A fresh legal intervention has widened one of Sri Lanka’s most closely watched court battles over the investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, with two prominent members of a civic organization asking the Court of Appeal for permission to participate in proceedings that they argue carry implications extending far beyond the detention of a single individual.
The application, filed on June 30 by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, President of the Patriotic National Movement, and the movement’s General Secretary, Dr. Kulanthunga Mudiyanselage Wasantha Bandara, seeks leave to intervene in an ongoing writ application brought by retired Major General Suresh Sallay, the former Director General of Sri Lanka’s State Intelligence Service. The intervenient petitioners argue that the case raises fundamental questions about the use of extraordinary detention powers, the conduct of investigations into one of the country’s deadliest terrorist attacks and the broader administration of justice.
According to the petition, the applicants have no personal, financial or proprietary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Instead, they state that their intervention is motivated solely by what they describe as the exceptional public importance of the issues before the court. They contend that the litigation engages constitutional questions concerning executive authority, public confidence in the justice system and the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations.
The proceedings arise from the arrest and continued detention of Sallay under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), legislation that provides authorities with expanded powers in terrorism-related investigations. According to the petition, Sallay was arrested on or about February 25, 2026, and placed under a 90-day detention order issued on February 28. The application states that the detention order was subsequently extended in May.
The petition notes that the present investigation centres on allegations linking Sallay to the Easter Sunday attacks of April 21, 2019, coordinated suicide bombings that targeted churches and hotels across Sri Lanka. According to the intervenient petitioners, the allegations publicly associated with his arrest originate primarily from claims contained in a Channel 4 documentary, including assertions made by Azad Maulana and an unnamed former senior government official. Those allegations refer to an alleged meeting in February 2018 in Karadiyapuval, Puttalam, and to an alleged telephone call on the morning of the attacks.
The intervenient petitioners argue that the central issue before the Court of Appeal is not whether the Easter Sunday attacks should continue to be investigated. They state that any credible evidence relating to the attacks should be examined in accordance with the law. Instead, they submit that the court must determine whether the present investigative approach and Sallay’s continued detention under the PTA remain legally sustainable in light of the substantial body of evidence, findings and reports already produced by multiple state institutions and judicial bodies over several years.
According to the petition, the Easter Sunday bombings have been subjected to one of the most comprehensive series of official examinations in Sri Lanka’s history. The applicants point to investigations conducted by parliamentary committees, presidential commissions, judicial inquiries and international law enforcement agencies, arguing that these reports collectively form an extensive factual record that cannot be ignored in assessing the present proceedings.
Among the reports highlighted is the judgment delivered by a seven-judge bench of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court in the fundamental rights cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks. The petition describes that judgment as the highest judicial pronouncement on both the attacks and the institutional failures that allowed them to occur.
According to the intervenient petitioners, the Supreme Court found that the attacks were carried out by Zahran Hashim together with his ISIS-inspired extremist network associated with the National Thowheed Jama’ath. The petition states that the court identified serious failures by several senior state officials to act on intelligence warnings received before the attacks and ordered compensation against former President Maithripala Sirisena, former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, former Chief of National Intelligence Sisira Mendis, former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundera and former State Intelligence Service Director Nilantha Jayawardena.
The applicants submit that while the Supreme Court examined the attacks in detail, it did not identify Sallay as having participated in the planning or execution of the bombings. They argue that any subsequent investigative theory placing him at the centre of the attacks must therefore be supported by clear and substantial new evidence.
The intervention petition also relies heavily on the findings of the Committee of Inquiry chaired by retired Justice S.I. Imam, which examined allegations contained in the Channel 4 documentary. According to the filing, the committee concluded that Sallay’s alleged presence at a meeting in Karadiyapuval during February 2018 was impossible because official records showed he was serving as Minister Counsellor in Malaysia between December 2016 and December 2018.
The petition states that the Imam Committee described Sallay’s alibi as “an irreversible fact” and found no evidence connecting him to either Zahran Hashim or the National Thowheed Jama’ath. It further states that the committee concluded the alleged meeting referred to in the documentary was “demonstrably a hoax” and found that the principal allegations made by Azad Maulana conflicted with Sallay’s documented overseas posting.
According to the intervenient petitioners, these findings assume particular significance because the Imam Committee was established specifically to examine the same allegations that now underpin the present investigation. They argue that the committee’s conclusions should therefore be carefully considered by the Court of Appeal in determining whether continued detention under the PTA remains justified.
The application similarly refers to findings made by the Parliamentary Select Committee and the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security. According to the petition, those inquiries concluded that intelligence agencies had been monitoring Zahran Hashim and his associates for several years before the attacks and had circulated warnings regarding an imminent suicide attack days before the bombings took place.
The petition states that the Parliamentary Select Committee found the attacks resulted not from an absence of intelligence but from failures in disseminating information and acting upon specific warnings that had already been received by responsible authorities. It also notes that the committee recorded that intelligence reports had been transmitted to both the Inspector General of Police and the Criminal Investigation Department shortly before the attacks.
The intervenient petitioners also draw attention to the Presidential Commission of Inquiry chaired by Justice Janak de Silva, describing it as one of the most extensive official examinations ever conducted into the Easter Sunday attacks. According to the petition, the commission examined the history of extremist mobilization, the influence of ISIS ideology, intelligence failures, administrative shortcomings and institutional accountability.
The filing states that the commission recorded Sallay as an intelligence officer who had warned authorities about the growth of Islamic extremism and whose assessments reached ministerial level. The applicants argue that these findings portray him as an officer who raised security concerns rather than someone implicated in the attacks. They further submit that because the commission had access to extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony, any contrary investigative theory requires genuinely new and compelling material capable of displacing the commission’s conclusions.
The intervention application also highlights findings made by the Committee of Inquiry chaired by Justice A.N.J. de Alwis, which examined investigations relating to both the Easter Sunday bombings and the earlier Vavunathivu killings. According to the petition, that committee recommended criminal proceedings against Criminal Investigation Department Director Shani Abeysekera and former Senior Deputy Inspector General Ravi Senevirathna over their handling of investigations connected with those events.
The applicants submit that because both officials now hold responsibilities connected to the present investigation, their earlier inclusion in official findings is relevant to broader questions of institutional fairness and public confidence. They ask the Court of Appeal to take those circumstances into account when considering the present proceedings.
The petition further places emphasis on international investigations carried out following the attacks. According to the filing, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Australian Federal Police, INTERPOL and the Maldives Police Service all cooperated with Sri Lankan authorities in examining the bombings, identifying those responsible and investigating possible international links.
The intervenient petitioners state that those investigations consistently attributed responsibility to extremist networks associated with Zahran Hashim and ISIS-inspired organizations. They also refer to criminal proceedings initiated in the United States against three Sri Lankan nationals accused of providing material support to ISIS in connection with the attacks, noting that those proceedings did not implicate Sallay.
According to the petition, the absence of allegations against the former intelligence chief following years of domestic and international investigations forms part of the wider factual background that should be considered in assessing the legality of his detention.
The filing also raises issues concerning Sallay’s treatment while in custody. It states that he has remained under medical care in hospital for nearly two weeks during his detention. The petition further refers to a formal inquiry launched by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka following complaints by his family regarding his treatment in detention.
According to the application, the Criminal Investigation Department informed the commission that Sallay had been subjected to a strip-search on March 8, 2026, in the presence of other detainees. The intervenient petitioners include these developments among the factors they argue should be considered by the court when reviewing the circumstances of his continued detention.
The petition also refers to public statements describing Sallay as the alleged mastermind behind the Easter Sunday attacks. According to the intervenient petitioners, such statements were made before the allegations had been tested through judicial proceedings. They submit that investigations should proceed on the basis of evidence presented before the courts while preserving the integrity of the legal process.
Throughout the filing, the applicants maintain that they are not seeking to prevent further investigation into the Easter Sunday bombings. They state that anyone against whom lawful and credible evidence exists should continue to be investigated. Their application instead argues that extraordinary detention powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be exercised only where the legal threshold for such action has been met and after full consideration of the extensive findings already produced through judicial, parliamentary and international investigations.
The intervenient petitioners ask the Court of Appeal to grant them permission to intervene as party respondents or, alternatively, to allow them to be heard before any further orders are made. They also seek leave to file statements of objection, affidavits and additional documents should the proceedings continue.
