Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday investigation took another dramatic turn as the Criminal Investigation Department presented three critical claims in court that it says justify naming former State Intelligence Service chief Major General Suresh Sallay as a suspect in the deadly 2019 terror attacks.
CID reveals basis for naming intelligence chief as suspect
The Criminal Investigation Department informed the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court that three significant facts have emerged which are sufficient to name former State Intelligence Service chief Major General Suresh Sallay as a suspect in investigations related to the Easter Sunday terror attacks.
This information was presented through a report submitted to the court concerning the arrest and detention of the retired Major General under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The details were disclosed when the case related to the murder of two police officers in the Vavuniya area before the Easter attacks and the explosion in the Saindamarudu area was taken up before Colombo Fort Magistrate Isuru Neththi Kumara.
The CID informed the court that two suspects connected to the incident are currently in remand custody, while the third suspect, Major General Suresh Sallay, has been detained for ninety days for questioning under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Is there evidence of direct involvement?
During the hearing, the Magistrate questioned CID officers about whether investigations had revealed any direct involvement by Suresh Sallay in the Easter Sunday attacks.
Responding to the court, CID officials stated that a reasonable legal basis had emerged to identify Suresh Sallay as a suspect based on three key facts confirmed during the ongoing investigation.
Three allegations presented by investigators
First, CID officers informed the court that prior to the Easter attacks, Army Intelligence had maintained a long term informant in the Negombo area. Investigators claim that Suresh Sallay had used this informant to show the Katuwapitiya church to Muslim extremists who later carried out the attack.
Second, CID officials said that another informant operating in the Panadura area had warned Army Intelligence before the attacks about the possibility of such a terrorist operation. According to investigators, the warning was not properly examined. After the attacks, the informant allegedly stated that a senior Army officer with more than twenty years of experience could be behind the attack.
The informant was later arrested by Army Intelligence and handed over to the Counter Terrorism Bureau. CID officers told the court that the informant’s house was maintained by the Army Intelligence Unit before and after his arrest and that he was later released following advice from the Attorney General.
After his release, investigators claim that Suresh Sallay had invited the informant to a Colombo hotel and thanked him. The informant later provided a statement to the Magistrate describing these events.
Third, CID investigators informed the court that evidence suggests Suresh Sallay pressured investigators to conduct a third DNA test regarding Sarah Jasmine, a woman believed to have died in the Saindamarudu explosion shortly after the Easter attacks.
According to CID officials, two DNA reports had already concluded that Sarah Jasmine was not among the dead. However investigators claim that pressure was applied to conduct another DNA test.
Statements by former Inspector General of Police C.D. Wickramaratne and CID officer Nishantha Zoysa were cited as indicating that Suresh Sallay had exerted influence regarding this issue within discussions held at the National Security Council.
Former CID Director Prasad Ranasinghe has also provided a statement claiming that pressure was exerted through the Security Council and that he suffered a heart attack due to the intense pressure during the process.
Defense challenges allegations
President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne, appearing for Suresh Sallay, questioned how his client could influence other officers at the Security Council while serving as the head of the State Intelligence Service.
He pointed out that the intelligence service operates under the Inspector General of Police and argued that it was improper to suggest that officers could be pressured in such a manner.
The defense further stated that Suresh Sallay had been in Malaysia during the Easter Sunday attacks, noting that he had left Sri Lanka for Malaysia in 2018.
Counsel also argued that more than twenty five investigations had already been conducted regarding the Easter attacks and questioned whether the current investigation could be impartial when some of the same CID officers involved earlier continue to handle the case.
Questions over fairness of investigation
The defense referred to the findings of the Jayaki Alwis Commission, asking the court whether responsibility for the Easter attacks had already been addressed in previous inquiries.
Counsel also complained that legal representatives are unable to obtain proper instructions from Suresh Sallay while he remains in custody because meetings take place in the presence of CID officers. It was further alleged that conversations with the suspect are being recorded.
Court orders further investigations
After considering submissions from both sides, Magistrate Isuru Neththi Kumara stated that the evidence presented regarding Suresh Sallay relates directly to the Easter Sunday attacks and that its strength must be determined through further investigations.
The Magistrate also noted that allegations had been made that attempts were made to influence the investigation through the Security Council. However he clarified that constitutional responsibility cannot be attributed to the President unless criminal intent to obstruct the investigation is proven.
Accordingly the court ordered the CID to continue investigations to determine whether criminal liability can be established for the actions that occurred during Security Council discussions.
The Magistrate then adjourned the case until the twenty fifth and directed the Criminal Investigation Department to report the progress of the investigation to the court on that date.
