03/10/2026
🇱🇰 The Truth About the MiG Deal Must Be Explained to the Country, 20 Years Later
I am presenting these facts to clarify my position regarding the MiG investigation that has continued for 11 years in relation to me, and to demonstrate the need for a fair, impartial and comprehensive investigation into the matters that are now emerging.
When discussing the MiG deal, the full picture cannot be understood by looking at the 2006 transaction in isolation.
The MiG-27 aircraft purchases, overhaul processes, and the decisions taken in relation to them by the Sri Lanka Air Force during the periods of 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2006 must be examined as one connected history.
One of the principal matters presented to court by the Criminal Investigation Department over the past 11 years was that the process of purchasing MiG aircraft in 2006 was initiated by the Rajapaksa Government through a proposal involving UKRINMASH and BELLIMISSA.
At the same time, I believe that a number of decisions taken by Air Force officials throughout this period were ultimately attributed not to the Government of that time, but to me, thereby resulting in what I see as an abuse of the law.
But my request today is very clear.
Instead of using this investigation for political retaliation, all the facts uncovered during the investigation into this MiG transaction that took place 20 years ago, all relevant documents, and the role of all relevant parties must be fully presented before the court.
⸻
🇺🇦 This Story Did Not Begin in 2006
I was a Sri Lankan businessman who had been living in Ukraine since 1985.
The Sri Lanka Air Force began formal dealings with Ukraine 13 years before I became an Ambassador.
One significant milestone was the purchase of eight AN-32 aircraft from Ukraine in 1993.
It should also be noted that during the period of President Ranasinghe Premadasa, large-scale purchases of defence equipment, including tanks, took place.
I remember that a Singapore-based company called Global Omarus Technologies was also involved as an intermediary in some of those transactions. It was one of the early companies involved in connections between Sri Lanka and Singapore.
At that time, the company can be described as one of the principal active entities involved in various agreements with the Sri Lanka Army and Air Force relating to MI-17s, MI-24s, BTRs, T-55 tanks, BΝPs, AN-32 aircraft, various other military equipment, and different types of bombs.
Later, Global Omarus underwent a division, following which DS Alliance was established.
They worked directly with the Government of Sri Lanka, mainly in relation to supplying fighter aircraft to the Air Force, and were also directly involved with military officials over many years.
It is also no secret that, during that period, a Ukrainian national named Vlad lived in Colombo and worked to successfully meet the requirements of the military.
As a Sri Lankan living in Ukraine at that time, it was part of my normal role to provide necessary assistance to officers of the Air Force and Army whenever they encountered various requirements or difficulties in Kyiv.
They frequently visited both my home and my Lanka Pub restaurant, and there is no need to remind the military officers who visited Kyiv at that time that I was always pleased to receive and host them.
In particular, many Air Force officers still clearly remember my role in helping to secure the release of two AN-32 aircraft that were detained in Russia in 2004.
During that period, various transactions and relationships between Ukraine and Sri Lanka’s defence sector developed, and various companies subsequently became involved in those commercial relationships.
I had no commercial relationship with those companies.
I also record that these circumstances were among the factors that contributed to my appointment as the Honorary Consul of Sri Lanka in Ukraine during the 1999, under the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar.
I particularly emphasise that I received no salary or government benefits for that service.
Until I left Kyiv for Moscow in late 2006 to take up my appointment as Ambassador of Sri Lanka, I served the Government of Sri Lanka whenever possible in Kyiv in my capacity as a Sri Lankan businessman living in Ukraine.
⸻
✈️ The History of the Purchase of MiG Aircraft
The first MiG aircraft were purchased by Sri Lanka in 2000.
At that time, I was also living in Kyiv.
There are documents indicating that DS Alliance was involved in the 2000 transaction and that agreements were signed with them.
Subsequently, during 2003/2004, there was also a procurement process relating to the overhaul of MiG aircraft, and documents exist concerning quotations submitted by various parties, including DS Alliance.
There are also documents indicating that DS Alliance was awarded the tender in 2004 based on its proposal.
The sudden cancellation of that tender is also a matter that requires examination.
This brings me to a very important point.
The 2006 MiG transaction was not a process that suddenly began in 2006.
I point out that the documents establish that, for six years prior to 2006, MiG-related contacts and procurement processes had been taking place between the Sri Lanka Air Force, Singapore and Ukraine.
⸻
🇺🇦 The 2003 UKRINMASH Proposal
On 22 April 2003, UKRINMASH submitted, for the first time, a proposal to the then Minister of Defence, Tilak Marapana, concerning four MiG-27 aircraft, as a Government-to-Government (G-to-G) transaction between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of Ukraine.
The price specified was US$1.65 million per MiG-27 aircraft.
According to the documents, the proposal was not for aircraft that would be delivered after complete overhaul. Rather, it was based on the remaining TBO (Time Between Overhaul) and service life of the aircraft. Accordingly, the aircraft could be used for approximately one year, or a maximum of two years.
The proposal also included a payment arrangement and a mechanism for payment through a finance company.
The information available regarding the 2003 offer also indicates that there was an arrangement under which the name of the finance company would be communicated after the Contract.
Therefore, viewing the payment structure involving a financier in 2006 as an entirely new concept is also a matter that requires examination.
⸻
🔧 What Happened in 2006?
The process moved forward in accordance with the requirements of the Sri Lanka Air Force, involving both the overhaul of existing MiG aircraft and the acquisition of additional MiG-27 aircraft.
Based on the requirements of the Sri Lanka Air Force at that time, the two proposals from 2003 and 2004 were brought together. In the official offer submitted by UKRINMASH to the Ministry of Defence on 6 February 2006, the proposal included the delivery of four MiG-27M aircraft following complete overhaul, as well as the overhaul of several MiG aircraft already in the possession of the Sri Lanka Air Force.
The same offer clearly stated that a financier would be involved and that the financier could be the beneficiary of the Confirmed Letter of Credit.
The 2006 proposal specified a price of US$2.5 million for each MiG-27M aircraft and included technical specifications such as an eight-year TBO for the airframe and a seven-year TBO for the engine.
Therefore, simply comparing the price of aircraft offered in 2003 without overhaul with the price of aircraft proposed in 2006 with complete overhaul and a longer TBO, and then concluding that “the price was increased,” is not technically sufficient.
In relation to this matter, I regard as a narrow and false allegation the claim that was presented to the media by journalist Iqbal Athas for the purpose of directly criticising Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the then Secretary of Defence, on political grounds. Subsequently, at the Mount Lavinia High Court, he himself acknowledged that those claims were false.
Therefore, I believe that the allegations published in the media, together with the judgment of the Mount Lavinia High Court and the complete records relating to it, should also be examined before this court.
⸻
📊 A Sri Lanka Air Force Document Comparing the 2000 and 2006 Transactions
In this regard, particular attention must be given to a document prepared by the Sri Lanka Air Force and submitted to the Mount Lavinia High Court.
It compares the costs relating to the MiG-27 aircraft in 2000 and 2006.
Annual cost calculated per aircraft in 2000:
➡️ US$643,507
In 2006:
➡️ US$322,125
In other words, the 2006 figure was approximately 50% lower than the 2000 figure.
An important point that must be clarified is also stated in that Sri Lanka Air Force document itself.
It states that comparing the aircraft obtained in 2000 in an “as it is” condition with the fully overhauled aircraft obtained in 2006 could be considered a comparison of “incomparables.”
If that is the case, my question is very simple.
If the price of the 2006 transaction is being questioned in isolation, should the aircraft acquired in 2000, their condition at the time of acquisition, their TBO, overhaul requirements and total cost not also be investigated according to the same standard?
However, the failure of the Criminal Investigation Department to present these matters before the court is, in my view, a hidden political issue.
⸻
💰 The Full Truth About BELLIMISSA Is Also Necessary
The manner in which Bellimissa Holdings Ltd. became involved in the 2006 transaction continues to be presented as a major issue.
However, the UKRINMASH offer dated 6 February 2006 itself stated that a financier would be involved and that the financier could be the beneficiary of the Letter of Credit.
The clarification issued by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2015 also presented details regarding the finance-company arrangement in the 2003 offer and the manner in which Bellimissa became involved as the financier in 2006.
Therefore, the question that should be examined today is:
Was Bellimissa an entity that was suddenly and secretly brought into the transaction in 2006?
Or,
Was it part of the financing structure, with the knowledge of the Air Force and relevant authorities, dating back to 2003?
The answer can be established by comparing the Overhaul requirements, Offer Letters, Guarantee Letters, Contracts, Invoices, Letters of Credit and statements of the relevant officials.
⸻
🏛️ When Gotabaya Rajapaksa Became Secretary of Defence
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa assumed the position of Secretary of Defence at the end of 2005, the country was experiencing a military situation, and this process subsequently moved forward again.
During that period, proposals were also made to conduct procurement activities through various government structures in relation to intermediary entities. As a result, I note that Lanka Logistics Ltd was established at that time as a state entity for defence-sector procurement activities.
My principal question here is: on whose requirements were the fundamental Technical Requirements, Aircraft Numbers, Overhaul Requirements and Procurement Requirements contained in the G-to-G proposal submitted in February 2006 prepared?
Who provided that information to UKRINMASH?
🔹 Was it the Air Force?
🔹 Was it the Ministry of Defence?
🔹 Or was it a party that had already been involved?
This is a matter that should be clarified by examining the statements of officials and the original documents.
Therefore, it would not be fair to history to portray the G-to-G proposal submitted in February 2006 simply as a proposal suddenly created by the Rajapaksa Government.
⸻
❓ Questions I Must Ask in Response to the Main Allegation Made Against Me for the Past 11 Years
🔹 Who decided that there was a requirement to purchase four new MiG aircraft?
🔹 Who decided that four existing aircraft needed to be overhauled?
🔹 Who cancelled the tender awarded to DS Alliance in 2004 for the overhaul of four aircraft?
🔹 Who prepared the technical specifications?
🔹 Who conducted the procurement process?
🔹 Who managed the process of obtaining Cabinet approval?
🔹 Who handled the Letter of Credit and payment arrangements?
The answers to all these questions can be established through official documents and statements of the relevant officials.
The original contract SLAF/2006/07/AIR, which is an essential exhibit for this investigation, was held by the Sri Lanka Air Force but subsequently went missing. The truth regarding the decision taken by the Attorney General to release the principal suspect in connection with the missing contract must also be explained to the country.
Despite this, I have a legitimate question as to why the responsibility for the entire process of a transaction carried out 20 years ago, through a contract directly signed by the Commander of the Air Force, has been placed on me.
I see this as political retaliation.
⸻
🇱🇰 What I Have Endured for 11 Years
For 11 years, I have endured allegations, investigations, international reputational damage, an Interpol Red Notice, an Interpol Blue Notice, arrests in Dubai and Sri Lanka, detention in remand custody, restrictions on foreign travel, the disabling of bank accounts, freezing of assets, and the resulting business and personal losses.
I am not presenting these matters as personal accusations against anyone.
I am asking for only one thing —
Present the complete truth to both the country and the court.
⸻
👤 What Was My Role?
During the period when I lived in Ukraine, I provided necessary assistance in Kyiv to officers of the Sri Lanka Air Force and Army.
Later, as an Ambassador, I carried out my diplomatic responsibilities.
However,
Procurement decisions of the Air Force, technical decisions, or Cabinet decisions of the Government of Sri Lanka were not decisions made by me.
There are official records concerning the institutions and officials who made those decisions.
If those documents are presented before the court, it will be possible to establish clearly who made which decision, and at what stage of the transaction.
⸻
⚖️ My Request Today
Instead of continuing with the one-sided narrative that has been presented against me for 11 years, what is required today is to examine the decisions taken by the relevant Air Force Commanders and officials during the period from 2000 to 2006, and to place the entire MiG procurement history before the court.
Put all of these facts together and present the truth before the court.
If, even after 11 years, it is still necessary to obtain statements from individuals involved in the major decisions and decision-making processes of 20 years ago, that itself raises a legitimate question regarding the completeness and impartiality of this investigation.
The relevant documents can clearly establish that the then Commander of the Air Force agreed to the final prices relating to the purchase of the MiG aircraft, agreed to sign the agreement, and provided a written state guarantee before the date on which I was appointed as Ambassador. The fact that this document has still not been presented before the court is a matter of concern.
Subsequently, the Sri Lanka Air Force sent an ORDER CONFIRMATION to the aforementioned UKRINMASH company confirming the relevant order, and it clearly stated that the payments relating to this transaction would be made to BELLIMISSA HOLDINGS.
These matters can be examined before the court on the basis of written evidence.
However, if I have been portrayed for 11 years as the person responsible for decisions and actions that were not within my responsibility in a transaction that took place 20 years ago, then the truth about that matter must also be explained to the country.
⸻
Finally,
Whatever the truth may be, it is my right, and the right of the country, to have that truth fully revealed.
— Udayanga Weeratunga
Former Ambassador of Sri Lanka to Russia
