Substandard drugs case evidence sparks concern as court hears technical data disputes, procurement questions, and trial strategy weaknesses.
The substandard drugs case has drawn intense public attention as Sri Lanka confronts one of its most critical tests of institutional accountability, legal precision, and public safety within the health sector.
The trial concerns the importation of substandard Human Immunoglobulin, a matter that has become a major turning point in the wider debate over corruption, procurement failures, and state responsibility. On June 08, for the third consecutive day, evidence was recorded from Herath Mudiyanselage Dhaneesh Bandara, the Chief Stores Controller of the Medical Supplies Division.
As a media outlet, our responsibility is to observe how the rule of law is being applied in the public interest, without interfering with or influencing the judicial process. Based on the court record, the proceedings reveal the structural and technical difficulties that arise when attempting to legally prove complex, large-scale corruption allegedly operating within the state apparatus.
Technical Data Handling and Defence Challenges
A significant legal argument surfaced early in the hearing when the prosecution sought to question the Stores Controller while displaying a compact disc containing drug data prepared by a committee headed by the Government Analyst.
Defence lawyer Rahul Jayatilake raised an objection that carries major legal importance.
“This witness cannot be questioned about the data in that report. Neither he nor anyone else has seen it before. When data on a compact disc is displayed and questioned, what can he say?”
At the heart of that objection lies a central principle of evidence law dealing with the authentication of documents and digital data. In response, Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama argued that under Section 120 of the Evidence Ordinance, a witness is permitted to give evidence “based on data.”
The ruling delivered by the Chairman of the bench, Justice Priyantha Liyanage, was both flexible and practical. The court held that since the relevant data had been obtained from the “Pronto System,” the Stores Controller of the Medical Supplies Division was capable of giving evidence on the existence and authenticity of that data. By limiting the witness to reading and confirming data only within his relevant area of responsibility, namely stores control, the court provided a practical solution to the tension between technology and law.
Prosecution Strategy and Practical Difficulties
In a complex white-collar crime case, the structure of the alleged wrongdoing must be exposed by logically connecting information, records, and data. However, according to the dialogue reflected in the court record, the prosecution’s questioning appears to have remained largely confined to confirming routine inventory movements. Several weaknesses in the prosecution’s presentation of evidence can therefore be identified.
Repetitive Data Confirmation
The Deputy Solicitor General asked the witness:
“On September 24, 2022, the value was 5,745, but by October 20 it becomes 10,688… explain how it increased in a single day.”
The witness replied that the numerical value increases when new stock is entered into the system. That stock values rise when new stock is added is an ordinary administrative fact. In a case consuming major public resources and valuable court time, a Data Analytics Summary identifying unusual patterns in drug procurement would be far more effective than confirming data line by line.
Missed Analytical Openings
One important point stated by the witness during questioning was that “The value within the system remains unchanged when expired or substandard drugs are selected and retained.”
This answer gave the prosecution a wider strategic opening to deepen its questioning and establish a more direct connection between the retained counterfeit drug categories and the emergency procurement process. However, that opportunity does not appear to have been fully developed.
Emergency Procurement Question Not Fully Built
When the Deputy Solicitor General asked the witness about a particular drug and whether it was “a situation requiring emergency procurement,” the witness immediately answered, “No, Your Honour.” He further indicated that stock sufficient for 11 months was available at the time.
This was an extremely favourable and potentially decisive answer for the prosecution. It provided a strong foundation to argue why emergency purchases were made when there was no actual necessity. Yet, according to the court record, this point does not appear to have been established before court with the force and clarity it required.
The proceedings show how difficult it is to prove informal processes, internal manipulation, and hidden decision-making within large institutional structures such as the Ministry of Health and the Medical Supplies Division.
When presenting evidence, the prosecution must move beyond simply reading stock documents and focus more sharply on exposing the pattern of systemic manipulation behind the data. Traditional clerical-style questioning, where data is projected onto a screen and the witness is asked “what was today?” and “what was tomorrow?”, is unlikely to unravel the structural network of carefully planned state institutional corruption.
If the Attorney General’s Department does not immediately address these weaknesses in evidence presentation, there is a serious risk that the key offenders could eventually escape through legal loopholes. In that event, the entire trial may be reduced to an administrative exercise that wastes public funds while failing to deliver real accountability.
Full Court Record
2026/06/08
For the third day of giving evidence in the substandard drugs case, Herath Mudiyanselage Dhaneesh Bandara, the Chief Stores Controller of the Medical Supplies Division, was called.
Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama recorded evidence from the witness by displaying a report containing drug data, issued by a committee including the Government Analyst, via a compact disc using a projector, along with other prosecution evidence documents.
On that occasion, lawyers for the defence raised objections three times, pointing out that questioning this witness about a report prepared by the Government Analyst was incorrect.
Defence lawyer Rahul Jayatilake stated:
“The data displayed on the screen marked P 297-2 A1 is a report prepared by a committee led by the Government Analyst. It is stored on a CD. This witness cannot be questioned about the data in that report. Neither he nor anyone else has seen it before. When data on a compact disc is displayed and questioned, what can he say? How can these things be asked like this? I object to questioning this witness about the data on that compact disc.”
At this point, Deputy Solicitor General Lakmini Girihagama stated:
If the witness can give evidence through technology, he will do so. But the question raised here is about giving evidence based on data. This is entirely based on technical requirements, and the witness has informed that he can provide information regarding stock from September 1 to 30, 2022. He can give evidence under Section 120 of the Evidence Ordinance. This document is currently in court. It has been retained as research evidence, and I request permission to lead evidence through it.
At that time, the Chairman of the bench, Justice Priyantha Liyanage, announcing the decision of the court, said:
The objection is that this witness cannot give evidence regarding the data displayed on the screen. P 297 I compact disc was prepared by a committee including the Government Analyst. Evidence has been recorded from the Government Analyst regarding that. It has been informed that this data was obtained through the Pronto system. Accordingly, when providing data regarding stock, this witness, being a Stores Control Officer of the Medical Supplies Division, can give evidence regarding the authenticity of the data on the CD. Therefore, when giving this evidence, by viewing the displayed data as such, the witness has the ability to examine the CD and the data on it with the data that existed in the Stores Control Division and give evidence. The Government Analyst states that the data was obtained from the Medical Supplies Division. Accordingly, the witness has the ability to give evidence regarding that.
Thereafter, the evidence examination began.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the drug related to number 00.603.605?
Witness: Human Immunoglobulin
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there as of September 24, 2022?
Witness: 1,480
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the monthly requirement?
Witness: 7,500
Deputy Solicitor General: How much of drug 00 603 205 was there as of September 24?
Witness: 5,749
Deputy Solicitor General: In the Medical Supplies Division, it’s 1,480.
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: 1,480 and 5,749. Requirement is 7,500.
Witness: It’s low, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at P 294. What is the item under number 89?
Witness: Human Immunoglobulin
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the value shown in this document for October 20, 2022?
Witness: 10,688 units, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: The value which was 5,745 on September 24, 2022 becomes 10,688 by October 20.
Witness: The value increases like this when stock is received.
Deputy Solicitor General: For item 00 603 205, by October 20 it becomes 10,688. Explain to the court about this stock accumulation.
Witness: Stock is released daily from the Medical Supplies Division. Those released are used in hospitals. Then stock decreases.
Deputy Solicitor General: Explain how it increases in one day.
Witness: It increases when new stock is entered into the system. When viewing the data system, a numerical value is displayed.
Deputy Solicitor General: Explain that. Does stock issuance need to be considered?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: If any stock is expired or substandard, what happens to the value in this document?
Witness: The value within the system remains unchanged when expired or substandard drugs are selected and retained.
Deputy Solicitor General: Can you see four tabs in the data displayed on the screen? Do you see the value 81?
Witness: Yes, Your Honour. It shows 5,749 units.
Deputy Solicitor General: How many does it show for September 24 (2022)?
Witness: The computer system shows 5,142.
Deputy Solicitor General: How do you know when stock arrives?
Witness: It has increased by a large amount the next day.
Deputy Solicitor General: Where is that stock received from?
Witness: Received based on orders placed with the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on the supply document and identify this. How much drug stock in row 89 on October 19, 2022?
Witness: 2,358
Deputy Solicitor General: It is 10,688 on October 20. Explain that.
Witness: A pending order has been received.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at P 294 for date 2022/11/23. What is the value there?
Witness: 5,527
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at 2022/11/25. How many are recorded there?
Witness: 17,768. This is due to data being added to the system. It is a new stock.
Deputy Solicitor General: Where is stock received from?
Witness: From the SPC to the Medical Supplies Unit.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on January 26, 2023.
Witness: It records 11,277.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on January 27, 2023.
Witness: It records 23,103.
Deputy Solicitor General: According to the monthly requirement, how many months would that suffice?
Witness: For three months.
Deputy Solicitor General: If you focus on March 2023, what is the stock on March 2?
Witness: 23,351
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was the stock on March 1?
Witness: 15,793, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: How could the stock on the 2nd have increased compared to the 7th?
Witness: It could be an order.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on 2023/05/26. How much stock on that day?
Witness: 12,868, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: (Draws attention to document P 293) What is the drug mentioned here?
Witness: Rituximab 500 mg. Its number is 01 205 702.
Deputy Solicitor General: According to document P 173, when was the order list created?
Witness: 2022/09/26
Deputy Solicitor General: According to P 182, how much is the data seen on the screen for 2022/06/26?
Witness: Zero.
Deputy Solicitor General: There is no stock in the Medical Supplies Unit. Look at P 297 I A III. How much of the mentioned item was there as of September 26?
Witness: 210, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is that sufficient?
Witness: No, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on 294 and say where 01 205 702 is located.
Witness: Under number 159.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there by 2022/10/14?
Witness: 98, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: By 10/15 there were 702. Can you explain this situation?
Witness: Pending orders were received. It was received after four and a half months.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on December 15, 2022.
Witness: There were 1,458 units.
Deputy Solicitor General: By December 16, 6,508 were received.
Witness: A pending order was received on the 16th.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was a pending order also received for drug 01 205 702 on May 11, 2023?
Witness: Yes, a pending order was received.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at P 294.
Witness: By 2024/09/24, up to P 294 2A3, it becomes 119,843. The next day it becomes 23,000.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at 2022/10/06
Witness: By that day, it is 213,672.
Deputy Solicitor General: The previous hundred thousand has increased to another hundred thousand.
Witness: Yes, a pending order was received there too.
Deputy Solicitor General: Focus on item 38 in P 293.
Witness: 00 602 202. That is Human Immunoglobulin 2.5 – 3 g injection.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is the monthly requirement?
Witness: 1,853, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much stock was there by September 24 and 26, 2022?
Witness: By the 24th, stock was completely finished. By the 26th too, it had finished.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there at the national level?
Witness: 2,814
Deputy Solicitor General: For how long would that suffice?
Witness: For about one and a half months, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there by November 10?
Witness: 23,873, Your Honour. That must also be a pending order. That’s stock sufficient for about 11 months.
Deputy Solicitor General: Was this a situation requiring emergency procurement?
Witness: No, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at item 68 in P 293.
Witness: Its monthly requirement is 583.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at September 24 and 26, 2022.
Witness: Stock in the Medical Supplies Unit is zero.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much does the national level show?
Witness: 343 units. By the 26th, 312 less.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at October 15, 2022.
Witness: There are 5,176 units. Sufficient for 9 months, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: What is item 84 in document P 293?
Witness: 01 201 703.
According to P 297 III A I data, there were 200 units each on September 24/26.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there at the national level on that day?
Witness: 509, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Is it sufficient for one month?
Witness: Yes.
Deputy Solicitor General: By September 26 as well, there were 509 at national level. Is that sufficient for one month?
Witness: Sufficient, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: According to document P 294, how much was there on 2022/10/10?
Witness: There were 3,610 units.
Deputy Solicitor General: Previously there was only about 500. How many months would this amount suffice for?
Witness: For about seven months, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: Look at 00 302 801.
Witness: Monthly requirement is 80,333.
Deputy Solicitor General: How much was there in the Medical Supplies Unit?
Witness: 509,000, Your Honour.
Deputy Solicitor General: According to that data, how much is there as of September 24?
Witness: 2.1 million, Your Honour. That would suffice for about two and a half months.
The case was reconvened yesterday (09) to record further evidence from this witness.
