The Attorney General yesterday (25) informed the Court of Appeal that former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Sallay was arrested after investigators formed a reasonable suspicion of his alleged links to the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.
The Attorney General also strongly rejected allegations that Criminal Investigation Department Director Shani Abeysekara had acted maliciously in conducting the investigation.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath made the submissions when Sallay’s writ petition challenging his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was taken up before a Court of Appeal bench comprising its President, Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya, and Justice Priyantha Fernando.
Herath said the allegation that Abeysekara had acted with malice towards Sallay was entirely baseless.
She told the court that the investigation had been assigned to the CID on the instructions of the Inspector General of Police and had commenced during the tenure of former CID Director Mangala Dehideniya, before Abeysekara assumed office.
She further said that a travel ban against Sallay had been obtained while Senior Superintendent of Police Imesha Muthumala was serving as CID Director.
“This clearly demonstrates that the investigation had commenced before Shani Abeysekara joined the CID,” the Deputy Solicitor General said.
She also rejected claims by Sallay’s lawyers that several commissions of inquiry had made adverse findings against Abeysekara. Although the Janak de Silva Commission had issued recommendations against several police officers and called for disciplinary inquiries, Abeysekara’s name had not been mentioned, she said.
The Deputy Solicitor General further alleged that Sallay had failed to cooperate fully with investigators.
She said the CID had requested the passwords to his electronic devices to examine communications, including WhatsApp messages, as part of its investigation into his alleged links to the Easter Sunday attacks.
However, Sallay had provided four different passwords on four occasions, compelling investigators to obtain a court order, she said. The Fort Magistrate had subsequently ordered him to provide the passwords required for the investigation.
Herath also accused Sallay of concealing and misrepresenting material facts in his petition.
According to her submissions, Sallay had told police that he surrendered his diplomatic passport to the Foreign Ministry after returning from an official assignment in Malaysia and later obtained an official passport. However, selected pages of the diplomatic passport had been submitted to the court with his petition.
“If the diplomatic passport had been handed over to the Foreign Ministry, how were selected pages from it submitted to court? This amounts to a distortion of facts,” she argued.
The Deputy Solicitor General said 13 intervention petitions had been filed in relation to the case. Except for the petition filed by the Cardinal, all the intervention petitions sought the relief requested by Sallay, she said.
“Suresh Sallay was arrested for the purpose of an investigation. He was arrested and detained under the PTA after a reasonable suspicion arose regarding his alleged connection to the Easter Sunday terror attacks,” Herath told the court.
She questioned how the intervening petitioners could claim that Sallay’s arrest was unlawful when investigators had acted on what she described as reasonable suspicion.
Herath said about 80% of the intervening petitioners were Buddhist monks who had cited Article 9 of the Constitution and claimed that Sallay’s arrest violated the provision concerning Buddhism.
The petitions had also been presented as public-interest litigation and alleged violations of fundamental rights. However, she argued that the concept of public interest could not be applied in writ proceedings.
The intervening petitioners had also failed to explain how Sallay’s arrest had caused them any prejudice, she said, adding that they were not victims of the Easter Sunday attacks.
She requested the court not to issue notices on the intervention petitions, arguing that doing so would serve no purpose if Sallay’s main petition was ultimately dismissed without being taken up for hearing.
“An arrest is a matter that directly affects an individual’s personal liberty. It cannot be interpreted as a general public matter or as an issue affecting public welfare. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for public-interest litigation,” she said.
Accordingly, the Deputy Solicitor General requested the court to dismiss the intervention petitions.
After considering the submissions, the Court of Appeal announced that its decision on whether to issue notices in respect of the intervention petitions would be delivered on 7 October.
Further consideration of Sallay’s main petition was fixed for 3 September.
