SURESH SALLAY ARREST: WHAT STATE & CID HAVE PRESENTED IN MAGISTRATES COURT OVER 8 MONTHS

Eight months after Suresh Sallay’s arrest on 25 February 2026, what has the State and CID actually presented before the Fort Magistrate’s Court? This examination follows the allegations, evidence and submissions placed before Court from March to October 2026. It identifies who made each claim, what material was cited to support it, and what the Magistrate directed or established. The central issue is simple: what evidence presented in Court directly connects Sallay to the planning, preparation or execution of the Easter Sunday attacks and the claim he was Easter Sunday attack mastermind?

4 March 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

• 4 March: CID informed Court that it had not yet reported the facts relating to Sallay’s arrest and detention.
• No substantive allegations against Sallay were presented by State counsel on this date.
• The proceedings concerned applications made by Sallay’s defence lawyers regarding his access to lawyers, family visits and detention conditions.
• https://www.dailymirror.lk/news/zzzz/231-334440

5 March 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

• The CID informed Court that Sallay had been named the third suspect in the Easter Sunday attacks investigation.
• When questioned about the evidence supporting Sallay’s designation as the third suspect, CID stated that evidence had emerged from investigations conducted so far, but the reported submission did not specify that evidence.
• The CID stated that Sallay had been arrested on 25 February and was being detained under a 90-day PTA detention order.
• The CID requested that the Magistrate inspect/monitor him while he remained in detention.
• The CID referred to the investigation into the Vavunathivu police killings and the Sainthamaruthu explosion.

https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/03/05/suresh-salley-identified-as-third-suspect-in-easter-attacks-probe

11 March 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

The CID submitted a progress report and a 25-page summary of evidence, presenting three main allegations against Sallay:

• Katuwapitiya Church: Alleged that Sallay used an Army Intelligence informant to identify or show St. Sebastian’s Church to members of Zahran’s group before the Easter attacks.
• Vavunathivu investigation: Alleged that Sallay interfered with the investigation into the killing of two police officers and that an informant continued to receive assistance from Military Intelligence after becoming a suspect.
• Sarah Jasmine DNA test: Alleged that Sallay pressured investigators over the third DNA test to establish whether Pulasthini Rajendran (Sarah Jasmine) had died in the Sainthamaruthu explosion.
• The CID also referred to alleged pressure exerted through National Security Council meetings, including evidence it attributed to former CID officer Prasad Ranasinghe.
• Sallay’s counsel, President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne, disputed the allegations and argued that Sallay was in Malaysia at the time of the Easter attacks.
• The Magistrate ordered further investigation into whether the 2022 direction for a third DNA test was intended to guide the investigation or to obstruct it. He stated that further inquiry was necessary before determining criminal responsibility.

https://hirunews.lk/en/452348/cid-to-report-on-third-dna-test-directive-for-sara-jasmine

26 March 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

• The CID alleged that Army Intelligence personnel had visited a witness’s home and that the witness had since left his residence.
• The CID alleged that Sallay had sent individuals to the witness to obtain information about mosques in the area.
• The CID told Court it was investigating possible interference with witnesses and other unresolved aspects of the Easter attacks.
• The Magistrate directed the CID to investigate whether the visit to the witness was for legitimate official purposes or intended to influence him.
• The Magistrate questioned whether a statement had been obtained from Azad Maulana, who had made allegations in the Channel 4 documentary. The CID confirmed that it had not.
• The Magistrate directed the CID to make efforts to record Maulana’s statement before the next hearing.
• The defence sought to have the investigation removed from Shani Abeysekara’s supervision; the Magistrate rejected the request.

https://www.dailymirror.lk/news/Produce-Suresh-Sallay-on-April-22-Fort-magistrate-orders-CID/239-336465

22 April 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the prosecution with the CID, made the following submissions:

• Described Sallay as the “key driving force” and principal operational force behind the Easter Sunday attacks.
• Alleged that the attacks required organised support and long-term planning.
• Alleged that Sallay had misdirected investigations into the Vavunathivu police killings and the Sainthamaruthu explosion.
• Alleged that an intelligence informant acting under Sallay’s direction had shown the St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya to members of Zahran’s group before the attacks.
• Alleged that Sallay pressured investigators over the third DNA test concerning Pulasthini Rajendran (Sarah Jasmine).
• Linked intelligence officers attached to the Giritale Army Camp, allegedly operating under Sallay’s command, to the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and assaults on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
• Alleged witness intimidation and obstruction of the investigation, including an intelligence officer’s visit to a witness’s home, discovery of five hand grenades and a pistol, and the poisoning of six dogs.
• Alleged that Army Intelligence units were not cooperating with the CID investigation and that witnesses were being pressured.
• Referred to Azad Maulana’s Channel 4 allegations concerning a meeting between Pillayan and Zahran’s brother, Shaini, in prison, allegedly with Sallay’s knowledge.

Other submissions and court directions:

• The ASG said steps were being taken to obtain a statement from Maulana in France through the French Embassy, using Zoom.
• He requested an order directing the Army Commander and Director of Army Intelligence to assist the investigation.
• Sallay’s counsel disputed the investigation’s fairness and sought its removal from Shani Abeysekara’s supervision.
• The Magistrate said the facts must ultimately be proved beyond reasonable doubt, directed State officials to assist the investigation, and permitted continued detention under the detention order.
• The CID was directed to report progress on 20 May 2026.

https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/AG-can-indict-State-officials-who-fail-to-assist-Easter-attack-probe%3A-Court/108-338449

20 May 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the Attorney General, presented a 14-page further report and made the following submissions:

• Described Sallay as the “mastermind and contractor” behind the Easter Sunday attacks.
• Relied substantially on a statement recorded from Azad Maulana in France by a CID team that included Shani Abeysekara.
• Alleged that Sallay had been planning since 2017 to use Zahran Hashim and his group for an operation.
• Alleged that following the 2017 Aliyar Junction clash, Sallay arranged Rs. 250,000 from Military Intelligence funds for legal fees to secure bail for Seyni Moulavi, an associate of Zahran. Pillayan allegedly contributed a further Rs. 50,000.
• Alleged that Sallay, Pillayan and members of Zahran’s group maintained links, and that six individuals, including Zahran, were identified for the operation.
• Alleged that the original plans involved attacks in the North or South, before the decision was made to target Easter Sunday.
• Alleged that the attacks were politically motivated and intended to influence the 2019 Presidential Election.
• Referred to an alleged 21 April 2019 telephone call from Sallay to Maulana, instructing him to collect a man carrying a bag near the Taj Samudra Hotel. The prosecution alleged that this individual was Jameel, who later detonated explosives at the Tropical Inn in Dehiwala.
• Alleged that Military Intelligence funds had been used to maintain Pillayan’s group and Zahran’s group, and to finance other politically motivated operations.
• Referred to alleged links between Military Intelligence and several past abductions, killings and assaults, including those involving Prageeth Eknaligoda, Lasantha Wickrematunge, Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
• Alleged that hotel records showed Sallay had hosted a gathering for Pillayan, his family and Maulana at a hotel in Ahungalla after the attacks.
• Told Court that Maulana possessed five notebooks said to contain records of discussions involving Sallay, Military Intelligence personnel and Zahran’s group.
• Informed Court that Maulana was willing to return to Sri Lanka if guarantees were given for his safety.

Other submissions and proceedings:

• The ASG objected to Sallay being produced in open court, citing an alleged threat to his life.
• He requested that access to Sallay by his lawyers be supervised.
• He questioned Sallay’s request to make a statement before the Magistrate under Section 127.
• Sallay’s counsel, President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando, argued that Maulana’s statement could not be treated as evidence unless tested through examination and cross-examination at trial.
• The Magistrate deferred decisions on Sallay’s physical production in open court and his request to make a statement. The matter was postponed to 2 June 2026.

4 June 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the Attorney General/CID, made the following submissions:

• Rejected the defence’s allegations of torture and serious mental-health problems, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of a serious medical condition.
• Challenged the psychiatric assessment, arguing that it was based on a short examination and questioning the reported symptoms.
• Alleged that Sallay’s medical claims were being raised to gain sympathy and influence his pending Court of Appeal proceedings.
• Rejected claims of memory loss, referring to the recovery of passwords to Sallay’s electronic devices.
• Maintained that Sallay had received medical attention, specialist consultations and access to family members while in custody.
• Described the defence’s claims as an attempt to mislead Court, and said Sallay deserved an “Oscar” for his performance.
• Sought the appointment of a specialist forensic medical board through the Director General of Health Services to assess Sallay.

Other submissions:

• Sallay’s counsel, President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando, relied on reports prepared by five consultant psychiatrists, alleging torture, anxiety, depression and risk of suicide. He sought appropriate medical treatment and a suitable therapeutic environment under the PTA.
• Counsel for Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and affected victims, Rienzie Arsecularatne, questioned the nature of the medical report and argued that psychological difficulties were not unusual among detainees.
• The Magistrate reserved the decision on the applications for 10 June 2026.

https://english.newsfirst.lk/2026/06/04/torture-allegations-vs-%E2%80%98no-illness%E2%80%99-in-salley-case

8 June 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

• The CID informed Court by motion that Sallay’s health had deteriorated while in detention and that he had been admitted to the Colombo National Hospital on the night of 7 June for emergency treatment.
• The CID reported that Sallay had begun refusing food while in custody.
• Reports stated that the hunger strike was in protest against what Sallay alleged was inhumane treatment by CID officers.
• Sallay’s wife told the media that he was still refusing food and was receiving saline at the hospital.
• Police rejected allegations that Sallay had been assaulted or subjected to cruel treatment.

Important: The reports for 8 June record the CID’s notification to Court about Sallay’s hospitalisation. They do not record State counsel presenting new substantive allegations about his involvement in the Easter attacks.

1 July 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the CID, made the following submissions:

• Stated that investigators had seized a laptop and mobile phone from Sallay’s vehicle at the time of his arrest.
• Alleged that Sallay had refused to provide the passwords needed to access the devices.
• Told Court that Sallay had claimed the laptop belonged to his daughter and had attempted to leave it at his office.
• Described Sallay as a skilled computer hacker and argued that access to the devices was necessary for the investigation.
• Requested a court order directing Sallay to provide the passwords.

Defence response:

President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando objected, arguing that the Magistrate’s Court had no legal authority to compel Sallay to disclose the passwords and that his constitutional rights had to be protected.

Court order:

• The Magistrate ordered Sallay to provide the passwords under Section 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.
• The Magistrate rejected the defence application to remove CID Director Shani Abeysekara from the investigation.
• The Court also rejected Sallay’s request to make a confidential statement under Section 127 and directed that he be produced by video link at future hearings.
• Important: The password request was a submission by the ASG. The order compelling disclosure was made by the Magistrate; it was not a finding that the devices contained evidence of Sallay’s involvement in the attacks.

2 September 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

State Counsel Oswald Perera, appearing for the CID, made the following submissions:

• Stated that Sallay had remained admitted to the National Hospital for over three months.
• Argued that his continued hospitalisation was preventing investigators from recording statements from him.
• Informed Court that statements had already been obtained from individuals linked to Sallay, while further investigations remained pending.
• Requested a report from the Director of the National Hospital clarifying whether Sallay required continued inpatient treatment or could be discharged.

Defence response:

• President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando did not oppose obtaining the hospital report.
• He stated that doctors had already assessed Sallay’s condition and argued that the CID had not attempted to record a statement from his client despite his being fit to give one.
• He reminded Court that a medical board had previously been appointed to examine Sallay.
• Court direction:
• The Magistrate ordered the Director of the National Hospital to submit a fresh report on Sallay’s medical condition and whether continued inpatient treatment was necessary.
• The Magistrate noted that the medical board’s reports had not yet been received.
• Important: No new substantive allegations concerning Sallay’s alleged role in the Easter attacks were reported as having been presented by State counsel on this date.

15 September 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the CID, made extensive submissions:

• Alleged that sections of Military Intelligence had received advance information about Zahran Hashim and the planned attacks but failed to pass it to the relevant authorities.
• Relied on information allegedly provided by an intelligence informant known as “Thambiyan”, a former LTTE Sea Tiger operative who had also worked with Indian intelligence.
• Alleged that Thambiyan had provided information about Zahran to Military Intelligence, but it was not properly acted upon or passed up the chain of command.
• Referred to intelligence received from foreign sources on 3 April 2019 concerning Zahran, which then SIS Director Nilantha Jayawardena had reportedly passed through official channels to Police Inspector Ranjan Senarath Bandara.
• Alleged that Bandara travelled to Kattankudy and met Shayni Moulavi, Zahran’s younger brother, but did not arrest him despite his name appearing on an extremist watch list.
• Argued that arresting Shayni at that stage could have helped prevent the Easter attacks.
• Said investigators intended to obtain statements from several MPs, including the Opposition Leader, about public statements they had made concerning Sallay and the Easter attacks.
• Stated that Sallay had not been arrested solely on a decision by the CID or prosecutors, but that allegations about his role had previously been raised publicly by political figures.
• Alleged that Sallay’s continued hospitalisation for nearly 100 days was obstructing the investigation and protecting others.
• Claimed there was a “major medical conspiracy” surrounding his hospitalisation and questioned why the National Hospital had not submitted the medical reports ordered by Court.
• Sought a travel ban against Police Inspector Ranjan Senarath Bandara, arguing that he was required for the investigation and might leave the country.

Defence response:

• President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando argued that the prosecution had presented allegations, not evidence.
• He stated that information contained in a CID B Report did not become evidence merely because it was included in a report.
• He argued that none of the matters raised directly established Sallay’s involvement in the attacks.
• Court directions:
• The Magistrate issued notice on the Director of the National Hospital to appear on 22 September and explain the failure to submit the requested medical reports.
• A foreign travel ban was imposed on Police Inspector Ranjan Senarath Bandara.
• The next hearing was fixed for 22 September 2026.

https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/09/15/how-were-known-extremists-not-stopped-easter-bombers-appeared-in-intel-records

22 September 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the prosecution, made the following submissions:

• Presented the medical report of the nine-member medical panel, which stated that Sallay had an enlarged heart and had undergone a procedure involving the fitting of a cardiac device.
• Stated that approximately Rs. 4 million in public funds had been spent on the cardiac procedure.
• Described Sallay as the “perpetrator of the Easter attacks.” The Magistrate immediately corrected him, stating: “He is not a perpetrator yet. He is only a suspect.” Peiris apologised.
• Maintained that Sallay was medically stable and could be discharged once treatment for his dental condition was completed.
• Said the prosecution was prepared to take responsibility for Sallay if he was discharged from hospital and returned to CID custody.
• Repeated that Sallay had not provided the passwords to his laptop and mobile phones, despite the earlier court order, claiming that he could not remember them.
• Alleged that Sallay had initially claimed the laptop belonged to his daughter and had avoided providing access to the devices.
• Stated that investigators had recorded statements from Sallay on several occasions, but he continued to say that he could not remember the passwords.
• Said the CID intended to obtain statements from politicians, including the Opposition Leader and other MPs, and invited journalists with relevant information to assist the investigation.

Submissions concerning Sallay’s medical treatment:

• The ASG, appearing on behalf of the National Hospital Director, maintained that there was a “medical conspiracy” surrounding Sallay’s continued hospitalisation.
• The Hospital Director informed Court that discontinuing the antibiotic treatment could cause complications relating to the vascular procedure and that Sallay should be discharged only after the relevant treatment was completed.
• The Magistrate questioned whether Sallay needed to remain hospitalised for dental treatment.
• Defence response:
• President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando argued that intelligence officers routinely changed passwords every one or two days and that Sallay’s inability to recall older passwords was not unusual.
• He said the defence had not yet had an opportunity to study the medical reports.
• He objected to the prosecution seeking statements from politicians, arguing that the investigation appeared to be turning to political statements after failing to make progress through its own investigations.
• Court directions:
• The Magistrate advised investigators to explore alternative methods of accessing the electronic devices.
• The Court directed that a report on the progress of the investigation be submitted on 21 October 2026.

https://www.themorning.lk/articles/UyBR4KYN41eaJIGIyYNk

6 October 2026 — Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Dileepa Peiris, appearing for the Attorney General, made the following submissions:

• Presented a report from the 10-member medical team treating Sallay at the National Hospital.
• Informed Court that the medical team had recommended Sallay’s discharge, having determined that his condition was suitable for release from hospital care.
• Stated that Sallay would be transferred back to CID custody that evening following his discharge.
• Indicated that investigations and questioning could resume once Sallay returned to CID custody.
• Court proceedings:
• The ten doctors had been summoned to appear following the CID’s request for clarification of Sallay’s continued hospitalisation.
• The hearing dealt with his medical fitness for discharge and return to custody, rather than new allegations concerning his alleged role in the Easter Sunday attacks.
• Sallay had been hospitalised since 7 June 2026.

https://www.themorning.lk/articles/9IK4t1w8muBtIoQWptKN

The court proceedings record numerous allegations against Suresh Sallay.

However, these allegations do not all originate from the same source, nor do they all establish direct involvement in planning or executing the Easter Sunday attacks.

Some allegations are attributed to CID investigations, some to statements by former intelligence and police officers, and others to Azad Maulana’s account. Other submissions concern alleged intelligence failures, post-attack investigations, witness intimidation and historical incidents.

The following examination identifies the source of each allegation, the date it was presented to Court and whether it establishes a direct connection to the Easter Sunday bombings.

THE STATE’S CASE AGAINST SURESH SALLAY

What did the State allege?

What was its source?

How much directly connects Sallay to the Easter Sunday attacks?

1. ALLEGED DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING THE EASTER SUNDAY ATTACKS

From CID investigation

• Sallay used army intelligence informant to show St. Sebastians Church, Katuwapitiya to Zaharans group before attacks (11 March/22 April)

Allegation is repeated twice

From Azad Maulana – C4 Documentary / Statement given in France

• Sallay planned since 2017 to use Zaharan & group for an operation (20 May) – statement recorded in France by CID
• Sallay arranged Rs.250,000 from Military intelligence funds for Seyni Moulavi’s bail following 2017 Aliyar Junction clash. Pillayan allegedly contributed Rs.50,000 (20 May)
• Zaharan, Pillyan & Sallay had links (20 May)
• Alleged original plans involved attacks in North & South before Easter was selected (20 May)
• Attacks were politically motivated to influence 2019 Presidential Election (20 May)

Supporting source not identified

• Sallay the “key driving force” and principal operational force behind attacks (22 April)

SUMMARY:

The State’s allegations concerning planning the attacks since 2017, the financial assistance to Seyni Moulavi, links between Sallay, Pillayan and Zahran’s group, the proposed targets and the alleged political motive are attributed to Azad Maulana’s account.

However, the allegation that an Army Intelligence informant showed St. Sebastian’s Church in Katuwapitiya to members of Zahran’s group is attributed to CID investigations, not identified as an allegation originating from Maulana.

The ASG’s description of Sallay as the “key driving force” and principal operational force is a prosecution assertion. The source supporting that particular conclusion was not identified in the reported submission.

2. ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE DAY OF THE ATTACKS – 21 APRIL 2019

From Azad Maulana – C4 Documentary / Statement given in France

• Sallay telephoned Maulana & instructed him to collect a man carrying a bag near Taj Samudra hotel (20 May)
• Jameel the man carrying bag later detonated explosives at Tropical Inn, Dehiwela

SUMMARY:  

Has the CID established independently whether the alleged telephone call was made by Sallay to Maulana, or Jameels wife to Jameel and whether telephone records or other independent evidence corroborate?

3. THE AZAD MAULANA SOURCE – HOW HIS ACCOUNT ENTERED THE STATE’S CASE

26 March 2026 – Azad Maulana’s statement

• The Magistrate questioned the CID on whether a statement had been obtained from Maulana.
• Defence counsel pointed out that although Maulana had made allegations against Sallay in the Channel 4 documentary, the CID had not recorded a statement from him.
• The CID confirmed that no statement had yet been recorded.
• The Magistrate directed the CID to make efforts to record Maulana’s statement before the next hearing.

22 April 2026 – Additional Solicitor General

• The ASG informed Court that steps were being taken to obtain Maulana’s statement in France through the French Embassy using Zoom.

20 May 2026 – Further report presented to Court

• The ASG presented a 14-page report based substantially on Maulana’s statement recorded in France by a CID team that included Shani Abeysekara.
• Maulana’s account was relied upon for the allegations concerning planning since 2017, the alleged bail payment to Seyni Moulavi, links between Sallay, Pillayan and Zahran’s group, the alleged political motive and the alleged telephone call on 21 April 2019.

Questions concerning Maulana’s evidence:

• Given that Sallay was not in Sri Lanka from 2016 – can Maulana prove Sallay came to the coconut estate in February 2018. If he kept 5 notebooks the details should be clear.
• The defence has referred to Sallay’s overseas postings and absence from Sri Lanka. The State has separately challenged his travel chronology through passport records in the Court of Appeal. What do the complete immigration, diplomatic and service records establish about his location in February 2018, and do they corroborate or contradict Maulana’s account of the alleged meeting?
• If there was no building in the estate in February 2018 – how did a meeting take place for Maulana to be outside the door?
• Have the five notebooks been authenticated & writing identifying dates it was written?
• Were telephone, financial and hotel records used to corroborate his account?
• Has his statement been tested through examination and cross-examination?
• CID claimed to Court that they had not taken a statement from Maulana – however immediately following the 2021 zoom session wherein Fr. Gamini & others alleged Sallay & Zaharan links prompted a CID complaint by Sallay & CID informed Court they had launched investigations – CID should have been able to establish the links if any before C4 documentary was released in Sept2023.
• When C4 was released & Imam Committee report was appointed – the CID recommended Maulana to be investigated for links to Zaharan, why did CID not conduct the investigation?
• When Fr. Rohan lodged a complaint a year after the release of C4 in Oct2024, the CID launched investigation – what did they establish from this investigation about Asad Maulana from Nov2024 to February 2026?
• What new evidence has CID established after travelling to France & why travel to France when ASG told court arrangements were being made to speak to Maulana via zoom? Who authorized this visit?

The defence argued on 20 May that Maulana’s statement could not be treated as evidence without examination and cross-examination at trial.

4. ADVANCE INTELLIGENCE ABOUT ZAHRAN AND ALLEGED FAILURE TO PREVENT THE ATTACKS

• Military intelligence received advanced information about Zaharan & planned attacks but failed to pass to relevant authorities (15 Sept)
• Informant “Thambiyan” a former LTTE Sea Tiger who had worked with Indian intelligence had provided information on Zaharan to Sri Lankan military intelligence but not acted upon or passed (15 Sept)
• Foreign intel received on 3 April 2019 on Zaharan passed by SIS Director Nilantha through official channels to Police Inspector Ranjan Senarath Bandara – Bandara went to Kattankudy & met Shayni Maulavi, Zaharans younger brother but did not arrest him despite his name appearing on extremist watch list ASG argues that arrested Shayni could have prevented attacks (15 Sept)
• What evidence presented to Court connects Sallay personally to the alleged failure to act on the information provided by Thambiyan or to Inspector Ranjan Senarath Bandara’s handling of the 3 April 2019 intelligence?

SUMMARY:

the PCoI confirms that over 97 reports had been sent by SIS head from 2016 to April 2019. TID had sent 2 files on Zaharan to the AGs dept. There were 2 arrest warrants on Zaharan. He was in hiding from 2017 onwards. Discovery of Wanathawilluwa explosives in January 2019 and testimonies of arrested to being trained as suicide bombers sufficed for CID to realize the looming dangers. The Indian intel warnings from 3 April should have alerted all.

How does Inspector Ranjan’s actions connect with Sallay?

Attacks could have been prevented even in the last hour by stopping people entering the Churches & informing hotel security.

5. ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE ATTACKS

From CID investigation

• Sallay interfered with investigation into killing of 2 police officers at Vavunativu (11 March)
• An informant continued to receive military intelligence assistance after becoming a suspect (11 March)
• Sallay pressured investigators concerning 3^rd DNA to determine if Sara Jasmin died in Sainamaruthu explosion (11 March)
• Sallay pressured National Security Council (former CID officer Prasad Ranasinghe)
• Repeat – Misdirecting Vavunathivu & Sainamaruthu investigations (22 April)
• Repeat – Pressuring DNA test (22 April)

From Azad Maulana – C4 Documentary / Statement given in France

• Military intel funds allegedly maintained Pillayans group & Zaharans group & financed politically motivated operators (20 Mah)

SUMMARY:

The Vavunathivu police officers were killed in November 2018. Sallay was then serving at the Sri Lankan mission in Malaysia from 2016. He took over as SIS head in Dec 2019.

The allegation of subsequent interference with this investigation must therefore be examined separately, including the date of the alleged interference and the evidence establishing Sallay’s involvement.

Sara Jasmin was only the wife of a suicide bomber. With conflicting versions about her, is it not sensible to properly conclude her death by examining the last body bag. The tests were conducted by experts & signed off by them.

Can the prosecution show the findings were altered?

The Magistrate directed further investigation on 11 March into whether the third DNA test direction was intended to guide the investigation or obstruct it.

No finding of criminal responsibility was made.

6. ALLEGED WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND OBSTRUCTION

From CID investigation

• Army intelligence personnel allegedly visited witness home after which witness left residence (26 Mar)
• Sallay allegedly sent individuals to obtain information from the witness about mosques in the area (26 Mar)
• Intelligence officer allegedly visited a witness home – 5 hand grenades & pistol discovered & 6 dogs poisoned (22 April)
• Army intel allegedly failed to cooperate with CID & witnesses were being pressured
• Sallays continued hospitalization obstructed investigations

SUMMARY:

Was this witness included into those whose account brought indictments against 24 accused in aiding & abetting terror attacks?

When did Sallay request to obtain info on mosques in the area (note he was not in the country from 2016 to end of 2019) are there overseas telephone call logs to confirm he made any calls?

When was this hand grenade discovery & how is it linked to Easter Sunday attacks or Sallay?

To be arrested under PTA in February 2026 we presume the CID had sufficient evidence more than hearsay. However, we are yet to see any evidence that comes close to projecting him as a mastermind to a well-coordinated multiple crime that killed 269 people.

7. POST-ATTACK MEETINGS AND HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS

From CID investigation

• Intelligence officers attached to Giritale Army Camp allegedly operated under Sallays command were linked to Prageeth Ekneligoda’s disappearance & assaults on Keith Noyahr, Upali Tennakoon, Lasantha Wickrematunga (22 April – repeated 20 May)
• Sallay hosted Pillayan, his family & Maulana at a hotel in Ahungalla after the attacks (20 May)

From Azad Maulana – C4 Documentary / Statement given in France

• Maulana allegedly possess 5 notebooks recording discussions involving Sallay, military intelligence personnel & Zaharans group
• Maulana agreed to return to Sri Lanka if safety is guaranteed

SUMMARY:

A post-attack meeting or association does not automatically establish prior involvement in planning the bombings or being its mastermind.

Prageeth Ekneligoda disappeared twice – 1^st time in Aug 2009 – he returned next day. 2^nd time in January 2010. A former LTTE giving evidence informed court that Ekneligoda had discussions with him to assassinate President Mahinda Rajapakse & others using missiles.

Keith Noyhr attack – May 2008 – now living in Australia on asylum

Upali Tennakoon attack – Jan 2009 – now living in US on asylum with family

Lasantha Wickrematunga – killed Jan 2009

These incidents occurred in 2008, 2009 and January 2010.

Sallay’s position and postings during each incident must be established from his service records.

His published career chronology indicates that he served at the Sri Lankan Embassy in Paris from 2006–2009 and as Coordinator of Foreign Intelligence at the Ministry of Defence from 2009–2012. He became Director of Military Intelligence in 2012.

8. OTHER SUBMISSIONS THAT DO NOT THEMSELVES ESTABLISH INVOLVEMENT IN THE ATTACKS

• ASG proposes taking statements from MPs (15 Sept)
• Laptop & mobile phone seized from Sallays vehicle – ASG alleges Sallay withheld passwords & sought password disclosure order (1 July)
• ASG informs court that Sallay cannot remember passwords (22 Sept)
• ASG seeks assistance from journalists re case (22 Sept)
• ASG disputes torture & mental health allegations & challenges psychiatric reports (4 June)
• CID informs Court Sallay is hospitalized following refusal to eat food (8 June)
• State seeks report on necessity of hospitalization (2 Sept)
• ASG alleges “major medical conspiracy” surrounding hospitalization (15 Sept)
• ASG repeats medical conspiracy allegation & disputes continued hospitalization (22 Sept)
• ASG presents medical teams recommendation for discharge & return to CID custody (6 Oct)

Summary

The Magistrate’s password order on 1 July was made under Section 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

If the laptop belonged to Sallay’s daughter when was it purchased?

If the CID seized the phone immediately after Sallay called his lawyer following arrest – is it not possible that the CID tampered with the phone & locked it as a result?

If both laptop & phone were purchased after 2019 – how does that connect to Easter attack planning?

9. What the Magistrate actually established

• 4 March: CID said evidence had emerged from investigations but the reported submission did not specify it.
• 5 March: CID informs Sallay is 3^rd suspect
• 11 March: Further investigation ordered into the third DNA test direction.
• 26 March: CID directed to obtain Maulana’s statement.
• 20 May: Defence challenged the evidential status of Maulana’s statement without examination and cross-examination.
• 22 September: Magistrate corrected the ASG when he called Sallay the perpetrator: “He is not a perpetrator yet. He is only a suspect.”

Over eight months, the State has presented a range of allegations involving intelligence failures, alleged interference with investigations, witness-related claims, post-attack conduct and statements largely attributed to Azad Maulana.

The question is whether these allegations have been independently corroborated and whether the evidence establishes Sallay’s personal involvement in the planning or preparation of the Easter Sunday attacks.

The Magistrate himself corrected the description of Sallay as a perpetrator, stating on 22 September that he was “only a suspect.”

Eight months of court proceedings should leave the public with more than labels and allegations. What evidence has the State and CID actually presented to establish Sallay’s responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks, beyond their reliance on allegations attributed to Azad Maulana?

We are yet to see the evidence required to authenticate each of Maulana’s allegations independently, or a clear account of how those allegations have been reconciled with the findings reported by the Imam Committee.

Shenali D Waduge

4 Viewers