by Our Correspondent in Colombo
Allegations portraying former intelligence director Major General Suresh Sallay as a conspirator or even a mastermind behind Sri Lanka’s 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks are facing a direct evidentiary test before the Court of Appeal, where written submissions have challenged the factual and legal foundations of claims advanced on behalf of Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith.
The proceedings arise from a writ petition filed by Sallay challenging preparations for his arrest and detention in connection with the Easter Sunday attacks. Cardinal Ranjith has intervened in the case, seeking the dismissal of Sallay’s petition and arguing that the court should not obstruct the ongoing investigation into the attacks.
At the centre of the dispute, however, is a more fundamental question: whether allegations of conspiracy, assistance or masterminding are supported by sufficient, legally admissible and independently verifiable evidence.
The written submissions opposing the allegations place particular emphasis on the distinction between intelligence gathering and criminal investigation. Intelligence agencies collect and assess information, while criminal investigations and arrests fall within the powers of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID). The submissions argue that military intelligence did not possess ordinary police powers during the relevant period and that the authority to order arrests or direct criminal investigations did not belong to an intelligence officer acting in that capacity.
That distinction is central to the claims concerning Sallay’s official position. Documents submitted to the Court of Appeal state that from 2016 until the end of 2019, Sallay did not hold any military or intelligence position in Sri Lanka. They further state that he was not serving as Director of Military Intelligence when the Easter Sunday attacks took place and did not possess legal authority to issue orders to either the CID or TID.
The legal submissions therefore question the basis for attributing to Sallay a level of operational control or authority that, according to the documents before the court, he did not legally possess at the relevant time.
The case has also placed allegations associated with a documentary broadcast by Britain’s Channel 4 under scrutiny. The intervenient petition relies on the documentary and statements attributed to a person named Azad Maulana. But the submissions challenging those allegations argue that a media report, or an individual’s account repeated through a media report, is not itself independent proof of criminal participation.
More significantly, the documents point to the absence of independent technical corroboration. They state that no scientific telephone records, CCTV footage or other technical evidence have been produced to establish alleged meetings or telephone communications said to have taken place in 2018. The absence of such material is presented as a critical weakness in attempts to convert allegations of a conspiracy into an established factual case.
The question becomes particularly important when the allegation is elevated from possible association to the claim that an individual was a mastermind behind a terrorist attack. Such a conclusion would require evidence capable of establishing a direct connection to the planning, direction or facilitation of the crime. According to the submissions before the Court of Appeal, that evidentiary chain has not been independently demonstrated.
The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday attacks is also central to the argument. Sallay gave evidence before the commission, which conducted an extensive inquiry and examined confidential intelligence reports. The submissions emphasise that the commission did not conclude that Sallay had conspired to carry out the attacks or provided assistance or support to the terrorists.
This does not, by itself, determine the outcome of the current criminal investigation or the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. But it raises a significant evidentiary question over how allegations that were not established by the Presidential Commission, and which the submissions say have not subsequently been supported by independent technical evidence, can be relied upon to portray Sallay as the mastermind of the attacks.
The dispute consequently extends beyond the competing narratives surrounding the Easter Sunday tragedy. It concerns the threshold between suspicion and proof, between intelligence information and criminal evidence, and between an allegation made in public and a fact established through a judicial process.
For the victims and their families, the demand for truth and accountability remains fundamental. But the legal submissions argue that the pursuit of justice cannot dispense with the requirement for credible evidence. The central issue now before the Court of Appeal is whether the allegations advanced against Sallay can withstand that evidentiary test.
Further hearings and legal submissions in the case are expected to continue before the Court of Appeal.
