here?
Witness: Regarding the same list I mentioned earlier, medical colleges had requested to increase the quantity of drugs for the year 2023.
(Further evidence will be obtained from the witness. The case will be taken up again for hearing on the 8th of this month.)
