Cabraal's Bid to Halt Greek Bonds Case Fails

COLOMBO (News 1st); The Colombo Permanent High Court Trial-at-Bar rejected preliminary objections raised by former Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal, who had argued that the Bribery Commission's case relating to the Greek bonds investment could not legally proceed.Accordingly, the trial, which had been delayed due to the objections, is scheduled to commence on July 20.The case against former Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal is being heard before the Special Trial-at-Bar comprising Presiding Judge Manoj Thalgodapitiya and judges Udesh Ranatunga and Buddhika C. Ragala.Announcing the unanimous decision of the three-judge bench in open court, the Presiding Judge delivered the order allowing the case to proceed.The case has been filed over allegations that more than Rs. 1.84 billion in losses were caused to the Sri Lankan Government through investments in high-risk Greek sovereign bonds between March 11, 2011 and November 19, 2012, at a time when Greece was experiencing a severe economic crisis.The same incident had previously been the subject of legal proceedings against Ajith Nivard Cabraal and four others. However, after the accused allegedly failed to comply with a condition requiring the losses sustained by the State to be settled within three months, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption moved to file a fresh indictment before the Trial-at-Bar under the new Anti-Corruption Act.President's Counsel Sampath Mendis, appearing on behalf of Cabraal, raised preliminary objections before court on June 30, arguing that the Special Trial-at-Bar lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.The principal argument advanced by the defence related to the retrospective application of the law.Although the transactions in question took place between 2011 and 2012, counsel argued that the Special Trial-at-Bar was established only through the Judicature (Amendment) Act No. 9 of 2018, and therefore lacked authority to hear offences alleged to have occurred prior to 2018.The defence further contended that, according to established legal principles, legislation can only operate retrospectively where there is a clear expression of legislative intent. In support of that position, counsel cited the 1978 Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Law and the Sirimavo Bandaranaike case as precedents.Counsel also submitted that fundamental legal rights available to an accused person in an ordinary High Court, including certain appellate rights, were adversely affected when proceedings are conducted before a Special Trial-at-Bar.He further argued that this was not merely a procedural change relating to the manner in which a case is heard, but rather a substantive change in law directly affecting the legal rights of the accused.In addition, counsel pointed out that the charges contained in two earlier cases filed before the High Court under Act No. 19 of 1994 were substantially similar to those in the present case, arguing that it was unlawful to institute fresh proceedings based on charges arising from matters that had already been litigated.Responding to those submissions, Assistant Director of Legal Affairs of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Anusha Sambandapperuma, argued that Article 75 of the Constitution grants Parliament full authority to enact laws with retrospective effect.She further submitted that, under the provisions of Act No. 9 of 2018, the decision by the Director General of the Bribery Commission to institute proceedings before a Trial-at-Bar was purely an administrative action.According to the prosecution, the amendment merely changed the forum in which the case is heard, from an ordinary High Court to a Special Trial-at-Bar, and did not constitute a substantive change that would prejudice the rights of the accused.The prosecution also pointed out that adequate safeguards remain available to the accused, including the right to appeal a verdict of the Trial-at-Bar before a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.After considering the legal arguments presented by both parties, the Special Trial-at-Bar rejected the defence's objections and delivered its ruling allowing the case to proceed.