by Our Correspondent in Colombo
Reports claiming that Shiranti Rajapaksa, the wife of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, left Sri Lanka despite having been summoned by the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) have been described as false by a member of the Rajapaksa family.
Responding to the reports, the family member said Rajapaksa had travelled directly to the airport from a private hospital. The statement was made in response to media reports suggesting that her departure had taken place while she was required to appear before the FCID.
The family member also said that no prior summons had been issued requiring Rajapaksa to appear before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division to provide a statement. According to the account, the circumstances surrounding the notice were different from those portrayed in the reports.
Rajapaksa was scheduled to leave the country on a flight at 12.50am today (16). However, the family member said that an airport official handed her the relevant letter suddenly when she was near the departure gate.
According to the family member, the notification was therefore delivered only when Rajapaksa was at the airport and preparing to leave the country. The account disputes the suggestion that she had knowingly travelled abroad despite an earlier requirement to appear before the FCID.
The clarification centres on the timing of the notification and whether Rajapaksa had previously been formally requested to appear before the financial crimes investigators. The family member maintains that she had not received such a summons before arriving at the airport.
The incident has consequently raised questions over the circumstances in which the notice was delivered and the sequence of events immediately before Rajapaksa’s scheduled departure. The family member’s account is that she came to the airport directly from a private hospital and only received the letter at the departure gate.
The family member said the reports suggesting that Rajapaksa had left the country despite an existing FCID summons were therefore inaccurate. According to the account, the relevant notification was handed to her only as she was due to depart, rather than following an earlier summons to appear before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division.
