Case Analysis and Significance:

This Supreme Court case, SC Appeal 104/2024, arising from the infamous 2015–2016 Sri Lankan Treasury Bond scandal, is significant in terms of how bribery and financial misconduct cases are investigated, prosecuted, and subjected to judicial review. The core issue was whether the Attorney General’s decision to indict former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake—based partly on material from a Presidential Commission of Inquiry—was lawful, and whether the Court of Appeal was right in quashing that indictment.

Key Issues in the Case:

1. Use of Commission of Inquiry Materials:
   The Attorney General (AG) used materials from the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the bond scandal to file an indictment. The AG is empowered to do so under Section 24 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which permits prosecution based on such materials, even without a traditional police investigation.
2. Quashing of the Indictment:
   The Court of Appeal quashed the indictment via writ of certiorari, citing lack of “adequate material and evidence” against Karunanayake. The Supreme Court disagreed with this intervention, asserting that the AG’s prosecutorial discretion should not be second-guessed unless there is clear evidence of mala fides, abuse of power, or illegality.
3. Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Review:
   The Supreme Court reiterated that while prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not absolute. However, judicial review is only appropriate in “highly exceptional” circumstances (e.g., dishonesty, political motivation). The Court emphasized that speculative or premature interference with the AG’s discretion disrupts the trial process and undermines justice.
4. Grounds for Judicial Review:
   The Court of Appeal’s decision rested on the assertion that material from the Commission lacked legal basis for prosecution. However, the Supreme Court clarified that such material can legally form the basis of prosecution, and any disputes about evidence should be tested during trial—not pre-emptively dismissed.

Significance in Bribery and Public Corruption Context:

• Affirms AG’s Role in Complex Financial Crimes: The judgment reinforces the AG’s autonomy and responsibility to prosecute high-level financial misconduct, including bribery-related offences involving public officials.
• Limits on Judicial Interference: It sets a precedent that Courts should not interfere lightly with prosecutorial decisions, especially in economic crime cases involving sophisticated schemes and large-scale financial loss.
• Upholds Integrity of Commissions of Inquiry: The decision validates the use of material from Commissions as a legitimate basis for initiating criminal proceedings, thereby enhancing their utility in corruption probes.
• Protects Rule of Law Amid Political Allegations: The Court acknowledged concerns about politically motivated prosecutions but stressed that the solution lies in maintaining prosecutorial independence—not judicial overreach.

Conclusion:

This case is a landmark in delineating the boundary between prosecutorial discretion and judicial oversight in bribery and corruption matters. It underscores the importance of allowing the justice system to process complex financial crimes without premature judicial interference, and reaffirms that accountability of public officials, especially in high-stakes economic crimes, must be pursued rigorously within the rule of law.

Read Full Judgment