What is next in the treasury bond case after Supreme Court verdict?

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Monday (1), which set aside a High Court-at-Bar order discharging several accused, including Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. and former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, from charges relating to the controversial Central Bank Treasury bond issuance case, has reignited public interest in one of the country’s most high-profile financial case. The Supreme Court’s determination that a company can be prosecuted under the Offences Against Public Property Act has also raised concerns about the future course of the case and its implications for the accused. In response to these concerns, the Daily Mirror examines what the ruling means, the legal steps that are likely to follow, and the challenges that may arise as the case moves forward.  

Public Property charges  

The Attorney General is expected to proceed with Public Property Act charges against the accused in the controversial Central Bank bond scam case following a landmark Supreme Court ruling delivered on Monday (01). 

That allows Perpetual Treasuries Ltd (PTL) to be prosecuted under the Offences Against Public Property Act. The ruling relates to the controversial Treasury bond auction conducted on March 31, 2016.   

The Supreme Court overturned an earlier determination by the High Court-at-Bar, which had held that Public Property Act charges could not be maintained against PTL as a corporate entity and, consequently, that its directors could not be indicted for aiding and abetting the company in relation to such offences.  

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that a company can, in fact, be prosecuted under the Offences Against Public Property Act. The Court observed that while a corporate entity cannot be subjected to imprisonment, it can nevertheless be punished through the imposition of fines where the relevant law provides for such penalties.  

The Supreme Court further found that the High Court-at-Bar had erred in law in concluding that PTL could not be indicted under the Public Property Act.  

Trial-at-Bar proceedings to resume  

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the long-delayed Trial-at-Bar proceedings concerning the March 31, 2016 bond issuance are expected to resume.  

The case had previously been heard before a three-member Trial-at-Bar. However, legal observers note that practical difficulties may arise in reconstituting the original bench. In such circumstances, the Attorney General may request the Chief Justice to appoint a new Trial-at-Bar to hear the case.  

Under the law, the Chief Justice has the authority to nominate a three-judge bench to hear matters of exceptional public importance, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences.  

Duration of trial remains uncertain  

Legal experts say it is difficult to estimate how long the proceedings may take, as the duration of a criminal trial depends on numerous factors, including the complexity of the case and the volume of evidence.