Shiranthi Rajapaksa’s Singapore Departure Puts Old Investigations Back in Spotlight

Former First Lady leaves Sri Lanka days before reported FCID appearance as questions resurface over Siriliya Saviya account, CT scanner funds, luxury buses and other investigations

Former First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa’s departure for Singapore has brought renewed attention to a series of financial and criminal investigations that have surrounded her for more than a decade.

Rajapaksa left Bandaranaike International Airport early Wednesday (16) on Singapore Airlines flight SQ 469, accompanied by Anne de Livera, the mother of Rohitha Rajapaksa’s wife. Her departure comes days before she is reportedly due to appear before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) on 24 September.

The timing has prompted renewed public interest in several cases and allegations previously investigated by Sri Lankan authorities.

None of the allegations outlined below, however, should be treated as proof of wrongdoing. The existence of a complaint or investigation does not establish guilt, and no conviction against Rajapaksa in relation to these matters has been reported.

The Siriliya Saviya account

Among the most closely scrutinised matters is a bank account maintained in the name of Siriliya Saviya.

The account, opened at the Suduwella branch of People’s Bank under account number 143100146235069, was reportedly held jointly by Rajapaksa and two other individuals. The address recorded for all three account holders was Carlton House in Tangalle.

Investigators later raised questions about the National Identity Card number recorded for Rajapaksa. The number entered in the account-opening documents was 222222222V.

Under Sri Lanka’s former identity-numbering system, the first two digits generally reflected the holder’s year of birth. The number recorded for Rajapaksa therefore became the subject of questions and allegations that false identification details had been used.

On 1 June 2015, Rajapaksa was questioned by the then Financial Crimes Investigation Division at the Speaker’s official residence.

The questioning followed a complaint concerning deposits amounting to millions of rupees that had reportedly been made to the account through several branches of People’s Bank. The complaint also alleged that a false National Identity Card number had been used to establish the account.

CT scanner controversy

Another investigation concerns funds collected for the purchase of a CT scanner for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children in Colombo.

The allegation under investigation was that funds had been obtained from a state bank for the purchase of a scanner, while a CT scanner donated to Sri Lanka by the Chinese Government was subsequently presented to the hospital as a donation from the Siriliya Foundation.

Police reportedly investigated Rajapaksa and others over the matter.

Political representatives aligned with the Rajapaksa camp rejected allegations of misappropriation, maintaining that funds raised for the scanner remained in the Siriliya account.

The competing claims have remained part of the broader controversy surrounding the foundation and its financial activities.

The Defender at the centre of the Thajudeen probe

Rajapaksa’s name also surfaced during the investigation into the death of rugby player Wasim Thajudeen.

In 2017, the Criminal Investigation Department summoned her to record a statement concerning a Defender vehicle bearing registration number WP KA-0642.

The vehicle had been provided by the Sri Lanka Red Cross Society to Siriliya Saviya. The Red Cross had informed investigators that it had been used by the organisation from August 2011 until 20 January 2015.

Red Cross officials were questioned by the CID about the vehicle on 30 June 2015.

Rajapaksa was subsequently summoned to appear before the CID on 27 July 2017 but did not attend on that date.

The vehicle became relevant to investigators examining the circumstances surrounding Thajudeen’s death. Its precise significance, however, remains a matter for the investigation and judicial process.

Luxury buses and Carlton Preschool

Another inquiry reportedly focused on two luxury buses valued at millions of rupees.

Investigators examined allegations that the buses had been imported duty-free on the basis that they were intended for the Ministry of Sports, but were subsequently provided to Carlton Preschool, an institution associated with Rajapaksa.

The CID reportedly investigated whether the transaction involved corruption, abuse of duty concessions or other financial irregularities.

Again, the allegations have not in themselves established criminal liability.

Allegations over Treasury gold

In January 2015, Shyamali Priyadarshani Perera, the wife of former Deputy Inspector General of Police Vass Gunawardena, lodged a complaint with the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

Perera alleged that Rajapaksa was connected to the fraudulent sale of gold belonging to the State Treasury.

After submitting the complaint, Perera told journalists that she believed the former Rajapaksa administration had retaliated against her husband because he had examined evidence connected to the alleged transaction.

The claims were allegations made by Perera and have not been established by a court judgment.

A fresh focus on old questions

Rajapaksa’s departure for Singapore has once again placed these unresolved questions in the public spotlight.

Her reported appearance before the FCID on 24 September could bring renewed attention to investigations that date back to the final years of the previous Rajapaksa administration and the political upheaval that followed the 2015 presidential election.

For investigators, the immediate issue is whether outstanding questions surrounding financial transactions, assets, vehicles and charitable activities can be substantiated by documentary and other evidence.

For the public, however, the distinction between allegation and established fact remains crucial.

Until investigations are concluded and, where applicable, matters are determined by a court, the allegations against Rajapaksa remain allegations—not findings of guilt.