Addressing the “Zaharan did it “BUT” claim”
We are in agreement on one point: on 21 April 2019 Zaharan and a team of suicide bombers targeted 3 hotels and 3 churches causing 269 fatalities.
PART 1 — ESTABLISHED FACT
Zahran carried out the attacks
PART 2 — THE “BUT” CLAIM
Zahran acted with the support of military intelligence
This second claim is not a minor extension of the facts—it is a serious allegation of state complicity in mass-casualty terrorism for political change.
Under basic principles of criminal law and evidence, such an allegation requires strict proof, not speculation.
The standard applicable is not conjecture or suspicion, but proof based on credible, admissible, and independently corroborated evidence.
It is this second claim that now seeks to redefine the entire incident.
In doing so, serious implications are being made against national security institutions and individuals who have served the country—often without demonstrable evidence, and through widely circulated social media claims only.
Unverified allegations of this magnitude, if normalised without proof, risk creating a broader institutional consequence—where those tasked with national security functions may face personal and legal exposure based on assertion rather than evidence.
This has implications not only for individuals, but for the future operational confidence of national security institutions and likely to impact the security & safety of the nation itself.
It is crucial for readers to understand this distinction at the very outset.
Let us start with what we already know:
- THE FIRST CLUE
As early as 2016, there were warnings in Parliament that Sri Lankan individuals had already joined ISIS.
This established that Islamist radicalisation and recruitment networks were already present in Sri Lanka.
They followed the exact same pathway as Zaharan (which intel had internally reported):
- Radicalisation
- Ideological indoctrination
- Recruitment networks
- Commitment to martyrdom
By 2016, the public was aware that 38 individuals from Sri Lanka had left to join ISIS.
THE QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
For those 38 individuals:
- Was military intelligence controlling them?
- Was there a hidden command structure behind them?
- Were they “tools” of a political operation?
No such claim was made—even after deaths were reported overseas.
Why was no such claim made?
WHY THE DIFFERENCE NOW?
This question must be asked—and answered—before any new theory is accepted.
This selective introduction of an “external orchestration” theory only in one instance, despite identical behavioural and operational patterns, raises a question of evidentiary inconsistency.
In law, similar fact patterns must be assessed by consistent standards—not selectively reinterpreted to fit a later narrative.
Zahran followed the same trajectory:
- Radicalised ideology
- Recruited followers (including family)
- Conducted training camps
- Prepared explosives
- Declared violent intent
SO WHAT HAS CHANGED?
If:
Radicalisation explains the 38 who left for ISIS
AND
Radicalisation also explains Zahran’s network & subsequent actions – why has the narration on Zaharan shifted to a political agenda from religious radicalization?
If “external orchestration” is being introduced only in Zaharan’s case, it must be supported by independent, superior, and verifiable proof—not assertion.
- THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Any allegation of military or intelligence involvement constitutes a grave imputational claim.
Therefore, the burden lies entirely on the party making the allegation to establish, through:
- A provable command-and-control structure
- Authenticated communication records (not anecdotal references)
- A traceable and forensically verifiable financial/logistical chain
- Independent corroboration across multiple credible sources
It therefore cannot form the basis for legal liability, institutional attribution, or public accusation.
The existence of 38 Sri Lankans who radicalised, mobilised, and pursued martyrdom before 2019 is not incidental—it is a precedent.
It demonstrates that: Radicalisation alone is sufficient to produce such outcomes.
Without a complete evidentiary chain proving otherwise,
the “BUT” is not an explanation—
At best, such claims remain unsubstantiated hypotheses.
At worst, they amount to defamation by insinuation, particularly when directed at identifiable individuals and institutions without proof.
The unavoidable question then is—why is there an attempt to impose a contradiction to an already established pattern?
What are their motives for changing the story line and why?
- THE “SUPPORT” CLAIM
Anyone making “support” claims cannot disrepute a critical security institution or members of it by making wild allegations.
Names cannot be introduced, insinuations made, or conclusions drawn in the absence of proof and evidence.
- Financial Support
- In evidentiary terms, financial support must be established through a documented and auditable trail.
Unsupported references to “funding” without such traceability are legally inadmissible assertions. - Where is the money trail?
Bank records? Transfers? Intermediaries?
Absence of traceable evidence means the claim remains unproven.
In 2021 October claims were made about receipts being available.
Where are these receipts? Have they been submitted & independently verified?
Gold and cash were found in Sainamaruthu – were the origins of these traced?
The Ibrahim brothers made donations to Zaharan – for what purpose?
- Operational Direction
Where is the communication evidence?
- Calls, messages, instructions?
- There has to be a chain of calls over years for such a suicidal task. Isolated or limited communication is insufficient to establish operational direction—particularly in a coordinated mass-casualty attack.
- For operational control to be established, evidence must demonstrate effective direction and decision-making authority—not mere contact, acquaintance, or alleged interaction.
No command chain = no control
a. Target Selection
An isolated or unverified claim of “showing a target” does not meet the legal test of material contribution to the offence, unless supported by corroborated evidence establishing intent, planning, and execution linkage.
Without such linkage, the claim fails the test of causation.
Where is CCTV / location data / witnesses?
Why only 1 target – who showed the remaining 5 targets?
If military intelligence was behind the entire operation, why would only one target be shown?
b. Logistics / Material Support
- Weapons? Explosives? Training?
- Already shown to be internally developed
- The Presidential Commission & FBI affidavit give extensive details of how Zaharan’s team obtained urea and learnt from online how to make IEDs. If military intelligence supported them why would they need to go through all this trouble? This contradiction remains unexplained.
- “EVIDENCE VS INFERENCE”
Courts draw a strict distinction between evidence and inference:
- Evidence = verifiable, testable, corroborated material
• Inference = interpretation drawn from incomplete facts
A conclusion as serious as state complicity cannot be sustained on inference alone.
So we must ask: Are these claims based on:
Verified evidence?
OR
Interpretation of gaps?
Every person making such claims must provide the evidence.
Since 2019 we have only heard stories but no evidence.
- REFRAMING THE ENTIRE ISSUE
Serious allegations of what is being made across social media platforms on a regular basis require a complete evidentiary chain:
motive → communication → funding → execution linkage.”
Such a chain is missing – those making claims cannot replace evidentiary data with sensational stories.
- WHERE IS THE SUPPORT MECHANISM
If Zaharan carried out the attacks with support of the military intelligence – where is the support, what support was given, and how was it given?
- Where is the evidence of that support?
- Money trail?
- Communication records?
- Operational orders?
- Independent corroboration?
None of the above have been presented – however there is sufficient proof for
Intent, radicalisation, recruitment, and training already documented.
Without proof of control, funding, or direction—
“support” remains a claim, not an established fact.
- Zaharan Did it – Facts Exist
Zaharan was supported by Military Intelligence – No Evidence
Any attempt to fill evidentiary gaps through:
- Uncorroborated witness testimony
• Retrospective statements
• Associational links
• Repetitive media amplification
does not satisfy the legal requirements of:
- Reliability
- Admissibility
- Corroboration
- Causation
In criminal law, particularly in cases involving conspiracy or state complicity, each link in the chain must be proven—not assumed.
Facts given
The alternative explanation is incomplete
In an age of information, the public will not accept unsupported narratives.
Already a rising wave of people are questioning the sensationalism behind the stories.
Therefore, the architects of this alternative theory will push to address the gaps.
They will most probably rely on producing witness accounts or introduce new or previously unexamined material
Even if they try to fill the gaps, the evidentiary standard does not change.
There is a standard their evidence must meet—and this is why typical gap-filling won’t meet it.
What they are likely to do
a. Rely on witness testimony
insiders / intermediaries
“I was told…” or “I saw…” claims
Testimony must be independently corroborated, not stand alone and for a radicalization program ending in suicide a few witnesses claiming “I was told” or “I saw” does not hold water.
b. Use circumstantial links
meetings, phone contact, proximity, old photos
“association = involvement”
Association ≠ control ≠ direction – none of these can prove or establish that the military intelligence or personnel trained or funded a team of people to commit suicide.
c. The “pattern”
multiple weak pieces combined but unrelated to the incident
Multiple weak inferences combined do not become strong proof of command or orchestration for a mass suicide
d. post-event narratives
- retrospective claims
- statements emerging later
Greater weight must be given to contemporaneous evidence over later recollection – in 2021 October when the 1st public statement linking Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay to Zaharan was made by Fr. Cyril Gamini, resulting in the former making a CID complaint and filing defamation lawsuit, Fr. Gamini had the best opportunity to present the evidence based on which he made his claim. Why wasn’t this done?
Why is he relying on Channel 4 Asad claim of 2023 and Fr. Rohan’s complaint in 2026 to ask CID to find the evidence that he claimed existed in October 2021?
Any Claim
Any claim of external support must be established through a complete evidentiary chain—independently corroborated, forensically supported, and directly linked to operational decisions.
One or two testimonies, unrelated or unprovable inferences, or associations alone is insufficient to prove a group of people were trained to commit suicide.
Suicides are not comparable to contract killings.
Who are these Witnesses
Testing the Witnesses
A witness statement, in isolation, is insufficient unless supported by independent material evidence.
Courts treat uncorroborated testimony—especially when emerging post-event—with heightened caution, particularly where such testimony is untested, delayed, or unsupported by material evidence.
Who are they
- Is it corroborated?
- Is there documentary/forensic support?
- Is it contemporaneous?
If not:
Insufficient for high-level attribution
Causation Test
Did this alleged support direct the attack?
If so, it must be demonstrated that the alleged support is causally linked to each critical preparatory action undertaken by Zaharan.
Preaching – Course Content – Drawing students – Hiring venues for preaching – hiring venues for training camps – why weapons training were done by Zaharan’s brother and not trained military personnel – money trail – transportation & other logistics.
Even if more new claims are introduced:
Are they independently corroborated?
Are they supported by forensic evidence?
Do they prove command, funding, or direction?
If not, they do not meet the threshold for proving external orchestration.
So far, the type of evidence required for this claim has not been produced.
Extraordinary claims require a complete evidentiary chain—not isolated testimony, not inference, not isolated witnesses appearing from nowhere, and not repetition.
Until such time as a complete, independently corroborated evidentiary chain is presented, the claim of military or intelligence support remains:
- unproven
- legally unsustainable
- evidentially deficient
Repetition does not convert allegation into fact—
it merely amplifies the claim.
Shenali D Waduge
