June 09, Colombo (LNW): Two former senior government figures, Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Nalin Fernando, have submitted appeals to the Supreme Court, contesting lengthy prison sentences handed down by the Colombo High Court in connection with a controversial sports equipment procurement scheme during the 2015 presidential election period.
Both men were convicted in late May by a three-judge bench following a high-profile trial initiated by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.
Aluthgamage, a former Minister of Sports, was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, whilst Fernando, a former Trade Minister and ex-Chairman of Sathosa, received a 25-year sentence.
The convictions stemmed from the alleged misuse of public funds amounting to more than Rs. 53 million. Prosecutors argued that the two authorised the purchase of 14,000 Carrom boards and 11,000 draught boards through Sathosa, a government-owned retail enterprise, and distributed them to sports clubs across the country under the guise of promoting recreational activities.
However, the prosecution maintained that the purchases were politically motivated, aimed at bolstering electoral support, and executed in violation of established procurement protocols.
Both Aluthgamage and Fernando have maintained their innocence throughout the proceedings and have now sought the intervention of the Supreme Court, requesting that their convictions be overturned. The appeals were filed through legal counsel and have been formally submitted to the Colombo High Court to be referred to the apex court.
In the petition submitted on behalf of Aluthgamage, it is claimed that the High Court failed to properly evaluate evidence presented by the defence, and that key legal arguments were overlooked. The appeal further asserts that the judges misinterpreted material facts in reaching their verdict. As a result, the former minister argues that the sentence imposed upon him is not legally justifiable and has petitioned for a full acquittal.
Fernando has raised similar objections in his own appeal. His legal team contends that the court did not give adequate weight to his defence submissions and that procedural irregularities may have affected the fairness of the trial. Like Aluthgamage, he too is seeking to have the judgment set aside and his name cleared.
During the original trial, the prosecution pressed for a stern ruling, arguing that the accused had acted with deliberate intent, causing financial harm to the state and breaching public trust. They emphasised that the funds misused were taxpayer money, and called for the sentence to serve as a message to those in public office that abuse of power would not be tolerated.
Both former ministers await a decision that could either uphold their convictions or grant them reprieve from some of the most significant corruption-related sentences handed down in recent years.
