Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law

## Summary The speaker poses a brief but pointed rhetorical question regarding a payment that was allegedly made, challenging the logic of an instruction not to pay the Divisional Officer (DO) in the event of a case being lost. The question implies a contradiction or inconsistency in the handling of funds, suggesting that a payment was in fact made despite such a directive. The remark appears to be part of a broader line of questioning or scrutiny regarding financial accountability or a specific transaction.