Yoshitha Rajapaksa money laundering case takes a new turn as the Attorney General moves against a prosecution witness over contradictory testimony.
The Yoshitha Rajapaksa money laundering case has taken a significant turn after the Attorney General decided to pursue legal action against a prosecution witness over allegedly false testimony.
The case against Yoshitha Rajapaksa, the second son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is currently being heard before the Colombo High Court.
During proceedings, the prosecution’s 16th witness entered the witness box and gave evidence that contradicted statements he had previously provided to investigators.
The Attorney General has now decided to take strict legal action against the witness, creating an unusual development in the high-profile financial crime case.
The episode has also renewed discussion over witness handling in cases involving significant political and financial influence.
‘Daisy Aachchi’ and Alleged Proxy Ownership
The case has been filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006.
The prosecution case concerns allegations surrounding five plots of land valued at more than Rs. 73 million.
Investigators have questioned how Yoshitha Rajapaksa, who reportedly earned a monthly salary of around Rs. 73,000 as a Navy Lieutenant, acquired assets of that scale.
Investigators allege that Daisy Forrest, widely referred to as “Daisy Aachchi” and identified as Yoshitha Rajapaksa’s maternal grandmother, was used as a proxy to conceal the true ownership of assets.
The prosecution has also raised questions over her ability to finance the acquisitions.
According to the case presented, Forrest was a retired hospital employee and teacher and did not have declared legitimate income sufficient to purchase a house valued at approximately Rs. 350 million and several plots of land.
She had claimed that the money came from “selling a bag of gems given by an unknown person.”
The article states that the defence had not produced evidence confirming that explanation.
Witness Changes Earlier Statement in Court
A key development involved property businessman Palitha Gamage.
Investigators had recovered a deed relating to the Ratmalana property from his possession.
According to the prosecution, Gamage had previously told police that the former President had given the deed to him.
However, after entering the witness box, he rejected that earlier account.
Gamage acknowledged in court that he subsequently gave a third statement saying the original statements he provided to police were false.
Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara, appearing for the prosecution, argued that the witness was deliberately obstructing the administration of justice.
High Court Judge Uddesh Ranatunga then declared Gamage an “Adverse Witness” under Section 154 of the Evidence Ordinance.
That decision allowed the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness.
The development has become a central issue in the Yoshitha Rajapaksa money laundering case, because it raises questions about why the witness altered his earlier account.
Attorney General Moves Over Alleged False Evidence
The Attorney General informed court that action would be pursued against the witness under Section 449 of the Criminal Procedure Code because of the contradictions in his testimony.
The article states that Section 449(1) allows the High Court to summarily try and punish a person accused of giving false evidence in open court.
Judge Ranatunga warned the witness that action could follow at the conclusion of the main case.
The court then released him on personal bail of Rs. 2 million.
The move by the Attorney General signals that alleged attempts to change evidence inside the courtroom could carry separate legal consequences.
Other Witnesses Give Evidence on Land Purchase
Although Gamage became an adverse witness, the prosecution relied on separate testimony from Irene Silva and Violet Fernando, identified as co-owners of the Dehiwala land.
Both gave evidence on the same day.
According to their testimony, Yoshitha Rajapaksa personally led discussions relating to the purchase of the property.
They also testified that payments and the signing of deeds took place at Namal Rajapaksa’s office.
The two witnesses stated under oath that they sold the property to Yoshitha Rajapaksa.
They further testified that a person named Daisy Forrest was never present during the transaction.
The prosecution relies on this testimony in support of its allegation that a third party was used to conceal the ownership of assets.
Whether those allegations ultimately establish the required criminal elements, including knowledge and intent, will be determined by the court after considering the full evidence.
Decade-Long Delay Raises Witness Concerns
The proceedings also highlight wider weaknesses in Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system.
Investigations that began in 2015 and 2016 are reaching the evidentiary stage roughly a decade later.
Such lengthy delays can create difficulties for witnesses. Memories may fade, circumstances can change and concerns can arise over possible outside influence in politically sensitive cases.
The article argues that Sri Lanka’s mechanisms for protecting ordinary witnesses remain particularly important when defendants possess substantial political influence.
One proposed solution is to record crucial evidence before a Magistrate under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the investigation itself.
Such a process could preserve testimony closer to the time of the investigation and reduce later disputes over changing accounts.
The Attorney General’s decision to pursue action over allegedly false evidence therefore carries significance beyond one witness.
It sends a warning that testimony given in open court cannot be altered without potential consequences.
For the Yoshitha Rajapaksa money laundering case, the court must ultimately decide the allegations against the accused on the evidence presented.
More broadly, however, the handling of the adverse witness could become an important test of how Sri Lanka protects the integrity of testimony in high-profile financial crime trials.
