Airbus: Who Else Is Going to Be Questioned in Sri Lanka?

The Airbus investigation has entered a new phase.

Namal Rajapaksa was arrested on September 4 over allegations connected to the purchase of Airbus aircraft for SriLankan Airlines. He was subsequently remanded until September 18. He has denied wrongdoing.

But within days, the investigation began moving in a direction that makes one thing clear: this is not a case that can be neatly contained around one politician.

Former Speaker and Minister Chamal Rajapaksa has already been questioned by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. Shamindra Rajapaksa, a former SriLankan Airlines board member, and Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, the wife of former airline CEO Kapila Chandrasena, are already subjects of court-issued warrants in connection with the wider investigation.

And now the Attorney General has directed the CID to formally name Namal Rajapaksa as a suspect in the Airbus case before court.

That changes the political temperature. It does not, however, answer the bigger question.

The Namal allegation is only one part of the case

The current allegation centres on a payment that investigators say eventually reached Namal Rajapaksa.

According to evidence presented in court, investigators allege that US$800,000 moved from an account associated with BIZ Solutions Inc. in Singapore to an account belonging to Sabre Vision Holdings Ltd. They allege that the money was subsequently passed on to Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, amounting to approximately Rs.100 million at the time.

The allegations are serious. They are also still allegations. Whether the prosecution can prove the case is ultimately a matter for the legal process.

What is more important from an investigative perspective is what surrounds that payment.

The Airbus transaction involved aircraft procurement, leasing arrangements, airline executives, intermediaries, overseas accounts and government decision-making.

That means the real investigation cannot end with the person allegedly receiving money.

Related: The Airbus Trail: How a Rs.100 Million Bribe Allegation Leads Back to SriLankan Airlines’ Costly Aircraft Deal

Chamal has already been questioned

One of the most significant developments came on September 8, when former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa appeared before CIABOC and gave a statement in connection with the Airbus investigation.

His appearance matters because the investigation is reaching beyond the person currently in remand and into the political and corporate environment surrounding the aircraft programme.

Chamal has not been identified by the authorities as a suspect simply because he was questioned. Giving a statement to investigators is not itself evidence of guilt.

But his questioning raises an obvious investigative issue: investigators are looking at the people who were connected to the decision-making structure around SriLankan Airlines at the time.

That includes people who sat on the airline’s board, people who held ministerial responsibilities and people who were involved in the procurement process.

Then there are two people already wanted by the court

The Airbus case was already much wider before Namal Rajapaksa was arrested.

In April, the Colombo Magistrate’s Court ordered open warrants for Shamindra Rajapaksa, a former SriLankan Airlines board member, and Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, the wife of former CEO Kapila Chandrasena.

The warrants followed investigators’ efforts to question both individuals as part of the bribery investigation.

Shamindra Rajapaksa is significant because he was a member of the SriLankan Airlines board during the period under investigation. Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake is significant because investigators have linked an overseas company and bank account associated with her to the alleged Airbus payment.

Both cases illustrate why the investigation is bigger than a single alleged payment to a politician.

Investigators are attempting to reconstruct the chain: who established the intermediary structures, where money entered the system, who controlled the accounts, where it went next and who allegedly benefited.

Kapila Chandrasena cannot be questioned again

There is another complication.

Kapila Chandrasena, the former SriLankan Airlines CEO who was a central figure in the investigation, died in May.

His death means investigators cannot return to him for further questioning as the case develops. That makes the documentary evidence, banking records and statements already obtained even more important.

Chandrasena had previously been arrested in connection with the Airbus investigation. The case against him included allegations relating to the acceptance of a US$2 million payment connected to the aircraft transaction.

Investigators have also told court that Chandrasena made allegations about payments to political figures.

Those claims need to be treated carefully. A statement attributed to a person who is no longer alive is not, by itself, proof that the alleged recipients committed an offence. Investigators still have to establish what happened and produce evidence capable of supporting the allegations.

The international trail is already established

This is not an investigation that exists entirely inside Sri Lanka.

Airbus itself became the subject of a major international bribery investigation. In 2020, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with Airbus after an investigation covering several countries, including Sri Lanka.

The UK court record describes allegations that Airbus-associated intermediaries were used in connection with aircraft sales and identifies Sri Lanka as one of the jurisdictions covered by the SFO investigation.

Sri Lankan investigators have subsequently pursued financial information and witnesses outside the country. A joint CID and CIABOC team travelled to Australia in July as part of the investigation.

Airbus officials have also provided information to Sri Lankan investigators during the renewed investigation.

That international dimension could prove important because overseas bank accounts, companies and transaction records may provide evidence that cannot be established simply by questioning politicians or former airline officials.

Also read: SriLankan Airlines gets another leadership change. But can a new CEO fix an old problem?

So who could investigators look at next?

There is no responsible way to publish a list of people who will be arrested or questioned next. The authorities have not announced such a list.

But the existing evidence shows the areas investigators still have to examine.

First, there is the airline’s former decision-making structure.

Who approved the procurement strategy? Who participated in the relevant board decisions? Who dealt with Airbus? Who dealt with intermediaries? And what documentation exists showing why particular aircraft, leases and contractual arrangements were selected?

Second, there is the financial trail.

If money moved through overseas companies and accounts, investigators have to establish the beneficial owners and the people who had control over those accounts. A company appearing in a transaction does not automatically prove that its directors or shareholders committed an offence.

Third, there is the political chain.

Cabinet involvement, ministerial responsibility and political access are not the same thing as criminal liability. But if investigators are examining whether money was paid to influence decisions, they have to understand who had the ability to influence those decisions.

That is where the investigation becomes considerably larger than Namal Rajapaksa.

And then there is the aircraft deal itself

One part of the public discussion has focused heavily on alleged bribes.

There is another question that should not disappear: was the underlying aircraft procurement commercially sound?

SriLankan Airlines entered the aircraft programme during a period when the national carrier was expected to expand aggressively. The fleet strategy included Airbus aircraft purchases and leases.

Some of those commitments were later cancelled or unwound at significant cost.

That means the public-interest investigation has two sides.

One is criminal: was money paid illegally to influence decisions?

The other is institutional: how were decisions worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars evaluated, approved and monitored?

Even if a particular corruption allegation eventually fails in court, Sri Lanka would still have to answer the second question.

For the bigger airline picture: The US$1 Billion Question: How Did So Much Money Leave Sri Lanka?

The investigation is now at a more important stage

The latest developments suggest that investigators are no longer dealing with a dormant scandal from the previous decade.

The Attorney General’s latest direction, the questioning of Chamal Rajapaksa, the existing warrants against Shamindra Rajapaksa and Priyanka Niyomali Wijenayake, the overseas investigation and the evidence supplied by Airbus all point to an investigation that is still expanding.

The court has also required CIABOC to provide a further progress report, with the case scheduled to return in October.

That gives investigators time to do what matters most: connect the documents, financial records, witness statements and international evidence into a case that can stand up in court.

For the public, however, there is another reason to watch what happens next.

SriLankan Airlines is still a state-linked company. It has gone through restructuring, leadership changes and enormous financial losses. The consequences of decisions made more than a decade ago are still being felt today.

The question therefore isn’t simply whether Namal Rajapaksa is guilty or innocent.

The more important question is whether Sri Lanka is finally going to establish the full chain of responsibility behind one of the most controversial aircraft deals in the country’s recent history.

If the investigation stops at one political name, much of that story will remain untold.

If investigators follow the money, the decisions and the documents wherever they lead, the Airbus case could become something much more significant: a test of whether Sri Lanka can actually trace responsibility through a major public-sector transaction from beginning to end.