by Our Correspondent in Colombo
“General Suresh Sallay was not arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the court… the arrest of General Suresh Sallay was carried out without the knowledge of the court or the esteemed judges. Under what and by whom? That is what is extremely important,” says Sanjeewa Weerawickrama, Attorney-at-Law, as he frames the central concern surrounding the arrest and detention of the former Director General of the State Intelligence Service. He says this during a press conference conducted recently in Colombo.
He continues by emphasizing the absence of judicial procedure in the initial stages of the arrest. “The court had never stated that General Suresh Sallay should be made a suspect in any case. The court had never issued a notice, summons or warrant to General Suresh Sallay and asked him to appear at the police station or the court for investigation.” In this framing, he underscores that the arrest did not emerge from the ordinary legal processes typically associated with criminal procedure. “Before taking General Suresh Sallay into custody, no proper judicial direction had been issued, and yet he was deprived of liberty,” he states, raising the question of legality and authority.
Turning to the legal framework invoked, he notes, “General Suresh Sallay is being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The officer operating under that act is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.” He then explicitly identifies the authority involved: “The current Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is the President His Excellency Anura Kumara Dissanayake. So we must remember that General Suresh Sallay was arrested at the request of the President His Excellency Anura Kumara Dissanayake.” He further elaborates on the chain of decision-making: “The order to arrest and detain him was issued by the Minister of Defence… under Section 92 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.”
Weerawickrama repeatedly returns to the question of who determined the necessity of detention. “Then, who decided that there were sufficient grounds to arrest and detain him? That was decided by the Defence Minister.” He extends this reasoning to the conditions of detention as well: “He will not be detained in a prison as an ordinary prisoner. Instead, he is being detained in a very small room under the Criminal Investigation Department under extremely difficult conditions. That was also decided by the Defence Minister.” He highlights that even the place of detention is specified within the order itself: “Section 92 of his own detention order states that he should be detained in that place.”
Addressing broader public discourse, he recalls prior criticism of the same law now being used. “When you arrested organizations and activists in the past, you raised a big voice. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is a draconian law… this law should be abolished.” He then positions the present situation as a test: “Now I would like to remind you that a very good test case has come up in Sri Lanka. You can all learn whether this action was right or wrong… whether the arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act is right or wrong.”
He proceeds to describe the expected judicial process following an arrest. “Only if a police officer presents sufficient facts does an honorable judge sign an arrest warrant. The judge does not make arrests. Only for a request.” He contrasts this with the present situation by questioning whether such standards were followed. “We are asking whether there were facts that justified this arrest.”
Further, he explains the procedural requirements after detention. “After an arrest is made, the police officers shall produce him before the High Court for his detention and obtain an order from the High Court. That order shall be obtained at the same time. A summary of evidence shall be produced.” He stresses the importance of evidentiary justification: “We request permission to take him into custody according to the evidence collected so far.” This leads him to question, “When no clear facts have been revealed, will an ordinary judge allow him to be detained? I believe he will never be allowed.”
He reiterates the timeline and procedural expectations: “After a person has been arrested and detained, when the person is presented before the Magistrate before 24 hours have elapsed, we should inform the Honorable Judge about the situation before the arrest… what is the status of the investigation after the arrest… what is the evidence… on what grounds are we requesting further detention.” He then points to the scheduled court appearance: “General Suresh Sallay supposed be presented to the court on April 22nd (today).” In that context, he demands justification: “Why was he arrested? What facts were found after his arrest? If he should be further remanded… then present on what grounds. Otherwise, the detention will be an illegal detention.”
Weerawickrama then situates the issue within constitutional principles. “Sri Lanka is a republic. Sri Lanka is not a monarchy. The law of a republic is that everyone is subject to the law.” He contrasts this with earlier periods: “There were presidents with very high executive powers… but don’t forget that the current president is a president after the 19th and 21st Amendments. A president subject to the law.” He insists on accountability: “We are asking… why this President arrested General Suresh Sallay? Why did he decide to detain him? Why did he sign the order? And why did he decide to detain him for such a long time? This President must come forward and answer the questions before the court.”
Turning to investigations into the Easter attacks, he notes the extensive prior inquiries. “There were presidential commissions. There were special committees appointed by the President. The FBI investigated. The Indian authorities investigated. Intelligence agencies in England and Australia conducted investigations.” He emphasizes the outcome of these inquiries: “Through which investigation was it revealed that General Suresh Sallay was involved in any Easter attack incident? We are saying that his name was not mentioned anywhere.”
He then contrasts the situation before and after the arrest. “By the day of his arrest, no information had been reported about the General.” After the arrest, however, he notes new claims: “Two weeks later, a report was submitted and mentioned three things.” He addresses one such claim directly: “They claimed that the bomber who went to detonate the bomb in Katuwapitiya had been given the location by General Suresh Sallay. We said that was a complete lie.”
He elaborates by referring to investigative findings. “There is a long description of how that person went to the place where the bomb was detonated. If you see it, you will understand the nature of the plan.” He highlights the existence of numerous safe houses: “Twenty safe houses have been used throughout Sri Lanka… now the people of this country should remember why such a large number of these extremist terrorists have so many safe houses.” He lists locations and raises questions: “Why were there safe houses in multiple areas? They must have been used to detonate bombs.”
Discussing forensic investigations, he refers to DNA analysis. ‘The DNA of Sarah Jasmine was examined on three occasions,’ he explains, adding the reasoning behind further examination: ‘To ensure certainty, this previous DNA investigation was conducted.’ He challenges criticism of that process: ‘Who says that the investigation was wrong? If two investigations were being carried out with faults, it means the order given to conduct the third one was correct to establish certainty.’”
He also addresses contradictions in investigative findings. “What is interesting here is the contradiction in the CID’s statements on the DNA tests. On one hand, it is said that Sara Jasmine is dead. On the other hand, it is said that she has been taken away. Can one institution hold two such opinions at the same time?” He questions the coherence of such positions: “Isn’t that a contradiction? Can you hold two such positions before the law?
Further, he refers to witness statements and intelligence links. “Abdul Aziz Rumi recorded his statement… he says that he spoke to a military officer.” He clarifies the implication: “People who work in intelligence speak to military officers. That is a normal process.” He concludes, “It is very clear that it was not General Suresh Sallay.”
He then critiques the basis of the case itself. “You are starting this case in a very strange way… according to a request to investigate a program broadcast by Channel Four.” He notes the number of arrests: “You have arrested two people. This is the third one.” He refers to another detainee: “Mr. Pillayan was taken into custody and kept under Section 92… for a year.” He questions the outcome: “Not a single word about the Easter Sunday attack was said in court.”
He continues questioning the narrative: “Now are you saying that General Suresh Sallay can be linked to this Channel Four story? What kind of situation is this?” He urges scrutiny: “The intelligent people of this country need to understand this.”
Turning to international findings, he highlights another dimension. “Three people have been indicted in the United States.” He emphasizes leadership roles: “Mohammad Naufer was identified as the mastermind.” He adds, “It is stated that 45 people were trained to commit suicide.” He then raises a comparative question: “Who is the intelligence officer who calls General Suresh Sallay instead of investigating these individuals?”
He describes ideological preparation behind the attacks. “There was a very clear religious teaching before the attack… training… methods to detonate… people’s minds were prepared to the point of committing suicide.” He frames this as an area requiring attention: “Shouldn’t the government investigate those extremist attempts to make our country safe?”
Finally, he returns to the character of the individual at the center of the case. “General Suresh Sallay is an army officer who has been trained to be honest for the state, respect the law, stand up for the truth, and give his life for justice.” He concludes with a firm assertion: “General Suresh Sallay is not a person who tells lies for personal goals. He is not a person who suppresses justice. Even if you detain him for months or years, the truth will remain.”
