by Our Correspondent in Geneva
New allegations have emerged from Mohamed Haris, a Sri Lankan citizen living in Switzerland, who claims Azad Maulana’s asylum strategy evolved from a personal and political dispute with former Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, widely known as Pillayan, into a broader claim involving Sri Lanka’s State Intelligence Service chief Major General Suresh Sallay.
The claims form part of a continuing account by Haris following his earlier allegations concerning Maulana’s arrival in Europe, alleged international contacts, confidential documents and a disputed financial arrangement linked to the Easter Sunday attacks. The allegations have not been independently verified.
According to Haris, Maulana initially approached him in January 2022 seeking assistance to claim asylum in Switzerland. Haris said he was unfamiliar with Maulana beyond his public role as Pillayan’s former secretary and media spokesperson.
“I didn’t know who Azad Maulana was. I had only heard of him,” Haris said in his account. “I knew he was the under-secretary and media spokesperson for Pillayan.”
Haris said Maulana contacted him unexpectedly through WhatsApp and explained that he needed help leaving Sri Lanka. According to Haris, the first reason Maulana provided was a serious conflict with Pillayan.
“He said, ‘I have a major conflict with Pillayan, and I am going to seek asylum,’” Haris recalled.
However, Haris claims that when the asylum process moved forward in Switzerland, legal advisers raised questions about whether a dispute with Pillayan alone would meet the legal requirements for political protection.
According to Haris, lawyers explained that asylum claims generally require evidence of a serious and verifiable threat meeting the legal threshold for protection. He said advisers informed Maulana that a conflict with a political figure or a group connected to that figure would not automatically establish grounds for asylum.
It was at this stage, Haris alleges, that Maulana introduced a new element into his asylum narrative.
“Maulana said, ‘I also have a severe conflict with Suresh Sallay. I will state that explicitly in the application,’” Haris said.
According to Haris, the reference to Major General Suresh Sallay became part of the legal statement prepared for the asylum application. Haris alleges that this addition changed the direction of the case by introducing an allegation involving a senior figure within Sri Lanka’s security establishment.
Haris claims the original asylum statement was prepared through a legal process involving Tamil-speaking advisers and translators before being converted into the official language required for Swiss proceedings.
He alleges that the document later reached outside individuals and organisations, eventually leading to the involvement of journalist Martin Schüepp, who he says connected with Maulana and introduced him to another legal team.
According to Haris, the transition between legal teams was a turning point.
He claims that after Maulana signed new powers of attorney, control of the asylum process shifted away from the original lawyers who had been reviewing the case. Haris further alleges that the new network encouraged Maulana to present his claims publicly, including through an interview with Channel 4.
The role of Suresh Sallay in the asylum narrative has become a central point in Haris’s allegations. He claims that the reference to Sallay was not part of Maulana’s original explanation for seeking protection but was introduced later when the initial claim involving Pillayan was considered insufficient.
Haris alleges that this development helped create a wider narrative around Maulana’s claims, which later became internationally known through discussions surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks.
Maulana became one of the key figures featured in the Channel 4 documentary concerning allegations about the 2019 bombings. The programme presented claims involving possible links between elements of Sri Lanka’s security establishment and the attacks, although several allegations surrounding the events remain disputed.
Haris claims that the focus on Sallay diverted attention away from what he describes as the earlier foundation of Maulana’s asylum request — his dispute with Pillayan.
According to Haris, Maulana’s repeated refusal to communicate with Pillayan during his stay in Switzerland showed that their relationship had significantly deteriorated. Haris said Pillayan attempted to contact Maulana several times, but Maulana refused to answer.
“He called him many times,” Haris said. “I told Maulana, if he calls, you should answer. If you used to be close associates, just talk to him.”
According to Haris, Maulana responded that speaking to Pillayan would further damage whatever relationship remained between them.
Haris said he never learned the exact reason behind the dispute between the two men, stating that Maulana did not reveal whether the disagreement involved political issues, money, property or other matters.
The latest claims by Haris add another layer to the controversy surrounding Maulana’s role after the Easter Sunday attacks. While Maulana has presented himself internationally as a whistleblower with information about alleged state involvement, Haris argues that the development of the asylum claim involved a gradual expansion of allegations and the introduction of new figures.
Haris maintains that the questions surrounding Maulana’s asylum application, the documents he allegedly possessed, the individuals who assisted him, and the claims involving Suresh Sallay should ultimately be examined through a formal legal process.
The allegations remain disputed and have not been established through an independent judicial finding. Haris says the full circumstances can only be determined through examination of documents, testimony from those involved, and official investigations.
