Gen. Suresh Sallay: What Is the Evidence for His PTA Detention—and Why Another 3 Months?

 

What exactly is Gen. Suresh Sallay being accused of?

The question is whether the State has identified a specific criminal act committed by Gen. Suresh Sallay and possesses evidence sufficient to justify his continued detention under extraordinary powers.

 

What evidence has been presented to prove allegations since 2021 (Cyril Gamini) / 2023 (Asad Maulana) / February 2026 (CID arrest)

 

What is the role of the AG’s dept in arguing for continued PTA DO of Gen. Suresh Sallay – where 3 members of the Dept had been given files on Zaharan in 2017 and 2 of the members were recommended for disciplinary action by the Presidential Commission for which no public report is available that action had been taken against either of them. If negligence was the primary reason to slap death sentences of the former IGP and Defense Secretary, shouldn’t these 3 members of the AGs dept also be equally punished?

 

There are two fundamentally different forms of responsibility that must not be conflated.

First, there are those who deliberately planned, financed, facilitated or executed the Easter Sunday attacks.

Second, there are public officials who may have possessed information concerning Zaharan and failed to discharge their duties to prevent the attacks.

 

The first concerns deliberate participation in a criminal conspiracy and mass murder. The second concerns failure to perform a public duty. The legal responsibility of each must be established on its own evidence and under the applicable law.

 

The State cannot simultaneously distinguish these categories when prosecuting some officials, but blur them when accusing another.

 

Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay was arrested in February 2026 using the PTA & kept under custody using Presidential Detention Order powers.

 

However, the public has yet to be told in what capacity Gen. Sallay is involved in the Easter Attacks.

What precisely is General Sallay alleged to have been?

• A planner?
• A conspirator?
• A facilitator?
• A financier?
• An accomplice?
• An accessory?
• Or an official alleged to have negligently failed to act?

 

These are different allegations carrying different legal consequences. The State must identify which criminal allegation it is making.

 

An allegation that he showed a location to another person after 7 years does not warrant Presidential Detention Orders under PTA. The State must demonstrate the context, purpose, participants, date, communications and independent corroboration connecting the alleged act to the Easter Sunday operation.

 

So the public demands to know in what capacity his role was to be held under PTA DO.

 

Anyone can make allegations – but where is the evidence?

 

• Suresh Sallay ceased serving as Director of Military Intelligence in 2016.
• His whereabouts and official postings during the relevant period are capable of being tested through official appointment records, immigration records and other contemporaneous documentation.
• Any allegation concerning a meeting in Sri Lanka in February 2018 must therefore be reconciled with those records.
• Any allegation concerning a telephone call on Easter Sunday should be capable of being tested against contemporaneous telecommunications records.
• Any allegation attributed to Channel 4 or other witnesses must be distinguished from independently corroborated evidence.

 

Since 21 April 2019 Easter Sunday attacks

• Parliamentary Select Committee
• Presidential Commission of Inquiry
• FR Petitions to Supreme Court & SC Determination
• Several Committee Reports
• FBI affidavit & DOJ indictments in US
• Foreign Intel investigations
• Arrests in Singapore

 

The public record of the major post-Easter investigations and proceedings must therefore be examined against the present allegation.

 

If General Sallay was not identified in the earlier investigations as a participant in planning or executing the attacks nor associated with negligence in security apparatus prevalent at the time, the State should explain what subsequently discovered evidence caused that assessment to change.

 

However, the AGs dept filed indictments against the former IGP and former Defense Secretary both of whom were sentenced to death in July 2026.

Meanwhile the trial-at-bar against 24 Muslims involved in aiding and abetting the Easter Sunday attacks is taking place.

 

If the State now possesses sufficient evidence to identify General Sallay as a criminal suspect in the Easter Sunday investigation, why has that evidence not yet resulted in a criminal charge?

 

What distinguishes his evidentiary position from those already charged in the Easter prosecutions?

And if the State’s case against him is materially different from the case against the 24 accused presently facing trial, what is the legal basis for that distinction?

 

The dossiers on Zaharan including arrest warrants were happening since 2017.

Prior to Brig. Suresh Sallay leaving Sri Lanka he had brief both then Justice Minister and then Defense Secretary Karunasena Hettiarachchi regarding ISIS, Islamic extremism & even Zaharan.

 

AGs dept – Dileepa – Malik Aziz – Navavi were handling 3 files on Zaharan since 2017.

 

The security apparatus from IGP downwards were well aware of Zaharan prior to any Indian warnings.

 

So, when in December 2018 Buddha Statues in Mawanella are destroyed and the arrested admit to being indoctrinated & then in January 2019 the CID itself discovers 100kg of explosives – surely they cannot be naïve not to connect the incidents and realize something dangerous was being planned.

 

What exactly did CID do after the January 2019 discovery? From the testimony given by the CID heads they only apprehended the van that transported the explosives and carried out a handful of searches.

Even when the SDIG CID was informed of the Indian intel – no high alert action was taken as they discovered the 100kg explosives. Did they presume that the discovery meant the planned attack was thwarted?

 

If death sentences had been given to negligence – should the sentence not be applied to every person who failed to act inspite of basic intel at their disposal? How can the same officers who held roles during the attack arrest individuals who were not in the country or held posts & keep him in custody using PTA powers?

 

So the public has every right to demand

 

• What is the allegation against Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay
• What new evidence was found before his arrest to arrest him & what evidence has been discovered post Feb 2026 arrest to continue his detention?
• Was the Channel 4 video independently corroborated by the CID or any State authority to deem its authenticity – if not why is the Imam Committee report being ignored to use the documentary as a key basis for the continued arrest of Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay?
• If the arrest of a senior military/intel officer and his continued detention is based on valid evidence – why has the AGs dept not filed charges and why is he not included in the 24 Muslims presently facing trial for their involvement in Easter Sunday which includes Naufer Maulavi the 2^nd in command to Zaharan?
• If Zaharan was the leader of the NTJ and Naufer Maulavi was his second in command, what specific evidence establishes General Sallay’s alleged role in the conspiracy, and how does that evidence connect him to the operational planning or execution of the Easter Sunday attacks?
• If the CID & AGs dept have sufficient evidence to establish criminal offence at the time of arrest – why is the AGs dept not charging him & placing the evidence before Court?
• What specific investigative purpose requires General Sallay to remain under a Presidential Detention Order, rather than being prosecuted before a court or investigated subject to ordinary judicial safeguards? If the evidence is already sufficient to establish a criminal offence, why has no charge been filed? If the evidence is not yet sufficient to establish a criminal offence, what is the evidentiary basis for continuing extraordinary detention?

 

Readers must be aware of the facts.

 

Public must demand that the State identify the crime they are accusing a senior decorated military officer who has served the nation for 37 years without any blemish to his service record.

 

It is unacceptable to use PTA Presidential Powers to keep a person under DO for 1 year simply to say we are “investigating”. Easter Sunday took place in 2019. Its now 2026. If there is new evidence it has to be something overwhelmingly powerful – not trivial like showing one church when FBI investigations in 2019 done with the same CID officers now in office revealed a host of safe houses that had been rented by the suicide bombers in close proximity to the targets & reconnaissance had been done by them prior to the attacks. Why did FBI & CID fail to discover role of Suresh Sallay in showing churches when they both investigated together in 2019?

 

 

1. QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT – on continued detention.

Q1.

What specific criminal act is Gen. Suresh Sallay alleged to have committed?

 

Q2.

Is the President satisfied that this evidence establishes a specific criminal act by General Sallay—or merely an allegation requiring further investigation?

 

Q3.

If the evidence establishes a criminal offence, why has General Sallay not been charged and brought before a court to face that evidence since arrest in Feb 2026?

 

Q4.

What new evidence has emerged since the earlier Presidential Commission, Parliamentary investigations, Supreme Court proceedings and criminal investigations that justifies continued detention?

Q5.

Why should detention be extended if the State already possesses sufficient evidence to prosecute?

Q6.

Does the President accept that detention powers must not become a substitute for prosecution?

 

Will the President publish or make available the evidentiary basis on which a further detention order is sought, subject of course to legitimate restrictions protecting witnesses and ongoing investigations?

 

2. QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

The Zaharan file

When did the Attorney General’s Department first receive information concerning Zaharan Hashim and his activities?

Who received it?

How many officers examined it?

What legal action did the Department recommend?

Was disciplinary action recommended against any officers for failing to act & was action taken – if not why?

 

If three officers of the Attorney General’s Department received the Zaharan material  in 2017 and two were subsequently recommended for disciplinary action, how does the Department reconcile that institutional history with its present position against General Sallay – is the dept themselves not party to negligence of duty?

 

The consistency question

What evidentiary standard is the Attorney General’s Department applying to General Sallay that it did not apply same standard to every other official that received intelligence concerning Zaharan?

 

The Easter prosecution question

Has the Attorney General’s Department previously treated General Sallay as a witness in the principal Easter prosecution? If so, what new evidence caused the State to change its position and treat him as a suspect?

 

Can the Attorney General’s Department identify one specific criminal act by General Sallay, supported by independent evidence?

 

3. QUESTIONS FOR CID

Question 1 — What exactly is General Sallay alleged to have done?

Not “what is he suspected of?”

 

Question 2 — On what date did the alleged criminal act occur?

 

Question 3 — Define the location – Where did it occur?

 

Question 4 — Identify the other participants

 

Question 5 — Identify the evidence – independently corroborating allegation.

 

Question 6 — The Feb 2018 meeting – what evidence proves he was in Sri Lanka?

 

Question 7 — Easter Sunday call – where is the telecommunication records to prove allegation.

 

Question 8 — The chain of evidence

What evidence connects the alleged meeting or telephone communication to the planning, preparation, financing, facilitation or execution of the Easter Sunday bombing operation?

 

Question 9 — Previous investigations

Why did the previous investigations not establish the same criminal allegation?

 

Question 10 — When did CID first obtain this new evidence?

 

Question 11 —  Apart from witness allegations – where is the Independent corroboration

 

Question 12 —

How does the evidence against General Sallay intersect with the established prosecution case against those already charged in connection with the Easter Sunday attacks?

If his alleged role is materially different, what independent evidence establishes that different role?

 

Question 13 — The intelligence chain

What evidence establishes that General Sallay personally received the relevant intelligence, when he received it, what he knew from it, what authority he possessed at that time, and what specific legal or operational duty he allegedly failed to perform?

 

Question 14 — The detention

What investigative step requires General Sallay to remain detained today that could not be undertaken while he was subject to ordinary judicial proceedings?

 

THE EVIDENCE TEST

Every allegation against General Sallay should be capable of being tested through five questions:

1. WHAT?
   What specific criminal act is alleged?
2. WHEN?
   On what date did the alleged act occur?
3. WHERE?
   Where did it occur?
4. WITH WHOM?
   Who else participated?
5. WHAT PROVES IT?
   What independent evidence corroborates the allegation and connects it to the Easter Sunday operation?

An allegation is not the same as corroborated evidence.
A position held is not the same as participation in a crime.
Knowledge of an extremist threat is not the same as participation in a conspiracy.

The State must establish the evidentiary chain connecting the individual to the alleged criminal act.

 

More importantly – the Public demand to know:

 

QUESTION 1

WHAT EXACTLY DID GENERAL SALLAY DO?

Who did he know?
What position did he hold?
What has someone alleged?
What rumours exist?

What specific criminal act did he personally commit, facilitate, finance, conspire to commit or otherwise participate in?

 

QUESTION 2

WHERE IS THE INDEPENDENT PROOF?

For every material allegation, what independent evidence exists?

 document → communication → financial record → location → witness → forensic evidence → corroboration.

 

QUESTION 3

Sri Lanka has already undergone multiple layers of investigation and judicial scrutiny following the Easter Sunday attacks, including the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings, Supreme Court proceedings, criminal investigations and prosecutions, and international investigations.

The critical question is therefore not why General Sallay is being investigated today. The critical question is:

What new evidence emerged after those investigations that caused the State to change its position and identify General Sallay as a criminal suspect in February 2026?

When was that evidence obtained?

Why was it not identified during the earlier investigations?

And how does it independently connect him to a specific criminal act?

 

THE QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY

What objective evidentiary development caused the State’s position concerning General Sallay to change?

If the evidence is strong, why has he not been prosecuted?

If the evidence is still being developed, why is extraordinary detention necessary?

If the evidence is new, when was it discovered and why was it not discovered during the earlier investigations?

If the evidence is old, why is it now being relied upon as the basis for extraordinary detention?

 

The public is entitled to know which of two fundamentally different situations exists.

Does the State possess evidence establishing a specific criminal act by General Sallay, in which case the proper question is why he has not been prosecuted?

Or is the State still investigating whether sufficient evidence exists, in which case the public must be given a lawful and evidence-based explanation for the continued use of extraordinary detention powers?

Seven years after the Easter Sunday attacks, the State cannot leave the public with an undefined allegation.

The victims deserve justice. The perpetrators must be prosecuted. Officials who failed in their duties must be held accountable. But every accusation of criminal participation must also be supported by evidence capable of establishing the specific crime attributed to the individual.

That is not an obstacle to justice. It is justice

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge