Udaya Gammanpila says the Suresh Sallay passwords dispute raises legal and national security concerns over intelligence sources and suspect rights.
The Suresh Sallay passwords dispute has intensified after Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader and Attorney-at-Law Udaya Gammanpila argued that even a court cannot force suspects to assist an investigation against themselves.
Gammanpila expressed these views while addressing a media briefing held at the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya party headquarters.
He referred to recent comments by Cabinet Media Spokesman and Minister Nalinda Jayatissa. At a government media briefing, Jayatissa said Sallay was suffering because of his own actions and could assist the investigation by providing passwords in his possession.
Gammanpila claimed that, as Government Media Spokesman, Jayatissa had effectively proposed an illegal act.
According to Gammanpila, the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow anyone to force a suspect to assist an investigation against himself. He argued that compelling such assistance would itself be illegal.
Gammanpila Questions Suresh Sallay Passwords Order
Gammanpila said the Fort Magistrate had ordered Sallay to provide the CID with passwords to his mobile phone and computer.
“We respect that court order. However, we do not agree with that court order,” he said.
He argued that it is a universally recognized principle that even a court has no right to force suspects to assist investigations against themselves.
According to Gammanpila, apart from ordering a suspect to participate in an identification parade, authorities cannot order that suspect to assist in other aspects of an investigation.
He said he believed Sallay’s lawyers would respect the court’s decision while appealing against the order because they disagreed with it.
Gammanpila then outlined four reasons why, in his view, Sallay had valid grounds for refusing to provide his passwords to police.
The first, he said, concerns a suspect’s right not to assist an investigation against himself.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Gammanpila argued, a suspect has no obligation to assist such an investigation. He said a suspect can choose to remain silent and decline to make a statement.
He referred to the warnings given to arrested suspects in other countries: “You have the right to remain silent. If you make a statement, it may be used against you.”
Gammanpila contrasted this with what he alleged happens in Sri Lanka, claiming suspects are sometimes beaten and pressured to speak.
However, he stressed that the law gives a suspect the right to remain silent and not assist an investigation.
Claims of Pressure and Undue Influence
The second reason, according to Gammanpila, concerns attempts to pressure or coerce Sallay into revealing his passwords.
He said the law prohibits both influence and coercion.
Gammanpila described influence as offering inducements to obtain cooperation. He gave examples such as promising unrestricted communication with a suspect’s wife or offering to make the suspect a state witness.
He also referred to promises that authorities might produce a suspect before court rather than filing a detention order, or help secure bail by not opposing a bail application.
Similarly, he said authorities cannot threaten a suspect by saying he will be kept in a rat-infested cell, given only radish and rice, or stripped naked in front of others.
Gammanpila alleged that Minister Nalinda Jayatissa, Father Cyril Gamini and several MPs from the Malimawa government had already exerted what he described as undue influence through the media.
“We must state that all of them have committed the offence of undue influence,” he said.
Intelligence Sources at Centre of Password Dispute
The third reason concerns what Gammanpila described as highly sensitive information about intelligence sources that could be stored on Sallay’s mobile phone and computer.
He referred to statements attributed to Minister Nalinda Jayatissa and Father Cyril Gamini. According to Gammanpila, they had argued that Sallay should have handed over intelligence information to the intelligence agency when he retired.
Gammanpila agreed that intelligence information should be handed over. However, he argued that the identities and personal details of intelligence sources are known only to the relevant officer.
He said intelligence institutions use code names rather than recording the names and addresses of sources. Reports, he added, do not disclose the real identities of sources.
According to Gammanpila, some sources provide information because of personal trust, while others do so because of obligations or personal circumstances.
He said some people marry to obtain information, work inside institutions to gather intelligence, or join organizations to access information.
“These people risk their lives to provide information,” he said.
Gammanpila said there could be situations where a wife provides information about her husband. He referred to the belief that Sara Jasmine had provided information about Hashthun to Indian intelligence agencies.
He said intelligence history contains countless examples of such operations.
Gammanpila also referred to the use of a “honey trap”, involving lovers and wives to obtain information. In other situations, he said, a daughter might provide information because she is angry with her father.
Even when intelligence reaches an agency, he argued, the identity of the daughter, wife or other source may remain known only to the individual intelligence officer handling that source.
Their exposure, he said, could be extremely sensitive.
Gammanpila described Sallay as an intelligence officer who had built a vast intelligence network during 38 years of service. Therefore, he argued, Sallay’s phone and computer could contain sensitive information linked to intelligence sources.
He also rejected arguments that newly acquired devices could not contain old intelligence information.
Gammanpila said modern users can upload information to cloud services and transfer data from old phones to new ones. The same applies to computers, he added, meaning information no longer needs to be manually entered into each new device.
Millennium City Case Cited as Fourth Reason
The fourth reason, Gammanpila said, concerns what he described as the bitter experience of previous disasters after intelligence information reached the CID.
He cited the controversial Millennium City incident of 2002.
Gammanpila referred to the Army Intelligence Division safe house at the Millennium City housing complex in Athurugiriya. He said weapons required for northern operations had been stored there.
However, he claimed police surrounded the house, seized the material and told the country that Army Intelligence personnel had been arrested while planning to assassinate the Prime Minister.
Gammanpila said information about intelligence officers was subsequently exposed through B reports.
He claimed the result was that Colonel Tuvan Muthalif, whom he described as one of the finest intelligence officers Sri Lanka had produced, and 73 other intelligence officers and informants became victims of the LTTE.
“I say with great pride that Tuvan Muthalif is a great war hero produced by my school,” Gammanpila said.
He argued that after what he called the great betrayal, Sri Lanka’s intelligence agencies suffered devastating consequences.
Gammanpila said police actions against intelligence officers caused the network to become scattered and weakened.
He also referred to Hameed Nilam, whom he identified as the officer who led the operation. According to Gammanpila, Nilam left Sri Lanka and has still not returned.
Gammanpila Recalls Campaign for Intelligence Officers
Gammanpila said that even during the Millennium City controversy, his political movement fought what he described as an isolated battle on behalf of Sri Lanka’s war heroes and intelligence personnel.
At the time, he said, he served as Propaganda Secretary of Sihala Urumaya.
Gammanpila claimed that because they defended those involved at the time, the officer concerned still maintains relations with them out of gratitude.
However, he said the disappointment caused by the incident remains so deep that, despite nearly 20 years having passed, and 24 years since the incident itself, the officer still does not wish to return to Sri Lanka.
Based on these four reasons, Gammanpila argued that Sallay has valid grounds for refusing to provide his passwords.
However, he stressed that once a court issues an order, everyone remains bound to respect it, whether they believe that decision is right or wrong.
Gammanpila referred to the English expression “comply and complain.”
He explained his position as first complying with the order and then challenging or complaining about it if there is a legal fault.
Gammanpila concluded by saying he believed Sallay’s lawyers would take swift action over the matter.
