Easter attack torture claims emerge in court as an accused alleges CID officers forced him to eat pork during Ramadan and coerced statements.
Easter attack torture claims have surfaced during defence proceedings in Sri Lanka’s main trial over the 2019 bombings, with an accused alleging severe abuse while held by the Criminal Investigation Department.
The allegations came from the second accused while presenting his defence before the special three-judge High Court bench hearing the case involving those accused over the Easter Sunday attacks.
The trial involving 25 accused originally began in November 2021 over allegations connected to the April 21, 2019 bombings.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the second accused, Mohamed Saridu Adam Lebbe, also referred to as Mohamed Sarif Adam Lebbe, “Gafoor Mama” and “Abu Hadith,” alleged that CID officers subjected him to physical and psychological torture.
He further alleged that investigators forced him to eat pork during the Ramadan fasting period despite his Islamic faith.
These are allegations made as part of his defence and have not been established as findings of fact by the court.
Several Accused Raise Torture Allegations
According to the defence account, more than half of the accused who delivered statements over the two-day period alleged that investigators obtained signatures on purported confessions through torture or coercion.
The second accused presented his statement alongside seven others.
They included seventh accused Mohamed Mansoor Mohamed Sanasdeen, also known as Thaibu and Abu Misam, and eighth accused Abdul Manaf Mohamed Siridawus.
The 10th, 18th and 19th accused, Abdul Latheef Mohamed Safi, Rasik Rasa Husein and Kavich Mohamadu Mohamadu Jemsith, also presented statements.
The 12th and 14th accused, Mohamed Sawahir Mohamed Hasan and Rashid Mohamed Ibrahim, also addressed the court.
The second accused reportedly identified the CID officers whom he alleges tortured him and forced him to consume pork.
The supplied court account states that the bench did not immediately announce what action, if any, would follow from those allegations.
The allegations are significant because Sri Lanka’s Constitution expressly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 11. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka treats Article 11 as the constitutional protection against torture.
What Sri Lankan Law Says About Torture
A human rights lawyer consulted for the original report said allegations of torture disclosed during judicial proceedings could justify further investigation.
“This is a very serious act. If the police or investigators use a person’s religious, cultural, or belief system as a weakness and use it as a form of torture to obtain confessions or statements, the judges can order investigations and report the findings to the court,” the lawyer said.
The legal position requires an important distinction.
Article 12(2) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds including religion, while Article 11 directly addresses torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Sri Lanka also enacted the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994, which criminalises torture.
Therefore, the strongest direct legal framework for the alleged physical and psychological abuse is Article 11 and the anti-torture legislation, while religious discrimination may separately engage equality and freedom-of-religion protections.
The allegations now place another issue before the justice system beyond the guilt or innocence of those facing trial: whether investigators themselves acted lawfully while obtaining statements during one of Sri Lanka’s most consequential criminal investigations.
