The defence phase of Sri Lanka’s high-profile immunoglobulin procurement trial has begun amid questions over the admissibility of laboratory evidence obtained from Germany, the ability to cross-examine foreign witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the procurement decisions.
The trial involving former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and 11 other accused over the procurement of allegedly substandard human immunoglobulin and rituximab has entered its defence phase, with the defendants beginning to present their statements before the Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar.
The proceedings follow a dispute over laboratory evidence obtained from Germany, which the prosecution has relied upon in presenting its case concerning the quality and composition of the supplied pharmaceutical products.
The dispute has attracted particular attention because the three-judge bench was divided over the admissibility of evidence submitted through an affidavit rather than direct testimony from the relevant foreign witness.
The case is being heard before High Court Judges Priyantha Liyanage, Viraj Weerasuriya and Thilakaratne Bandara.
Defence Challenges German Laboratory Evidence
The prosecution sought to introduce evidence concerning laboratory testing conducted in Germany to determine whether the supplied products contained the medicinal substances represented on their labels.
Defence counsel objected to the manner in which the evidence was presented, raising questions about the qualifications of the individual providing the affidavit and the inability to cross-examine the person responsible for the laboratory findings.
The defence argued that the opportunity to question a witness is particularly important when the evidence concerns a central element of the prosecution’s case.
Counsel also challenged whether the relevant provisions of criminal procedure permitted the material to be introduced without the witness appearing before court.
The prosecution advanced arguments supporting the admission of the material, including difficulties associated with arranging testimony from witnesses based overseas.
The dispute concerned the legal admissibility and evidential weight of the laboratory material. It did not, by itself, determine whether the pharmaceutical products were genuine or whether any accused person had committed an offence.
High Court Bench Delivers Split Decision
The three-judge bench subsequently reached a divided decision.
Presiding Judge Priyantha Liyanage and Judge Thilakaratne Bandara permitted the laboratory material to be admitted, subject to specified limitations.
Judge Viraj Weerasuriya dissented.
According to reporting on the proceedings, the dissenting judge expressed concern about deficiencies in the supporting documents and the potential prejudice to the accused if relevant evidence could not be tested through cross-examination.
The dissent also reportedly addressed discrepancies involving signatures and annotations in the documents submitted to court.
The majority decision allowed the prosecution to introduce the material. However, the disagreement among the judges highlighted the significance of the procedural issues raised by the defence.
Admission of evidence does not mean that a court has accepted every assertion contained in it as proven.
Its reliability and weight remain matters for judicial assessment when the court considers the evidence as a whole.
What Did the German Laboratory Report Find?
The German testing became a significant element of the investigation into the procurement of human immunoglobulin supplied to Sri Lanka’s public health system.
In June 2025, the Attorney General’s Department informed the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court that laboratory testing in Germany had indicated that the supplied immunoglobulin products lacked the expected medicinal content and contained harmful bacteria.
Previous reporting also identified findings from Sri Lanka’s Medical Research Institute concerning the products.
These findings form part of the wider evidential background against which the prosecution’s case is being considered.
The defence has challenged aspects of the testing process and the presentation of the German evidence.
Those objections must be distinguished from any final judicial determination concerning the reliability of the laboratory findings.
First Accused Begins Defence Statement
The defence phase began after the prosecution concluded presenting its evidence.
The first accused, businessman Sudath Janaka Fernando, was permitted to make a statement from the dock.
According to reporting on the proceedings, the presiding judge explained that the accused could deliver a dock statement but could not read it directly from a prepared document.
Fernando subsequently began addressing the court.
He denied the allegations against him and questioned aspects of the prosecution’s case, including the laboratory evidence and the circumstances surrounding the supply of the pharmaceutical products.
The second accused, former Medical Supplies Division Director Dr. Kapila Wickramanayake, also began presenting his defence.
The defendants’ assertions remain their respective positions before court. They have not been established as judicial findings.
Questions About Documentary Evidence
The supplied account raises additional questions about the handling of samples sent overseas, the documentation accompanying the laboratory report and the identification of the relevant witnesses.
It alleges that more than Rs. 6 million in public funds was spent transporting samples to Germany.
It also questions the packaging used to transport the samples and whether the receiving laboratory satisfied requirements associated with an earlier court order.
However, those specific allegations could not be independently corroborated from the material reviewed for this article.
They should not be presented as established procedural failures without the relevant court records, expenditure documents and evidence concerning sample handling.
The same applies to questions about the certification of identity documents associated with a foreign witness.
The legal significance of any such documentation would depend on its purpose, authenticity and the applicable rules of evidence.
Keheliya Rambukwella’s Role Remains Contested
Former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella is among the accused in the proceedings.
The prosecution’s case concerns alleged wrongdoing associated with the procurement and supply of pharmaceutical products to the Ministry of Health.
The supplied account contends that Rambukwella was absent from certain meetings connected to the procurement decisions and that documents, including passport records, support his position.
It further claims that Rambukwella had alerted investigators to suspected documentary irregularities.
Those assertions require examination against the relevant court evidence and investigation records.
Even if an accused person previously made a complaint concerning aspects of a transaction, that fact alone would neither establish innocence nor prove criminal responsibility.
The court must assess the allegations against each defendant individually, on the evidence properly before it.
Fair Trial Rights and Public Accountability
The trial raises two matters of considerable public importance.
The first is accountability for the procurement and supply of pharmaceutical products intended for patients in Sri Lanka’s public health system.
The second is the requirement that criminal proceedings be conducted fairly, including the proper examination of evidence and the protection of defendants’ procedural rights.
These obligations are not competing objectives.
A prosecution involving serious allegations of financial wrongdoing and potentially dangerous medical products must be supported by reliable evidence presented in accordance with the law.
Equally, defence objections must be evaluated through the judicial process rather than treated automatically as proof that the prosecution’s case is defective.
The divided decision concerning the German laboratory evidence demonstrates why evidential procedures matter in a trial of this significance.
The prosecution must establish its case to the required legal standard, while every accused person remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
As the defence continues, the High Court will be required to assess the evidence, the objections raised and the responsibility, if any, of each accused person.
The outcome will be consequential not only for those standing trial but also for public confidence in pharmaceutical procurement, regulatory oversight and the administration of justice.
