Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay: 90 MORE DAYS UNDER THE PTA Detention: WHAT HAVE THE FIRST 180 DAYS ESTABLISHED?

 

Suresh Sallay was not arrested pursuant to a court order following a judicial determination of the allegations; he was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) through Presidential executive powers. The starting question is therefore: what evidence or information was relied upon to justify that extraordinary executive detention at the outset, and what has 180 days of investigation added to it? While his serious medical condition, including heart surgery and prolonged hospitalisation, may have limited the opportunity to question him, an investigation cannot depend solely on questioning the suspect. His devices, documents, records, witnesses and other investigative material were available to the authorities. If another 90 days is now sought, the public is entitled to know what evidence justified the initial detention, what the first 180 days have established, what new evidence has emerged, and why continued detention is necessary.

 

Suresh Sallay has already spent approximately six months in detention.

• One 90-day period.
• A second 90-day period.
• And now a further 90 days.

That makes one question unavoidable:

WHAT WAS THE BASIS TO WARRANT AN ARREST UNDER PTA & USE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS?

WHAT HAVE THE FIRST 180 DAYS PRESIDENTIAL DETENTION ORDER ESTABLISHED?

Not what has been alleged.

Not what is suspected.

Not what an investigative theory proposes.

What has actually been established by evidence?

Because an allegation is not evidence.

An investigative theory is not a finding.

And a detention order is not independent proof that the allegations contained in it are true.

 

1. THE REASONS FOR DETENTION MUST BE TESTED ONE BY ONE

The reported reasons for continued detention refer to serious matters including terrorist activity, prior knowledge, conspiracy and conduct allegedly intended to prevent the discovery of persons involved.

Each proposition requires its own evidence.

 

If the allegation is that Sallay participated in terrorist activity:

What specific act did he personally commit or facilitate?

 

If the allegation is prior knowledge:

What exactly did he know, when did he know it, and what evidence proves that he knew it?

 

If the allegation is conspiracy:

Who were the alleged conspirators, what was the alleged objective, and what specific act did Sallay perform in furtherance of that conspiracy and when & how?

 

If the allegation is assistance or facilitation:

What did he personally do?

 

If the allegation is concealment or interference:

What exactly was concealed or obstructed, when did it occur, and what act is personally attributed to Sallay?

 

These are not interchangeable allegations.

They require different evidence.

 

2. THE FIRST 90 DAYS — WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED?

The first question is

What did the first 90 days establish that was not already known?

• Did investigators establish a direct connection between Sallay and Zaharan’s terrorist network?
• Did they establish communications?
• Meetings?
• Financial transactions?
• Instructions?
• Operational assistance?
• Prior knowledge of the planned Easter Sunday attacks?
• A deliberate failure to perform an official duty?
• Post-attack obstruction?
• Or something else?

 

If evidence was obtained, the authorities should identify what proposition that evidence establishes, without compromising genuinely sensitive material.

The public does not need every intelligence source disclosed.

But it is entitled to know what the evidence is alleged to prove.

 

3. THE SECOND 90 DAYS — WHAT NEW EVIDENCE EMERGED?

The same question must be asked of the second 90-day period.

What was investigated?

What evidence was obtained?

What was independently verified?

What new fact emerged?

What allegation became stronger as a result?

And most importantly:

What did the second 90 days establish that the first 90 days had not established?

If the answer is that investigators were unable to question Sallay extensively because of his hospitalisation, it does not answer the broader evidentiary question.

Investigators can examine:

• telephone records;
• digital records;
• financial records;
• official records;
• intelligence reports;
• witness statements;
• forensic evidence;
• travel records;
• communications between other persons;
• records of alleged co-conspirators.

Therefore:

What investigative work was completed independently of questioning Sallay, and what evidence did that work produce?

 

4. NOW PRESIDENT SAYS KEEP HIM DETAINED FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS

This is where the burden of explanation becomes particularly important.

The State has already had approximately 180 days.

If another 90 days is necessary, then the public should be told:

What new evidence requires the third period?

 

WHAT REMAINS TO BE ESTABLISHED?

WHAT EVIDENCE IS STILL BEING SOUGHT?

FROM WHOM?

CONCERNING WHAT SPECIFIC ALLEGATION?

WHY HAS IT NOT YET BEEN OBTAINED?

WHY IS CONTINUED DETENTION NECESSARY TO OBTAIN IT?

 

5. THE SARA DNA MATTER REQUIRES PARTICULAR CARE

One of the matters apparently being relied upon concerns the circumstances surrounding the further DNA examination relating to Sara Jasmine.

 

Here the chronology matters enormously.

The Easter Sunday attacks occurred in April 2019.

Sara Jasmin was the wife of a suicide bomber – just like Fathima Jiffy who killed herself & her children on the same day of the attacks.

Sara Jasmine was not one of the suicide bombers who carried out the Easter Sunday attacks on 21 April 2019. She died in the subsequent Sainthamaruthu explosion on 26 April 2019 to prevent being captured live by the security forces.

 

THE DNA CHRONOLOGY MATTERS

The Sainthamaruthu explosion occurred on 26 April 2019.

The first biological samples for DNA testing were obtained on 28 and 29 April 2019, immediately after the explosion. Following court approval, the samples were referred to the Government Analyst. On 15 May 2019, the Government Analyst informed court that three of the biological tissue samples had deteriorated/expired.

A second round of sampling was authorised on 7 June 2019 because of the problems with the original samples. The relevant remains were recovered and further samples were taken. The Judicial Medical Officer and CID were present during this process.

The results from the 2019 testing were subsequently reported to court, but the testing did not conclusively establish Sara Jasmine’s identity.

 

On 8 December 2019, Brigadier Suresh Sallay was appointed Director of the State Intelligence Service.

Therefore, both the first DNA sampling on 28–29 April and the second sampling on 7 June 2019 — as well as the reporting of those results in September 2019 — occurred before Sallay became SIS Director.

 

6. THE THIRD DNA EXAMINATION WAS A MULTI-STAGE PROCESS

 

The later DNA examination must also be understood for what it was.

The process involved investigative decisions, judicial involvement, medical/forensic personnel, collection of biological material, handling of samples and scientific examination.

 

The relevant chronology includes:

A request/recommendation for further examination

↓

Investigative consideration

↓

Court involvement/authorisation

↓

Exhumation and collection of material

↓

Medical/forensic involvement

↓

Handling and transmission of samples

↓

Government Analyst examination

↓

Scientific finding/report

 

An allegation of interference must identify where within this chain the alleged interference occurred.

 

7. A REQUEST FOR ANOTHER TEST IS NOT THE SAME AS PLANNING EASTER SUNDAY ATTACKS

This distinction must be made very clearly.

 

Even if Sallay requested a further DNA examination.

That does not, establish:

that he controlled the exhumation;

that he controlled the collection of samples;

that he controlled the chain of custody;

that he controlled the laboratory examination;

that he controlled the Government Analyst;

that he controlled the scientific finding;

or that he fabricated the final result.

Each of those would require separate evidence.

Therefore

“What exactly is Sallay alleged to have done to interfere with the process?”

“At which stage did that alleged interference occur?”

 

8. WHO ACTUALLY HANDLED THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS?

If the State alleges interference with the DNA process, it should identify the chain.

Who authorised the relevant procedure?

Who supervised the exhumation?

Who conducted the medical examination?

Who collected the samples?

Who witnessed the collection?

Who sealed the samples?

Who transported or received them?

Who conducted the scientific examination?

Who prepared the scientific report?

Who signed it?

Who received the report?

 

The purpose of these questions is to establish how the alleged interference supposedly occurred.

An allegation of interference must have a mechanism.

 

9. CRITICAL CHRONOLOGICAL POINT

The third DNA recommendation occurred 2 Feb 2020 almost a year after the Easter Sunday attack

7 May 2021 – Govt Analyst & senior police conduct site inspection. Hadiya wife of Zaharan taken to identify location.

16 August 2021 – Government Analyst submits observations/recommendations for further scientific work.

21 March 2022 – Police obtain court authority for further sampling.

27 April 2022 – Third DNA samples are obtained following exhumation, with the involvement of the relevant judicial, medical, forensic and investigative personnel.

15 February 2023 – Government Analyst report concerning the third examination is reported.

March 2023 – Police publicly confirm the DNA identification of Sara Jasmine.

2025 – CID reopens investigation under new Govt

11 Mar 2026 – CID informs of Sallays role in 3^rd DNA

July 2026 – AG submissions also include same allegations during writ proceedings.

 

The first two sampling exercises occurred in 2019.

The later process occurred after Sallay had become SIS Director.

The final scientific conclusion came only after the samples had gone through the relevant scientific process.

Therefore, if the present allegation is that Sallay interfered with the later DNA investigation, the State must identify the specific post-attack conduct being alleged.

It cannot simply move from:

“Sallay was involved in seeking another DNA examination”

to:

“Therefore Sallay was involved in the Easter Sunday attack.”

That is an evidentiary leap.

The missing link must be demonstrated.

The chronology matters because the present allegation must be placed against the actual investigative record.

The first two DNA sampling exercises occurred before Sallay became SIS Director. The third sampling occurred in April 2022, after a process involving investigators, court authority and medical/forensic personnel. The scientific result was subsequently produced through the Government Analyst’s process. The question therefore is not simply whether Sallay was involved in requesting further testing, but what specific act of interference he is alleged to have committed within this multi-stage process, and what evidence proves that act.

 

10. INTERFERENCE AFTER THE ATTACK IS NOT PLANNING THE ATTACK

This distinction is fundamental.

The Easter Sunday attacks occurred in 2019.

An allegation that someone subsequently interfered with an investigation is a post-attack allegation.

It may be serious.

It may warrant investigation.

But it does not, without additional evidence, establish who planned or executed the attack.

Therefore the State must keep the propositions separate:

ALLEGATION ONE

Sallay participated in or assisted the terrorist operation.

Evidence required:

Operational connection to Zaharan’s network.

ALLEGATION TWO

Sallay possessed prior knowledge and deliberately failed in an official duty.

Evidence required:

Knowledge + date + duty + failure + evidence of deliberate conduct.

ALLEGATION THREE

Sallay subsequently interfered with an investigation.

Evidence required:

Specific interference + specific act + specific target + date + evidence.

One allegation cannot simply supply the missing evidence for another.

 

11. THE THIRD 90 DAYS MUST ANSWER

If the State is now relying substantially upon alleged interference:

What new evidence of that interference emerged during the first 180 days?

 

If the alleged interference relates to the later DNA investigation:

What precisely did Sallay allegedly interfere with?

Was it the decision to conduct another examination?

The collection of samples?

The handling of samples?

The scientific analysis?

The report?

Or something else?

And:

What evidence proves that alleged interference?

When did the alleged interference actually occur?

When did the State first receive evidence alleging that Sallay had interfered?

 

12. MORE IMPORTANTLY — WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE 2019 ATTACK?

This question cannot be avoided.

If the alleged interference occurred a year after the Easter Sunday attack, then the State must explain the evidentiary connection.

The CID or State cannot simply say

“He interfered with an investigation.”

How does that establish that he participated in the planning or execution of the Easter Sunday attacks?

 

If the answer is that the interference was allegedly intended to conceal persons responsible for the attack, then identify:

WHOSE IDENTITY?

WHAT WAS CONCEALED?

WHAT DID SALLAY PERSONALLY DO?

WHEN DID HE DO IT?

WHAT EVIDENCE PROVES IT?

And:

How does that evidence connect him to the original terrorist operation?

If the alleged interference occurred in 2020–2022, why did it take until 2026 for this conduct to become a principal basis of detention – especially when the AGs dept was filing cases against 25 Muslims and against former IGP and former Defense Secretary?

 

13. THE 180-DAY QUESTION

WHAT HAS BEEN PROVED?

Not: What has been alleged?

Not: What remains suspected?

Not: What theory is still being investigated?

But:

What fact concerning Suresh Sallay has been established by evidence during the first 180 days?

 

WHAT NEW EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES ANOTHER 90 DAYS?

If there is new evidence, identify the proposition it establishes.

If there is outstanding evidence, identify what it is intended to establish.

If the outstanding matter is alleged interference, identify the interference.

And if that interference occurred after the Easter Sunday attacks, identify its connection to the responsibility for those attacks and the bigger question of “mastermind”.

 

14. THE PUBLIC IS NOT ASKING FOR SECRET INTELLIGENCE

Public is not asking the State to expose intelligence sources or compromise legitimate investigative methods.

However, the State is obliged to tell the public what allegation is being pursued, what fact must be established, what evidence is said to support it, what has already been established, and what remains to be established.

 

15. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVIDENTIARY CHAIN?

Who conducted the investigation?

Who prepared the investigative material?

Who recommended further detention?

Who supplied the factual basis?

Who verified it?

Who requested another 90 days?

Who prepared the recommendation?

Who authorised the detention – If the President authorised the detention, upon whose factual material and recommendation was that decision made?

 

The public demands to know who made the decisions and upon what factual material they relied.

If six months of detention is followed by another 90-day detention order, there must be an identifiable evidentiary chain behind that decision especially when it concerns the sudden arrest of a retired decorated military/intel officer with 37 years of unblemished service to the Nation.

 

16. DETENTION CANNOT BECOME THE EVIDENCE

 

Continued detention cannot be justified solely by saying that the investigation has not yet been completed. The State must identify what remains to be investigated, what evidence is being sought, what that evidence is intended to establish, and why continued detention is necessary for that purpose.

Nor can we except that he has to continue to be detained until investigations are complete.

 

What has the investigation established – before arrest / after & during arrest & what else is required?

 

17. THE TEST IS SIMPLE

 

CLAIM

What does the State allege?

 

FACT

What specific fact must be established?

 

EVIDENCE

What evidence establishes that fact?

 

SOURCE

Who supplied or generated that evidence

 

DATE

When did the evidence arise?

 

VERIFICATION

How was it independently verified before the arrest?

 

CONNECTION

How does it connect Sallay personally to the allegation?

 

NECESSITY

Why does this require another 90 days of detention?

 

18. NO ONE IS ASKING TO “FREE SALLAY”

It is not about declaring him innocent.

It is not about preventing investigators from investigating.

It is about ensuring that extraordinary detention powers are being exercised on identifiable facts and evidence.

 

After approximately six months, the public is entitled to ask:

What has those six months produced?

And if the answer is now principally an allegation of later interference:

What precisely was interfered with?

And:

What evidence proves that Sallay personally interfered?

And most importantly:

What is the evidentiary connection between a year later alleged interference and the planning & executing of Easter Sunday attacks of April 2019?

 

180 DAYS HAVE PASSED.

WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED?

ANOTHER 90 DAYS ARE REQUIRED.

WHAT NEW EVIDENCE ARE THEY FOR?

 

If the State says there is evidence of terrorist participation:

SHOW THE OPERATIONAL CONNECTION.

 

If the State says there was prior knowledge:

SHOW WHAT WAS KNOWN, WHEN AND WITH WHOM.

 

If the State says there was a failure of duty:

SHOW IF HE WAS ON DUTY AND THE DELIBERATE FAILURE.

 

If the State says there was interference:

SHOW WHAT WAS INTERFERED WITH, WHEN, HOW AND WITH WHAT EVIDENCE.

 

And if that alleged interference occurred long after the Easter Sunday attack:

SHOW US HOW IT CONNECTS TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTACK ITSELF.

Because:

A detention order is not evidence.

An allegation is not a finding.

Nor is a request for further investigation, by itself, evidence that the person making the request controlled the subsequent investigation or its scientific outcome.

Interference after an attack is not, by itself, participation in the attack.

And most importantly:

SIX MONTHS OF DETENTION CANNOT ITSELF BECOME THE EVIDENCE THAT SIX MONTHS OF DETENTION WAS NECESSARY.

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE.

 

 

Shenali D Waduge