SURESH SALLAY: IF THERE IS EVIDENCE – WHY NO CHARGES?

 

An allegation is not evidence. Suspicion is not proof. Repetition does not establish guilt.

Suresh Sallay was arrested on 25 February 2026 and named as the third suspect in the Easter Sunday investigation – 7 years after the attacks on 21 April 2019.

 

What exactly is the Attorney Generals Department & CID accusing him of?

ALLEGATIONS OF DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE EASTER SUNDAY ATTACKS

1. Being associated with Zaharan Hashim and NTJ.
2. Allegedly meeting Zaharan and Pillayan at a coconut estate in Karadiyapuval in February 2018.
3. Allegedly planning an operation using Zaharan and his group from 2017.
4. Allegedly providing Rs.250,000 from Military Intelligence funds for Shayni Moulavi’s bail following the 2017 Aliyar Junction incident.
5. Allegedly planning attacks on targets in the North and South before the Easter Sunday attacks were selected.
6. Allegedly facilitating the reconnaissance of St. Sebastian’s Church, Katuwapitiya, through an Army Intelligence informant.
7. Allegedly having a political motive to influence the 2019 Presidential Election.
8. Allegedly telephoning Azad Maulana on Easter Sunday and instructing him to collect Jameel, who was carrying a bag near the Taj Samudra Hotel and later detonated explosives at Tropical Inn, Dehiwala.

ALLEGATIONS OF WITHHOLDING OR SUPPRESSING INTELLIGENCE

1. Allegedly interfering with the Vavunathivu police killings investigation.
2. Allegedly continuing to provide Military Intelligence assistance to an informant after he became a suspect.
3. Allegedly withholding or suppressing information supplied by Army informant Rajan.
4. Allegedly failing to act on intelligence concerning Zaharan and his group.
5. Allegedly pressuring investigators and influencing National Security Council discussions.

 

ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH POST-ATTACK INVESTIGATIONS

1. Allegedly interfering with the Sarah Jasmine DNA investigation.
2. Allegedly pressuring investigators concerning the third DNA examination.
3. Allegedly misdirecting the Sainthamaruthu investigation.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS INTRODUCED DURING THE INVESTIGATION

1. Allegedly arranging a diplomatic passport for Karuna Amman under the name Dushmantha Gunawardena.
2. Alleged links between Army Intelligence officers and the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda.
3. Alleged links between Army Intelligence officers and the assaults on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.
4. Alleged witness intimidation and interference with the ongoing investigation.

WHO ARE THE SOURCES OF THESE ALLEGATIONS?

• Azad Maulana: Channel 4 documentary of 5 September 2023 and the statement subsequently recorded by CID in France.
• CID: Allegations presented through its investigation reports and submissions before the Magistrate.
• Additional Solicitor General: Prosecution submissions describing Sallay as the mastermind, contractor and principal operational force behind the attacks. These are prosecution assertions, not judicial findings.
• Army informants and intelligence officers: Statements and allegations concerning intelligence reporting, reconnaissance and alleged suppression of information.

 

These are allegations made by different sources at different times.

They must not be treated as independently corroborated evidence merely because they have been repeated in CID reports or prosecution submissions.

No indictment has been filed against Suresh Sallay even after more than eight months in detention under successive detention orders issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

 

But how many of these allegations actually establish Sallay’s personal involvement in planning, facilitating or executing the Easter Sunday attacks to make him the so-called “mastermind”?

More importantly, where is the evidence connecting Sallay to the terrorist conspiracy?

In September 2026, 24 accused stood trial in the principal Easter Sunday case. Fifteen were convicted and nine acquitted.

The FBI affidavit publicly identified Zaharan Hashim as the mastermind behind the attacks.

Yet Sallay’s alleged role must still be established through evidence connecting him personally to the conspiracy

Allegations must be supported by evidence satisfying the legal requirements for criminal responsibility.

So far, no publicly disclosed evidence has been presented that establishes Sallay’s personal participation in planning or facilitating the Easter Sunday attacks let alone masterminding it.

 

WHAT DID THE JUSTICE S.I. IMAM COMMITTEE FIND?

The Committee of Inquiry, chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge Justice S.I. Imam, examined the allegations made in the Channel 4 documentary of 5 September 2023. Its report, dated 25 June 2024, did not establish the alleged Karadiyapuval meeting or Sallay’s involvement with Zaharan and the NTJ. The committee’s findings raise a legitimate question: what new evidence emerged after this inquiry to support the allegations now being pursued against Sallay?

 

WHAT DO THE 20 ALLEGATIONS ACTUALLY ESTABLISH?

 

The allegations must be examined individually, not bundled together to create an impression of guilt.

 

First: Allegations relating to events before Easter Sunday

Where was Sallay when these alleged meetings, payments, instructions and intelligence activities took place?

What official position did he hold?

What documentary evidence establishes his personal involvement?

His overseas diplomatic posting from December 2016 to December 2018 and subsequent attendance at the National Defence College in India must be examined against the alleged February 2018 meeting and the alleged Easter Sunday telephone call.

 

Second: Allegations relating to Easter Sunday itself

Sallay was in India on 21 April 2019.

The alleged telephone call to Maulana must therefore be tested against telephone records, travel records and independent corroboration.

An allegation of a telephone call cannot be treated as proof merely because it appears in a witness statement.

 

Third: Allegations relating to events after Easter Sunday

The Sarah Jasmine DNA investigation, subsequent investigative decisions, alleged interference with forensic examinations and alleged witness intimidation concern events after the attacks.

How do these establish that Sallay planned or facilitated the attacks before they occurred?

A subsequent allegation of misconduct, even if independently established, does not automatically establish participation in an earlier terrorist conspiracy.

Fourth: Allegations concerning other officers and historical incidents

The Vavunathivu investigation, Ekneligoda disappearance, attacks on journalists and alleged intelligence failures must be examined on their own evidence.

An allegation against an Army Intelligence officer cannot automatically be attributed to Sallay. The prosecution must establish his personal involvement, knowledge and intention.

 

Fifth: Allegations concerning separate matters

The Karuna diplomatic passport allegation and other unrelated incidents cannot simply be added to an Easter Sunday conspiracy without establishing their legal relevance and evidentiary connection.

 

THE LEGAL TEST: WHERE IS THE PROOF?

 

WHO MADE THE ALLEGATIONS – AND WHO MUST PROVE THEM?

 

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – the burden of proof rests on the person making an assertion, not the person denying it.

 

Allegations against Suresh Sallay have been advanced by different individuals at different times:

• Cyril Gamini and others – October 2021: Raised allegations during their online discussion concerning the Easter Sunday attacks.
• Azad Maulana – September 2023: Made allegations in the Channel 4 documentary of 5 September 2023
• Rohan Silva – October 2024: Filed complaint referring to Maulana and the Channel 4 revelations.
• Cardinal Malcolm – 2026: Filed an intervening petition seeking dismissal of Sallay’s Court of Appeal writ asserting Sallay was DMI head during the attacks.
• CID and Attorney General’s Department: Pursued the investigation and presented allegations and submissions before Court.

 

Those who make specific allegations must substantiate them.

CID must establish the factual basis of its investigation, and the prosecution must prove the criminal charges in Court.

 

Other applicable legal principles:

• Allegata et probata – allegations must be proved.
• In dubio pro reo – reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – criminal liability requires the relevant guilty intention.
• Actori incumbit onus probandi – the burden of proof rests on the party asserting a fact

 

Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Ordinance deal with the burden of proof and the circumstances in which it lies on particular parties.

Under Sections 100 and 113A of the Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the necessary elements of abetment or conspiracy.

Article 13(5) of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence. Article 13(5) presumes every person innocent until proved guilty.

 

Sallay does not have to prove that he did not conspire with Zaharan.

The prosecution must prove that he did.

 

WHAT HAS THE CID ACTUALLY PRODUCED BEFORE COURT?

The Magistrate’s proceedings must be examined separately from CID allegations and submissions by the Additional Solicitor General.

• What original documents have been produced?
• What witness statements have been independently corroborated?
• What forensic evidence establishes Sallay’s involvement?
• What telephone or communication records establish the alleged conspiracy?
• What evidence establishes his knowledge of the planned attacks?
• What specific act establishes his participation?
• What evidence connects the separate allegations to Easter Sunday?

 

On 22 September 2026, the Magistrate corrected the ASG’s description of Sallay as the perpetrator, clarifying that he was only a suspect.

A suspect designation is not a finding of guilt.

 

THE QUESTION REMAINS:

IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WHY HAS NO INDICTMENT BEEN FILED?

 

Twenty allegations do not amount to twenty pieces of evidence.

 

Allegations originating from different sources, concerning different incidents, involving different officers and spanning different years cannot be assembled into a criminal conspiracy without proving the connection between them.

 

• An incident before Easter Sunday does not automatically establish conspiracy.
• An incident after Easter Sunday does not automatically establish prior participation.
• An intelligence failure does not automatically establish criminal responsibility.
• An allegation against another officer does not automatically establish Sallay’s guilt.
• The State must establish the actual criminal act, the necessary intention and Sallay’s personal participation through evidence.
• Seven years after the Easter Sunday attacks, the victims and the country deserve answers.
• But justice cannot be achieved by substituting allegations for evidence.
• An allegation is not proof. A suspicion is not a conviction. And calling someone a mastermind does not establish that he was one.
• Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

 

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE STATE. NOT ON SURESH SALLAY.

 

THOSE WHO MAKE THE ALLEGATIONS MUST SUBSTANTIATE THEM.

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE THEM IN COURT – not on social media 

THE BURDEN IS NOT ON SURESH SALLAY TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.

 

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge