by Our Correspondent in Colombo
Rohan de Silva is a Catholic priest associated with the Centre for Society and Religion (CSR), an entity closely linked to the Catholic Church. He issued a report yesterday that raises profound legal and ethical concerns at a particularly sensitive moment in Sri Lanka’s judicial process. It is difficult to ignore that Fr. de Silva is not a detached observer, but rather the very complainant whose allegations led to the arrest of Major General Suresh Sallay, former Director General of the State Intelligence Service. This prior involvement, coupled with his earlier public calls for the hanging of the then Director of the State Intelligence Service, Nilantha Jayawardene, inevitably casts a long shadow over the perceived neutrality of the report. Where such a figure publishes a document in which Sallay is referenced no fewer than 31 times within 56 pages, the issue is not merely one of content, but also of intent and consequence.
The report repeatedly relies on the Channel 4 documentary, a production that has itself been the subject of extensive debate regarding its evidentiary standards and underlying motivations. Notably, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, a prominent religious authority with strongly held views relating to conspiracy theories surrounding the Easter attacks, also features within that narrative. However, it must be asked whether this documentary, and by extension the report that draws so heavily upon it, can properly be regarded as an independent investigative source, or whether it forms part of a broader attempt to advance a particular narrative against selected individuals. The repeated reliance on such material, absent clear judicial validation, risks the transformation of allegation into perceived fact in the public mind.
From a legal perspective, the timing of this publication is deeply concerning. Mr Sallay remains in custody and is due to be produced before court on 22 April. The doctrine of sub judice exists precisely to prevent external commentary from prejudicing ongoing proceedings. While Sri Lanka’s contempt of court jurisprudence is less codified than in certain common law jurisdictions, the underlying principle remains clear: publications that create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial may amount to an interference with the administration of justice. When a report asserts, for instance, that “this attack was not one led merely by the extremist terrorist named Zahran Hashim” and repeatedly alludes to a “hidden hand above Zahran”, it does more than analyse; it risks insinuating culpability beyond what has been judicially established.
Equally troubling is the report’s reliance on untested allegations. It cites claims that “a senior Sri Lankan intelligence official met with the suicide bombers prior to the Easter Sunday attacks” and suggests that the events formed part of “a very big plan” extending over a number of years. Such assertions, drawn from material that has not been tested through cross-examination in a court of law, carry an inherent risk. When presented in the form of a structured and authoritative report, they may influence public perception, potential witnesses, and the broader environment within which judicial actors are required to operate.
The cumulative effect of these elements should not be understated. The repeated reference to Mr Sallay, the framing of events within a conspiratorial narrative, and the reliance on contested external sources together create a powerful impression. In legal terms, this raises the spectre of trial by publication. Even where the judiciary remains insulated, the integrity of due process depends not only upon judicial independence, but also upon the absence of undue external pressure. Public discourse that leans towards presumption rather than proof risks eroding that foundation.
There is also a broader issue of proportionality and responsibility. Advocacy organisations play a vital role in democratic societies, particularly in the pursuit of accountability for grave events. However, that role carries an attendant obligation to avoid conduct that may undermine the very administration of justice it seeks to uphold. Where a report appears to conflate investigation with conclusion, and where it is authored by a party with a direct and acknowledged stake in related proceedings, the boundary between advocacy and influence becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
