The Suresh Sallay writ petition challenges his proposed PTA arrest, questioning witness credibility, evidence, bias and criminal intent.
The Suresh Sallay writ petition has triggered a major legal debate over whether an intelligence officer who opposed extremism can be accused of masterminding the Easter Sunday attacks.
Former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Sallay filed the petition before the Court of Appeal. He seeks a declaration that his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, known as the PTA, would be unlawful.
The proposed action relates to investigations into the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
President’s Counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardena presented submissions for Sallay over seven days. His arguments examined Sri Lanka’s criminal investigation procedures, the Evidence Ordinance and central principles of criminal law.
The petitioner’s case is that the proposed arrest rests on an unreliable witness, inconsistent evidence and an allegedly selective investigation.
Suresh Sallay Writ Petition Questions Main Witness
The allegation against Sallay mainly relies on a statement attributed to Asad Mowlana.
However, Jayawardena placed both Mowlana’s credibility and the Criminal Investigation Department’s procedure under close legal scrutiny.
He told court:
“Asad Mowlana is a person seeking political asylum. He has severely insulted the Sri Lankan judiciary… How did CID officers record a statement from such a person?”
The defence argued that a witness’s motives directly affect the evidential weight of that person’s testimony.
According to the submissions, CID officers recorded Mowlana’s statement at the Sri Lankan Embassy premises in France.
The petitioner’s counsel described Mowlana as a political asylum seeker who had accused Sri Lanka’s judiciary of corruption. He also referred to him as a person evading the law while warrants remained outstanding against him.
The defence argued that recording and relying upon such a statement departed from normal investigative procedure.
Jayawardena invoked the principle that a person seeking relief must approach court with “clean hands.”
The petitioner therefore questions whether the authorities can legally justify arresting a former intelligence chief mainly on testimony from a witness with that alleged background.
Passport Evidence Challenges Wanathawilluwa Claim
Jayawardena also rejected a central allegation in Mowlana’s statement.
That claim alleges that Sallay met Saharan Hashim in Wanathawilluwa during February 2018.
The President’s Counsel responded:
“At that time, Suresh Sallay was not in Sri Lanka. The moment his passport is examined, this fact becomes clearly evident.”
An alibi can provide a powerful defence when it demonstrates that an accused person was elsewhere when an alleged event occurred.
The petitioner argues that Sallay’s passport, as an official state document, proves he was outside Sri Lanka during the relevant period.
The submissions maintain that documentary evidence should carry greater legal weight than an unsupported oral allegation.
If the passport confirms Sallay’s absence, the defence argues that the alleged Wanathawilluwa meeting could not have taken place as claimed.
That position forms an important part of the Suresh Sallay writ petition and its request for judicial protection against arrest.
The petitioner’s counsel contends that the contradiction weakens Mowlana’s wider statement and undermines the basis for action under the PTA.
Defence Alleges Selective Investigation and Bias
The submissions also challenged what the petitioner describes as a selective investigation.
Jayawardena referred to material from the Janaka de Silva Commission. He said S allay had warned the Security Council about ISIS ideology from 2016.
According to the defence, senior officials ignored those warnings. Sallay was later transferred to Malaysia for reasons the petitioner characterises as political revenge.
Jayawardena also referred to an affidavit attributed to former State Intelligence Service Director Nilantha Jayawardena.
He told court:
“Former Director of State Intelligence Service Nilantha Jayawardena… has stated in an affidavit that he sent a WhatsApp message to then-Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Ravi Seneviratne, who was in charge of the CID, informing him about the attack… and that the CID was aware of the extremist activities of Saharan Hashim and his followers. If so, why did he take no steps to prevent the Easter attack?”
The defence presented this as an issue involving possible dereliction of duty.
It argued that Sallay had proposed a “concept paper” and a “task force” to counter extremism in 2016.
Yet, according to the submissions, investigators are attempting to implicate him while taking no equivalent action against former CID officials who allegedly received warnings before the attacks.
The petitioner therefore claims that investigators have not applied the law equally.
His counsel argues that this alleged inconsistency supports claims of bias, selective enforcement or powerful malice behind the proposed arrest.
Mens Rea and Personal Background Raised in Court
Jayawardena also relied on Sallay’s personal background to challenge the alleged motive.
He told court:
“The petitioner Suresh Sallay’s mother is a Christian devotee. She visited churches in Nugegoda. This petitioner is someone who goes to St. Anthony’s Church with his mother every Tuesday. Would such a person plan to attack Christian churches?”
Criminal liability generally requires proof of both a prohibited act and criminal intent, commonly called mens rea.
The defence questioned what motive Sallay would have had to support attacks on churches associated with his mother and his own religious visits.
It also referred to members of his family, including three serving in the military, who could have faced danger from such violence.
This background does not amount to direct material evidence. However, the petitioner relies on it as character evidence and as a logical challenge to the probability of the accusation.
Case Could Affect National Security Operations
The petitioner’s legal team said the case extends beyond Sallay as an individual.
It argued that arresting intelligence officers who worked against Islamic extremism could weaken Sri Lanka’s security institutions.
The defence warned that remanding such officers may discourage intelligence personnel from acting decisively against emerging threats.
It further argued that this could indirectly create opportunities for terrorism to re-emerge.
The petitioner’s submissions combine arguments involving fundamental rights, criminal procedure, evidential reliability and public policy.
Sallay’s position is that investigators have failed to establish a credible motive. He also alleges procedural unfairness, contradictions in the evidence and partiality in the investigation.
The seven days of submissions on behalf of the petitioner have now concluded.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing for the Attorney General, is expected to present preliminary objections.
The Court of Appeal’s decision on those objections could determine the next stage of the Suresh Sallay writ petition.
It may also influence the direction of the Easter Sunday investigations and the way Sri Lanka’s intelligence agencies operate under legal scrutiny.
