The Attorney General’s Department yesterday told the Court of Appeal that former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Suresh Sallay had allegedly interfered with and obstructed investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks, while also questioning discrepancies concerning his movements during the period leading up to the attacks.
The submissions were made when Sallay’s petition challenging his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in connection with the Easter Sunday attacks investigation was taken up before the Court of Appeal.
The petition was considered before a bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing for the respondents including Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director Shani Abeysekara, told court that a statement given to the CID by then Deputy Inspector General of Police Prasad Ranasinghe detailed instances in which Sallay had allegedly interfered with the investigation.
Herath said questions had arisen following the 2019 Sainthamaruthu explosion over whether Sara Jasmine, a woman linked to the Easter Sunday attacks, had died in the blast or escaped to India.
According to Ranasinghe’s statement, Sallay had repeatedly raised concerns at investigation review meetings over the CID’s handling of the matter and the DNA testing carried out to establish whether Sara Jasmine had died at the scene.
The Deputy Solicitor General said Sallay had maintained that another DNA test should be conducted and alleged that he had subsequently secured such a test through the intervention of the then President.
She said these matters had been included in a B-report submitted to the Fort Magistrate’s Court on 11 March 2026 and argued that they demonstrated Sallay’s alleged interference with the investigation.
The State also raised questions over Sallay’s whereabouts in 2019.
Herath said Sallay had informed court that he left Sri Lanka for India on 3 January 2019 to attend a defence course and returned only in December that year. However, she said copies of his official passport produced before court contained immigration stamps indicating a departure from India on 18 May 2019 and a subsequent entry into India in June.
“If he stated that he did not leave India after travelling there for the defence course, these stamps indicate otherwise,” Herath submitted.
She also questioned why only selected pages of Sallay’s diplomatic and official passports had been produced before court. According to the State, only around 17 or 18 pages of the diplomatic passport and four pages of the official passport had been submitted.
The Deputy Solicitor General further referred to a statement recorded from former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, who had reportedly said that around one to one-and-a-half months before the Easter Sunday attacks, then Army Commander Mahesh Senanayake had telephoned him to say that Brigadier Sallay wished to meet him.
Herath also referred to a statement attributed to Azad Maulana which, according to the State, indicated that Sallay had been in Sri Lanka during the relevant period.
She argued that these matters had not been disclosed by Sallay in his petition and contended that a petitioner seeking relief through a writ application was required to make full disclosure to court.
“He has not come before court with clean hands,” the Deputy Solicitor General submitted, questioning whether the petition could therefore be maintained.
Responding to Sallay’s allegation that CID Director Shani Abeysekara was acting with malice against him, Herath said the investigation had commenced before Abeysekara returned to the CID.
She said the first B-report relating to the investigation was filed on 11 November 2024, when Abeysekara was not serving in the CID or even in the Police Department.
She further said that a travel ban against Sallay and former Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan had been obtained on 15 November 2024, when Mangala Dehideniya was serving as CID Director. The investigation had also proceeded under another CID Director, Himesha Muthumala, she said.
The Deputy Solicitor General also referred to a statement given to the CID by an alleged Army intelligence operative identified as Jude Roshan Krishantha Perera, alias “Peththa”.
According to the State’s submissions, Perera had claimed that Sallay contacted him and said a group would arrive to inspect Muslim villages in Negombo following information regarding Muslim extremists.
Perera had claimed that four persons later arrived in a van dressed in Muslim attire and, although they were purportedly there to inspect Muslim villages, showed particular interest in the Katuwapitiya church, Herath told court.
The State also rejected questions raised by Sallay’s lawyers over the legality of CID officers travelling to France to record statements from Azad Maulana.
Herath said there was no illegality in the procedure, arguing that the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act No. 24 of 2018 permitted law enforcement authorities from different countries to cooperate in investigations and record statements. She said recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure had also facilitated such investigative cooperation.
She further submitted that legal action had been initiated against individuals based on recommendations of the Janak de Silva Commission, including cases against former IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, while the possibility of filing charges against former Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena was being examined.
However, she questioned the legal basis of the Jayaki de Alwis Committee and whether the Attorney General could act on its findings.
Herath said the present investigation followed a complaint lodged by Fr. Rohan Silva with the Ministry of Public Security, seeking a fresh investigation into the Easter Sunday attacks and specifically requesting an investigation into Sallay. The complaint was subsequently forwarded to the IGP and then to the CID for investigation, she said.
The Deputy Solicitor General maintained that Sallay was arrested only after sufficient evidence had emerged during the investigation and urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss his petition without proceeding to a full hearing.
During proceedings, Attorney-at-Law Rukshan Senadheera, appearing for Sallay, attempted to produce Sallay’s diplomatic passport before court, but the Deputy Solicitor General objected.
Justice Abeysuriya directed the petitioner’s counsel to make submissions on the matter at the appropriate stage.
Meanwhile, Suren D. Perera, appearing for Fr. Rohan Silva, a respondent in the petition, raised objections over a copy of the Jayaki de Alwis Committee report produced by the petitioner.
Perera submitted that the report had never been officially released to the public and that former MP Udaya Gammanpila had presented it at a media briefing. He argued that what had been produced before court was a photocopy of the report and that its submission was contrary to Court of Appeal rules.
The Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to address the issue on the next date.
The petition is to be called again for the court to determine a date for further consideration.
