What Began As An Aircraft Deal Is Now One of Sri Lanka’s Biggest Corruption Pobes

COLOMBO (News 1st); Sri Lanka’s Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption informed the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court that former SriLankan Airlines Chief Executive Officer Kapila Chandrasena, in statements made to investigators, has revealed that Rs. 60 million from bribe money obtained through the Airbus transaction was paid to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

This disclosure was made when the case filed against Kapila Chandrasena, who has been arrested and remanded in connection with the Airbus deal, was taken up again before Colombo Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama.

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption has launched an investigation into transactions linked to agreements entered into by SriLankan Airlines for the purchase of six Airbus aircraft in 2014 and seven Airbus aircraft in 2017.

Commission investigators informed court that details have emerged regarding two agreements entered into with foreign companies in connection with these transactions.

According to the terms of those agreements, the foreign companies had reached understandings with senior officials of SriLankan Airlines at the time to pay USD 1 million per A330 aircraft and USD 1.5 million per A350 aircraft.

The Commission further informed court that, in addition, agreements had also been reached to pay USD 400,000 per aircraft if the planes were obtained under lease arrangements.

Investigations have revealed that USD 2 million from the agreed sums was transferred to a foreign bank account belonging to the wife of then SriLankan Airlines Chief Executive Officer Kapila Chandrasena.

Commission investigators further informed the Magistrate’s Court that Kapila Chandrasena has stated that Rs. 60 million from that money was paid to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa on three occasions in 2015.

Exerpt Of Investigation Officer’s Statement

“Your Honour, on January 30, 2026, the Bribery Commission summoned this suspect and the suspect’s spouse. However, the spouse did not appear before the Commission, while the suspect did. The suspect was summoned again on February 25, 2026. On that day, Attorney-at-Law Udara Muhandiram, representing the suspect’s rights, also appeared before the Commission. The suspect was summoned once more on March 12, 2026. On the previous two occasions, the suspect stated that he was not prepared to give a statement. On March 12, 2026, the suspect stated that he was ready to provide a statement. Attorney-at-Law Udara Muhandiram, who accompanied the suspect, was present within sight of the suspect. Thereafter, Your Honour, the attorney representing the suspect met Special Investigation OIC Gamini Abeysinghe and informed him that the suspect was prepared to tell the truth, requesting that the suspect not be arrested and instead be made a state witness. Subsequently, the suspect’s attorney sent, via WhatsApp to the official duty phone number of the OIC, a sworn affidavit containing the matters the suspect was prepared to disclose. The OIC then printed the affidavit and met Assistant Director Sumendra to obtain instructions. Following this, Your Honour, both officers met the Director General, briefed him on the matter, and obtained further instructions. At that time, the Director General instructed the suspect to state only the truth. In accordance with those instructions, the suspect provided a full and detailed statement, presenting documentary evidence as well. The suspect clearly explained how the USD 2 million was distributed and also submitted documents relating to the withdrawal of funds. While giving the statement, the suspect verbally stated that Rs. 20 million was handed over to the then Minister of Civil Aviation, Priyankara Jayaratne, in the Kollupitiya area, and that in 2015, after he had resigned from SriLankan Airlines, Rs. 60 million was paid to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in three instalments of Rs. 20 million each, at the Carlton residence in Tangalle and at a residence in Beliatta, following a request made by the former President. Statements have also been obtained from Sudammika Artigala regarding the funds allegedly given to Priyankara Jayaratne.”

Investigators informed court that Kapila Chandrasena has stated that a sum of USD 325,000 was also paid, through bank accounts, to Shameendra Rajapaksa, a former member of the Board of Directors of SriLankan Airlines.

Excerpt Of Investigation Officer’s Statement

“Your Honour, this investigation is receiving international cooperation. The Airbus parent company in France has expressed its readiness to assist with these investigations. Accordingly, facts have now been revealed indicating that funds were credited through bank accounts to Shasheendra Rajapaksa, a former member of the SriLankan Airlines Board of Directors.The suspect has submitted documentary evidence in support of these claims. Bank accounts opened at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore have been identified as having been opened in the name of the suspect’s wife. Accordingly, Your Honour, Shameendra Rajapaksa and the suspect’s wife, Priyanga Niyomali Wijerathne, are being named as suspects in this case. We also intend to seek warrants against them. Your Honour, these investigations are highly complex. This case is being prosecuted under the Anti-Corruption Act. The suspect’s wife is currently evading the Commission. Granting bail to the suspect could interfere with ongoing investigations.”

Appearing on behalf of suspect Kapila Chandrasena, President’s Counsel Rienzie Arsecularatne told court that his client’s statement had been recorded under pressure and coercion.

Citing this claim, the President’s Counsel also submitted to court an affidavit allegedly made by the suspect, detailing what he described as the circumstances under which the statement was obtained.

Excert Of President’s Counsel Rienzie Arsecularatne's Statement

“We stated this earlier as well, that my client made this statement because he was threatened by the Director General. This threat was made at a time when my junior counsel had stepped out for lunch. Therefore, Your Honour, today we are submitting an affidavit detailing what happened to my client. My client was allegedly threatened by the Director General of the Bribery Commission, who told him, ‘Someone involved in Keheliya’s case committed suicide,you could meet the same fate.’ The investigation officers themselves have admitted that my client was taken before the Director General. My client had arrived with a lawyer, so why was he taken alone to meet the Director General? There were other individuals who had held the position of Director General. I have never heard of a suspect being summoned alone into a room in this manner. The Director General had asked my client whether he knew him. My client did know him, because it was during the period when the Director General was serving as a Magistrate at the Fort Magistrate’s Court that my client was initially remanded in this very case. Yet, within a month, the same individual ,while functioning as Fort Magistrate, granted bail to my client. Can a person who granted bail in that manner later summon the same individual before him and conduct such a meeting?”

Investigating officers appearing on behalf of the Bribery Commission rejected the allegation that the Director General of the Commission had threatened the suspect.

They told court that instructing a suspect to state the truth, in the capacity of the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, does not amount to a threat.

After considering the submissions made by both parties, the Chief Magistrate ordered that the suspect be further remanded until April 2.