BY THE SUNDAY MORNING NEWS DESK The focus of the controversial SriLankan Airlines-Airbus deal saw a shift from former Sri Lankan Airlines CEO Kapila Chandrasena to the question of whether Chandrasena alone was responsible for the corrupt deal or whether there was complicity from those within SriLankan Airlines at the time. The main focus was placed on the legal department of the national carrier and its then Chairman and then Board of Directors, and how much responsibility or knowledge they had with regard to this deal. The $ 2.8 billion agreement to purchase six A330 aircraft and four A350 aircraft, from European aircraft manufacturer Airbus, has already led to the arrest of Chandrasena and his wife, but until last week, the spotlight was focused almost entirely on them. These issues came to light during the parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) hearings into the deal which took place at the parliamentary complex last week. The COPE led by its Chairman JVP MP Sunil Handunnetti together with State Minister of International Co-operation Susil Premajayantha, MP Dr. Harsha de Silva, MP Ajith P. Perera, and MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe questioned the top-level SriLankan Airlines officials, including newly appointed Chairman Ashok Pathirage. Focusing on the contents of the agreement, the committee highlighted that it had been signed without a termination clause. It noted that this showed negligence on the part of the Legal Department of SriLankan Airlines as it had ultimately led the national carrier to incur huge losses to the country when it was required to terminate the agreement. Responding to questions about the lack of a proper termination clause in the said agreement, SriLankan Airlines Chief Operating Officer (COO) Vipula Gunatilleka said that these types of agreements were usually signed with a break-up clause in it, which was also the industry practice. However, he added that the added security of such a break-up clause comes at a huge cost and would have pushed up the cost of the deal significantly. However, the committee became heated as Dr. Harsha de Silva shot back saying that the loss could have been reduced at the point of termination had there been a clause which covered termination. It was also revealed that the Attorney General (AG) had not been consulted when signing the deal. The committee expressed dismay that one of the largest financial transactions in recent times had taken place without Cabinet approval or without the clearance of the AG. Responding to a question asked by Dr. Rajapakshe as to who had drafted the aircraft purchasing agreements, SriLankan Airlines Group Legal Affairs Head Mayuka Ranasinghe said the airline had retained a private legal firm in London and the company officials, with the advice of an external legal office, had negotiated the contracts with Airbus. However, Dr. Rajapakshe had then questioned as to why SriLankan Airlines did not consult the AG’s Department to get legal advice, to which Ranasinghe said the Board did not take such a decision since there was no such established practice. Dr. Rajapakshe continued highlighting the failure on part of the airline’s legal division to convince the Board that it needed to seek the AG’s advice in this regard. Further, Auditor General Chulantha Wickramaratne, speaking at the meeting, noted that this was one of the biggest transactions in the country and that it had taken place without Cabinet approval and without the clearance of the AG. He added that as the Board of Directors had been the ultimate authority in this deal, they must be held responsible. Meanwhile, United National Party (UNP) MP Nalin Bandara Jayamaha, speaking in Parliament on Thursday (20), accused more officials of SriLankan for having played a part in the Airbus-SriLankan scam. He claimed that former CEO Chandrasena could not have executed such a deal without the blessings of then SriLankan Airlines Chairman Nishantha Wickramasinghe. “Nishantha Wickramasinghe is also the brother-in-law of current Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa,” Jayamaha said. Jayamaha also went on to accuse the then Minister in charge and the then President for having had a hand in the deal. “Chandrasena is a close associate of the Rajapaksas. Chandrasena was immediately made SriLankan Airlines Chairman during the 51-day Rajapaksa Government in 2018,” Bandara added. While Kapila Chandrasena was appointed as SriLankan Airlines Chairman by the 51-day Government in 2018, the appointment only lasted one day as the same Government replaced him with the then Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, G.S. Vithanage, merely one day later. At the COPE proceedings, MP Dr. Rajapakshe questioned whether there was a plan before a decision was taken on the deal, as the value of the deal ($ 2.8 billion) far outweighed the total assets owned by SriLankan Airlines which stood at $ 19 million. At this point, a member of SriLankan Airlines, who was summoned before the COPE, spoke up and noted that the Finance Division of the airline had notified the Board of Directors that the cash-strapped airline did not have adequate funds to proceed with the deal and that it was finding it difficult to keep up with its daily expenses. Dr. Rajapakshe noted that the Board of Directors should take responsibility for what has happened, adding that the Auditor General and the AG should take action against them. Dr. de Silva requested SriLankan Airlines Chairman Pathirage not to let anybody who is responsible for the deal go free by passing the blame on to innocent officials. He also insisted that there had to be someone who should take responsibility for the whole loss incurred by the airline. “Now, the money is lost. Now, you can’t say that we’re not responsible. Maybe you are not personally responsible, but somebody has to take the responsibility,” Dr. de Silva noted. However, SriLankan Airlines Chairman Pathirage told the COPE that the airline was in consultation with the AG to see what the maximum amount it could recover from the transaction was. “I can’t divulge all the information because it is very sensitive. If I give you all the information today, it will be detrimental to our claim from them.We definitely believe that we have a good opportunity at least to recover part of this money from Airbus,” he told the COPE. Further highlighting the actions the management had taken so far, Pathirage noted that they had filed a complaint before the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) so that the Commission will take necessary actions against officials who had taken money from SriLankan Airlines. “In the meantime, we are looking into whether we can claim damages for SriLankan Airlines as there is a big damage to SriLankan Airlines in terms of reputation, etc.,” he added. Meanwhile, businessman Nimal Hemasiri Perera has been implicated in the Airbus-SriLankan scandal with revelations being made in court that a sum of $ 800,000 was transferred to him from the account maintained by Chandrasena’s wife, Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayaka. The transfer was made to an account owned by Sabre Vision Ltd., which is registered in the British Virgin Islands with the bank account held under the name of Wannakawattawaduge Don Nimal Hemasiri Perera. These revelations were made in court last Wednesday (19) when the case involving the financial scandal was taken up for hearing. Deputy Solicitor General Thusith Mudalige had informed court that a sum of $ 800,000 was transferred to an account held by an individual named Nimal Hemasiri Fernando in November 2014. The transfer had been made to Perera’s account after Airbus had paid a commission of $ 2 million to the account of the former SriLankan Airlines CEO’s wife for the deal to purchase Airbus aircraft by SriLankan Airlines. Following a question posed during the case by Colombo Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake, it was revealed that businessman Nimal Hemasiri Perera’s name was also mentioned in another case involving alleged money laundering charges heard before the Fort Magistrate’s Court – Case No. B 195/16 – where MP Namal Rajapaksa has been cited as the main suspect. Also, Mudalige has informed the court that a sum of € 160,000 was transferred from Wijenayaka’s account to an account maintained by a company, which did not have a listed permanent address and had only two directors. The two directors are brothers and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had reportedly recorded statements from the youngest of the two brothers while the other has been summoned to the CID to record a statement.