(Sri Lanka Brief/ 04 November 2025) The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed three writ petitions filed by the wife, daughter, and son-in-law of former Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, challenging an order issued by the Colombo High Court to freeze their assets and extend the ban.
Background to the Case
In August 2024, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption secured an order from the Colombo High Court to freeze assets belonging to Rambukwella’s family members as part of an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court has since extended the order every three months.
The frozen assets, valued at over Rs. 97 million, include fixed deposit accounts, life insurance policies, and other financial instruments. These measures relate to a case involving disproportionate assets for which indictments have already been filed.
Petitioners’ Position
The petitions, filed by Kusum Priyadarshani Epa Wehena (wife), Chandula Rambukwella (daughter), and Isuru Pulasthi Bandara (son-in-law), argued that:
- They were not given an opportunity to present arguments before the prohibitory order was issued.
- The order was based solely on unilateral submissions.
- This process violated the principles of natural justice and caused serious prejudice.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A bench comprising Justices Janak de Silva, Sampath Abeykoon, and Priyantha Fernando unanimously dismissed the petitions. Delivering the decision, Justice Janak de Silva stated:
- The Bribery and Corruption Commission has the legal authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act to seek such orders if sufficient evidence exists.
- It is not mandatory to hear the affected party before issuing a freezing order.
- The petitioners failed to present a satisfactory legal basis for their claims.
Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitions lacked merit and dismissed all three.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the powers of the Bribery and Corruption Commission to act decisively in cases involving disproportionate assets. It also clarifies that under Sri Lankan law, asset-freezing orders can be issued without prior notice to the affected parties when sufficient evidence supports the investigation.