Colombo High Court has ordered that further evidence in the bribery case filed against former Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody be heard on 5 October, as testimony continued over allegations linked to a road surfacing contract at a Lanka Fertiliser Company warehouse complex.
The case was taken up before Colombo High Court Judge Rashantha Godawela on 7 September. During the proceedings, former chairman of the Lanka Fertiliser Company Buddhika Ruwan Madihahawa gave evidence under the direction of Asitha Anthony, Assistant Director General of the Bribery Commission.
Madihahawa told the court that a procurement process had been initiated in 2014 to select a bidder for carpeting roads at the company’s Hunupitiya warehouse complex. At the time, Jayakody, who is the accused in the case, was serving as the company’s procurement manager, the witness said.
Following the procurement process, D. S. Construction was selected to carry out the road surfacing work. According to the witness, the company was subsequently paid an advance of Rs. 8,859,708 against an advance payment guarantee.
Madihahawa said he had approved the payment after examining documents submitted by the procurement and finance divisions indicating that the required procurement procedures had been properly followed.
However, the witness told the court that D. S. Construction did not carry out the carpeting work. He said that materials, including stones brought to the company premises for the project, had instead been left within the company’s premises.
Following the failure to complete the work, only Rs. 2,214,921 was recovered under the advance payment guarantee provided by the company, the witness said.
The proceedings subsequently heard evidence from a legal officer of the National Audit Office.
The High Court adjourned the further hearing of evidence until 5 October.
The Bribery Commission has filed the case against Jayakody alleging that, while serving as procurement manager of the Lanka Fertiliser Company in 2014, he carried out procurement activities relating to the carpeting contract at the company’s warehouse premises in a manner that benefited a private company.
The commission alleges that the procurement process resulted in a loss of Rs. 8,859,708 to the government. The allegations remain subject to determination by the court.
