“Who Are You to Question Me?” — Rajapaksa Fury as Airbus Bribery Shadow Returns
The political ghost of the Airbus scandal has once again returned to haunt Sri Lanka’s ruling elite, this time dragging former President Mahinda Rajapaksa into a storm of uncomfortable questions involving dead witnesses, unexplained cash movements, luxury property speculation, and allegations that refuse to disappear quietly.
At the centre of the controversy stands the late Kapila Chandrasena, the former Chief Executive Officer of SriLankan Airlines, whose sudden death — described officially by some as suicide, while questioned by others under darker theories — has reignited scrutiny over one of the biggest corruption scandals in Sri Lankan aviation history.
According to political sources and investigators familiar with ongoing anti-corruption inquiries, officials attached to Sri Lanka’s Bribery and Corruption Commission have been attempting to trace the movement of funds allegedly linked to the Airbus deal scandal. The amount under scrutiny is staggering: nearly Rs. 600 million in alleged illicit payments said to have circulated among politically connected individuals during the period when aircraft procurement decisions were being made.
But the real political explosion reportedly occurred when investigators attempted to establish whether any portion of that money was physically delivered to properties associated with Mahinda Rajapaksa, including residences in Tangalle and Medamulana.
That, according to insiders, is when tempers erupted.
“Who are you to question me?” Rajapaksa is alleged to have thundered during tense exchanges surrounding the investigation.
The former president, long regarded by supporters as a nationalist strongman and by critics as the architect of an entrenched patronage system, reportedly rejected outright suggestions that he personally benefited from corrupt payments.
“I am not that kind of person,” he is said to have insisted.
Yet it was another alleged remark that has now become the focus of political gossip in Colombo’s legal and diplomatic circles.
“If I had taken that money, I would have bought a house in Colombo.”
It was meant, perhaps, as sarcasm. But in Sri Lanka’s poisonous political climate, sarcasm has a habit of becoming evidence.
Now investigators, political opponents, and public critics are all asking the same dangerous question: were properties in Colombo acquired using funds connected to the Airbus bribery affair?
That question alone has sent tremors through sections of Sri Lanka’s political establishment.
Investigators are reportedly attempting to establish several critical details:
- Was cash physically transported to Rajapaksa-linked residences?
- Who delivered the money?
- What vehicles were used?
- Were the funds carried in bags, boxes, or sealed packages?
- Which intermediaries were present?
- What happened to the money after delivery?
These are not merely theatrical questions. In major corruption probes worldwide, investigators frequently reconstruct physical cash movement patterns to establish chains of custody and political accountability.
The death of Kapila Chandrasena has only deepened the intrigue.
In 2020, both Chandrasena and his wife were charged in connection with allegations that they accepted millions of dollars from Airbus in exchange for influencing aircraft purchases by SriLankan Airlines. International investigations involving British authorities and deferred prosecution agreements already exposed how Airbus operated extensive bribery networks across several countries.
Sri Lanka became one of the named jurisdictions connected to those investigations.
But despite years of allegations, prosecutions, media headlines, and political speeches, Sri Lanka has struggled to produce definitive legal conclusions against its most powerful figures.
Critics say that is not accidental.
For years, allegations surrounding the Rajapaksa political dynasty have often entered the public arena dramatically, only to dissolve slowly into procedural confusion, institutional paralysis, or political compromise.
This latest controversy threatens to reopen old wounds.
Within Colombo’s legal circles, there is growing speculation that anti-corruption investigators are now under intense political pressure. Some fear the inquiry could quietly disappear. Others believe factions within the state are leaking selective information as part of internal power struggles.
Meanwhile, opposition activists are asking a far simpler question: if no wrongdoing occurred, why such anger over basic questions?
Political analysts note that outrage alone does not prove guilt. But equally, emotional denials do not eliminate suspicion when financial trails remain unresolved.
Sri Lanka’s public has heard this script before.
Cash. Political elites. Luxury properties. Dead witnesses. Denials. Delays.
Then silence.
The larger issue is not merely whether Mahinda Rajapaksa personally received money. The deeper concern is whether Sri Lanka’s political system became structurally dependent on corruption linked to state contracts, international procurement deals, and opaque financial networks operating beyond public accountability.
If the alleged Rs. 600 million trail is ever fully reconstructed, it could expose not only individuals, but an entire ecosystem of brokers, political fixers, business intermediaries, and institutional enablers.
For now, however, the central mystery remains unresolved.
Did money from the Airbus scandal find its way into Colombo’s property market?
Were luxury assets quietly accumulated using illicit funds?
And did Kapila Chandrasena carry secrets that powerful people never wanted publicly examined?
Those questions remain hanging heavily over Colombo — unanswered, politically explosive, and increasingly impossible to ignore.