PUTTING THE CHURCH’S EASTER CLAIMS ON TRIAL

 

For seven years, the Catholic Church has demanded answers over the Easter Sunday attacks.

Who knew?

Who failed to act?

Who warned whom?

Who protected whom?

Who was behind Zahran Hashim?

Was Easter Sunday merely the work of a terrorist network — or was there something more?

Those questions have been repeatedly raised by the Church.

 

On 22 September 2026, the Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar delivered its judgment in the Easter Sunday criminal case.

Of the 24 accused before the Court, 15 were convicted and nine were acquitted. The case involved 23,270 charges and 2,309 prosecution witnesses.

 

The judgment therefore gives us something crucial:

a judicial determination of the evidence presented against those 24 accused.

 

But the Church says this is not the end.

Fr. Jude Chrysantha Fernando said that those who carried out the massacre and some co-organisers had been identified, but that there remained a “second part” — to establish which individuals facilitated the massacre “to gain political advantage and seize power.”

 

Then let us examine that second part.

Because if the Church says there is another layer behind Easter Sunday, that proposition must also stand on evidence.

THE CHURCH MUST ANSWER ITS OWN EASTER QUESTIONS.

 

FIRST — WHAT HAS THE COURT ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED?

The Trial-at-Bar case was a criminal prosecution against 24 accused persons on 23,270 charges arising from the Easter Sunday attacks.

Fifteen were convicted.

Nine were acquitted.

3 of the accused were the 3 indicted by the US Dept of Justice following FBI investigations.

 

The Court has now determined the criminal responsibility of the persons who stood before it in that case.

 

But there was another major Easter judgment before this one.

 

On 31 July 2026, former IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando were sentenced to death after being found guilty of failing to act on intelligence warnings concerning the impending attacks.

 

So several different dimensions of the Easter tragedy have already been subjected to criminal proceedings:

• the terrorist network;
• those prosecuted for conspiracy, aiding and abetting and related offences;
• and
• senior officials found criminally responsible for failures to act on warnings.

 

Yet the Church now says there is a “second part” involving individuals who allegedly facilitated the massacre for political advantage and to seize power.

Pujith & Hemasiri were not the only officials who had knowledge of Zahran or warnings of an impending attack.

Then why were the criminal proceedings for failure to act confined to Pujith and Hemasiri?

What happened to all other officials who received, possessed or were responsible for acting upon relevant intelligence or warnings including those handling Zaharans file in the AGs dept?

 

WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS SECOND PART?

And:

DOES THE CHURCH HAVE EVIDENCE FOR IT?

 

SECOND — WHO PLANNED AND EXECUTED EASTER SUNDAY?

There is no dispute that Zahran Hashim and his associates were at the centre of the terrorist operation that carried out the suicide attacks.

Zaharan was the leader of the NTJ from 2015 and he was handling the training, finances & overall operations.

The question is whether there was another layer above or behind the terrorist network.

That is where the narrative changes.

Because there is a fundamental difference between saying:

Zahran and his associates planned and executed the attacks

and saying:

someone outside that terrorist network deliberately facilitated the attacks for a political purpose.

And the second requires additional evidence.

It requires a link.

If the allegation is that the objective was to create insecurity, gain political advantage and seize power, then that political objective itself must be established far beyond simply claiming so. There must be undisputed evidence that an incident such as an attack was deemed necessary for a change of governance.

 

THIRD — WHERE DOES THE ALLEGED POLITICAL OBJECTIVE COME FROM?

The Church cannot avoid answering this question.

Fr. Jude refers to individuals who allegedly facilitated the massacre to gain political advantage and seize power.

Who is he referring to?

What evidence supports that allegation?

The Church cannot substitute assumption for evidence.

It cannot substitute political interpretation for evidence.

 

If it is making a specific allegation against a specific person, the evidence must be identified.If the Church’s answer is that this evidence comes from the Channel 4 documentary and the testimony of Asad Maulana, was that evidence not already examined by a State appointed Committee in 2024 which reported the allegations as unproved.

Even the documentary directors accepted they only have the claims made by Maulana.

The question is:

WHAT EVIDENCE NOW EXISTS THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE JUNE 2024 WHEN THE IMAM REPORT WAS HANDED TO THE PRESIDENT?

 

FOURTH — SURESH SALLAY

Allegations have been made linking former intelligence officer Suresh Sallay to Zahran and ultimately to the Easter attacks.

Those allegations became internationally prominent through the Channel 4 documentary and the testimony of Asad Maulana.

They have subsequently become part of the investigation into Sallay following his sudden arrest in February 2026 & detention by Presidential Order.

 

AN ALLEGATION IS NOT A JUDICIAL FINDING.

Sallay was not one of the 24 accused in the Trial-at-Bar case.

His name was not among those 24 persons prosecuted in that case for aiding & abetting the terrorists.

None of the 24 accused mentioned his name.

Therefore, the 22 September judgment cannot be used as proof that Sallay was the mastermind of Easter Sunday.

If the allegation against Sallay is being pursued separately, then it must stand on its own evidence.

WHERE IS THE SALLAY–ZAHRAN–EASTER LINK INDEPENDENT OF THE CASE AGAINST NAUFER MOULAVI AND THE OTHER 24 ACCUSED?

Is the evidence still principally the allegation made by Asad Maulana through Channel 4?

Or is there independent evidence?

Framing charges based on post-attack scenarios does not make Sallay the mastermind…

 

FIFTH — WHERE WAS SALLAY?

Sallay has consistently maintained that he left Sri Lanka in 2016, served in Malaysia and subsequently attended the National Defence College in India, returning to Sri Lanka only in December 2019.

His position is that he was in India on 21 April 2019 when the Easter attacks occurred.

His arrivals/departures / his phone records from Malaysia to Sri Lanka / from India to Sri Lanka are all with the CID.

 

The Ministry of Defence has previously stated that he was outside Sri Lanka from December 2016 until November 2019.

The Imam Committee also recorded that Sallay was outside Sri Lanka from 2016 to November 2019.

 

The alleged February 2018 meeting with Zahran.

If that meeting is the foundation of the allegation, the question is straightforward:

WHAT EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT THE MEETING ACTUALLY OCCURRED?

 

And there is another issue which cannot simply be ignored.

In the intervention petition filed by Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith in Sallay’s Court of Appeal case, the petition describes Sallay as having held the position of Director of Military Intelligence during the period of the Easter Sunday attacks.

Yet the same petition records Sallay’s position that he had left Sri Lanka in November 2016, was abroad during the relevant period and was in India on 20 April 2019.

That apparent contradiction requires clarification.

Because if the premise that Sallay was DMI during Easter is incorrect, then the public must ask:

HOW DID THAT PREMISE ENTER A LEGAL DOCUMENT?

And if Sallay was outside Sri Lanka from 2016 to the end of 2019, then:

WHERE DOES HE ENTER THE EASTER INTELLIGENCE-FAILURE CHAIN?

 

SIXTH — WHICH ASAD MAULANA VERSION IS CORRECT?

The Channel 4 allegation presented by Maulana was that he was requested by Pillayan to arrange an introduction between Sallay and Zahran for the political objective. (Implicaton being that Suresh Sallay did not know Zaharan)

The February 2018 encounter Azad claims was that introductory meeting between Sallay and Zahran.

This 2023 version is contracted.

A 2021 presentation associated with Fr. Cyril Gamini contained a claim that Sallay already knew Zahran before 2018.

If that is what was presented in 2021, then a direct contradiction arises.

THE 2021 VERSION:

SALLAY ALREADY KNEW ZAHRAN BEFORE 2018.

THE 2023 MAULANA VERSION: MAULANA WAS ASKED TO INTRODUCE SALLAY TO ZAHRAN.

Both propositions cannot simply be treated as though they say the same thing.

If Sallay already knew Zahran, why was an introduction necessary?

If Maulana introduced them for the first time in February 2018, how could Sallay already have known Zahran before 2018?

This puts the Church & Azad versions in conflict.

 

WHICH VERSION IS CORRECT?

And if the Church has relied on both at different stages, what was the original source of the 2021 claim?

What was the evidence – has the Church provided all details of this Zoom inspite of a defamation case filed by Suresh Sallay against Fr. Cyril for the allegation made against him?

Was it independently verified?

Was it supplied to investigators?

Did any subsequent investigation establish it?

These are not peripheral questions.

They go to the foundation of the Sallay–Zahran narrative.

 

SEVENTH — WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PILLAYAN LINK?

Maulana’s account does not begin simply with Sallay.

It involves Pillayan.

According to the Channel 4 account, Maulana was connected to Pillayan and was allegedly asked to facilitate the introduction of Sallay to Zahran.

This means Asad Maulana knew Zaharan.

Yet when Pillayan was produced before the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court, no charge for the Easter Sunday attacks had been filed against him. So far Pillayan does not face any charges related to Easter Sunday though political speeches claim so. This is where the public must use their intelligence to accept evidence & reject political speeches.

The Pillayan connection is an essential part of the narrative, it cannot simply disappear from the chain when the allegation reaches Sallay.

 

EIGHTH — WHAT DID MAULANA SAY BEFORE CHANNEL 4?

This question is important because of the new affidavit of Ali Uthuma Lebbe Mohamed Haris.

According to Haris’s sworn account, Maulana stayed with him in Switzerland for approximately 35 days in 2022.

During that period, Haris says Maulana described his difficulties in terms of his relationship and conflict with Pillayan.

Haris specifically states that Maulana did not tell him that he had fled Sri Lanka because his life was threatened by Suresh Sallay, the Sri Lankan military or military intelligence.

 

The affidavit then describes discussions concerning Maulana’s asylum position.

Haris says Maulana told him of discussions with lawyers concerning his asylum prospects.

According to Haris, Maulana subsequently told him that one possible option given by a Swiss lawyer involved making allegations concerning the Sri Lankan Army, military intelligence and the Easter attacks for which Swiss citizenship would be assured.

Haris also says Maulana subsequently refused to accept that option.

This is important. In fact Maulana had put differences with Pillayan as reason for seeking asylum in his applications filed in Swiss & France. Eventually both applications had got rejected.

THIS WAS THE POSITION HELD BY MAULANA BEFORE CHANNEL 4

 

NINTH — MAULANA’S ASYLUM RECORD

Maulana’s asylum history is relevant to the credibility and chronology of his later allegations, in the documentary.

Did Maulana identify Pillayan? Yes – financial issues but not related to Easter Sunday.

Did he identify Sallay? No

Did he identify military intelligence? No

Did he mention Easter Sunday? No

Did he allege a political conspiracy? No

 

WHEN DID THE SALLAY–EASTER ACCOUNT FIRST APPEAR?

First – was the option given to him by the Swiss lawyer

Second – his asylum rejection in both Swiss & France

Third – his eventual narrative to C4

CHRONOLOGY IS EVIDENCE.

 

TENTH — WHAT DID THE IMAM COMMITTEE FIND — AND WHAT CHANGED?

The Church cannot simply move from the Channel 4 allegation to the present investigation without addressing what happened in between.

The Imam Committee examined the allegations surrounding Sallay and Maulana.

It reported that Sallay was outside Sri Lanka from 2016 to November 2019.

It stated that there was no evidence showing Sallay’s involvement with Zahran or members of the NTJ. This negates the Zoom allegations as well as Asads allegations in C4.

It also concluded that the allegations made by Maulana in the Channel 4 programme were unproved.

WHAT NEW EVIDENCE HAS EMERGED FROM JUNE 2024 to FEBRUARY 2026?

What evidence has the CID now obtained that was not available to the Imam Committee?

What evidence has the Attorney General’s Department relied upon that was not at hand when they filed cases Pujith & Hemasiri for negligence & the 24 Muslims for aiding & abetting Zaharan?

What evidence has been placed before the Magistrate’s Court?

What evidence has been placed before the Court of Appeal?

Because the material publicly referred to so far includes allegations made after the Easter attacks.

Post-Easter allegations may justify investigation.

But they do not, establish that a person was the mastermind of Easter Sunday.

POST-EASTER ALLEGATION IS NOT PRE-EASTER PROOF.

 

ELEVENTH — DO NOT CONFUSE THE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE WITH THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY

This is perhaps the most important distinction in the entire Easter case.

The warning trail did not begin in 2019.

There was intelligence concerning Zahran and the NTJ well before 2019.

There were warnings.

There were files.

There were arrests sought – Zaharan was in hiding from 2017 but was also able to conduct arms training & recruit over 300 potential suicide bombers.

There were repeated opportunities for intervention – CID discovered over 100kg explosives in Wanathawilluwa & interrogated suspects who admitted they were being trained as suicide bombers. The CID did not need new intel or needed to rely on Vavunativu or Mawanella 2018 incidents. The Wanathawilluwa discovery sufficed for a national manhunt for Zaharan while the 3 April foreign intel should have reconfirmed to the CID the danger given that the names of the targets were also disclosed.

The failures to act were necessarily from the units tasked to arrest – Police – CID – TID.

The Attorney General’s Department had files concerning Zahran, including material dating to 2017 before the Easter attacks.

One file concerning Zahran was specifically handed to the present Additional Solicitor General in 2017 — the same official who is now presenting allegations against Sallay.

 

But where was Sallay in this chain?

From 2016 to the end of 2019, he was outside Sri Lanka according to the record cited above.

He was not holding a Sri Lankan military or intelligence position during the period of the Easter attacks.

And the power to arrest Zahran did not lie with military intelligence or the State Intelligence Service.

Arrest powers lay with the police and investigative authorities.

Therefore:

failure to act is not automatically participation in the attack.

knowledge is not automatically conspiracy.

negligence is not automatically facilitation.

intelligence contact is not automatically operational control.

And:

being accused after the attack is not evidence of involvement before the attack.

If there was deliberate facilitation, establish it.

If there was operational assistance, establish it.

If there was political direction, establish it.

If there was a plan to create insecurity for political advantage, establish it.

And if Sallay was part of it:

SHOW WHERE HE ENTERS THE CHAIN.

 

TWELFTH — THE 15/9 VERDICT CREATES ANOTHER QUESTION

The 22 September judgment convicted 15 of the 24 accused and acquitted nine.

The prosecution therefore succeeded in proving the guilt of 15 to the required criminal standard, while AGs department failed to build a strong enough case against the 9 who were acquitted.

 

CHURCH MUST SHOW EVIDENCE NOT SIMPLY POINT TO CHANNEL 4

An allegation does not become a fact because it has been repeated for seven years.

And a person does not become a mastermind because the word “mastermind” has been repeatedly attached to his name.

 

THIRTEENTH — SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CHURCH ASKING THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE?

The Trial-at-Bar has convicted members of the terrorist network and persons prosecuted for their roles in the attacks.

None of the accused has ever mentioned Suresh Sallay.

The FBI names Naufer Moulavi as the Second Emir – FBI has never mentioned Suresh Sallay.

Asad Maulana never mentioned Suresh Sallay in both his asylum applications – he did so only after his asylum application was rejected.

 

The Church cannot make speeches

The Church must produce facts & evidence than simply say investigate x,y,z.

 

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST SURESH SALLAY

WHY IS THE CHURCH ADAMANT THE MASTERMIND IS SURESH SALLAY

IF THE CHURCH SAYS IT IS FOR A POLITICAL MOTIVE & SURESH SALLAY WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF A POLITICAL PLAYER – HOW CAN SURESH SALLAY BE THE MASTERMIND?

IF THE CHURCH IS IMPLYING SOMEONE ELSE – WHY ARE THEY NOT CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO NAME

THE CHURCH CANNOT SEND A NATION ON A MERRY-GO-ROUND.

 

The State and Judiciary has determined 2 former heads for negligence.

The State & Judiciary has now determined 15 Muslims for aiding & abetting Zaharan.

If there is a missing link – it is those within security apparatus who also knew but did nothing & any others who hid swords, explosives, kept safe houses, were involved in training, recruiting, spreading ISIS ideology, conducting extremist lectures etc.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge