No order to remove CID director Shani Abeysekara from Easter Attack investigation

By Bhagya Silva

Colombo Fort Magistrate Pasan Amarasena today ordered former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Suresh Sallay, who is being detained and questioned under a Detention Order in connection with the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks, to provide the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) with the passwords to his mobile phone and computer in relation to the investigation conducted into him.

The Magistrate also delivered a 23-page order in respect of the applications made by the defence and complaint at the previous court date.

The following orders were made in respect of the applications filed by the defence.

1. The application seeking the removal of Director of the Criminal Investigation Department Shani Abeysekara from the investigation was rejected by the Magistrate.

"Under Section 9(B)(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), when the Magistrate visited the place of detention to inspect the suspect, the suspect stated to the Magistrate, 'The investigating team is treating me well and I am very comfortable.' Therefore, it is evident from the suspect's own statement that there is no necessity to remove the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department from the investigation as the suspect made no complaint regarding the investigating team. Further, this Court has no authority to remove the Director of this investigation."

2. The Magistrate also rejected the second application seeking permission to provide suspect Suresh Sallay with newspapers, written materials, statutes required for legal proceedings and a pen and pencil.

"During the Magistrate's inspection, the suspect stated that the officers provide him with the books he requires. It was also disclosed by the prosecution that books available in the Criminal Investigation Department library are provided to detainees for reading. Since the suspect is currently refusing food and attempting to cause harm to his life, providing him with a pen and pencil may pose a serious threat to his life. The suspect is facing allegations relating to more than 277 murders and conspiracy to commit and aid and abet the killing of more than 500 persons. Therefore, providing the suspect with pens, pencils and books may enable him to exchange information with outside persons, which could interfere with the investigations. Accordingly, orders which may obstruct the investigations cannot be made. Further, this suspect alone cannot be afforded special treatment beyond that given to other detainees."

3. The Magistrate also rejected, at this stage, the application made under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for the suspect to make a statement before the Magistrate that would not amount to a confession, observing that such a statement could interfere with the investigations.

"When this application was taken up before the previous Magistrate on 2026/4/22, the suspect stated that he wished to make a statement to the Magistrate and not a confession relating to the offence. Accordingly, it has been disclosed that the third suspect intended to make a statement that would not amount to a confession. The Magistrate observed that making a statement which does not amount to a confession may interfere with the investigations."

4. The Magistrate also rejected the application seeking the release of the first and second suspects arrested in connection with this incident on the basis that there was no further evidence against them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

5. The Magistrate allowed the application seeking that the third suspect, Suresh Sallay, not be physically produced before Court for the proceedings and ordered that he be produced through video technology on court dates.

"The previous Magistrate's order directing that the suspect be produced before Court will not be set aside by this Court. However, according to the statement made by the third suspect to the psychiatrist, and the medical reports, transporting the suspect to Court and back to the Criminal Investigation Department causes him mental distress. However, if the examination is not carried out, the submissions made by the prosecution establish that it may affect the safety of other detainees and the safety of this suspect. Accordingly, it is directed that the suspect be produced before Court through electronic technology without bringing him physically to Court. The protection of the law must be equal."

6. The Magistrate also rejected the application seeking judicial supervision in respect of legal access to the third suspect.

"Under Section 10(A)(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, No. 48 of 1979, as amended by Act No. 12 of 2022, a person detained under a Detention Order is entitled to consult and obtain legal advice from an Attorney-at-Law of his or her choice. Accordingly, Attorney-at-Law Asith Siriwardena has already been granted legal access."

Making a further application today, Additional Solicitor General Deelipa Peeris, appearing for the Criminal Investigation Department, submitted that on the day the suspect was arrested, a computer in his possession was taken into custody. He had stated that the computer belonged to his daughter. It is necessary to issue a command from the computer in order to unlock his mobile phone. As the suspect has refused to provide the passwords, the Additional Solicitor General sought an order directing him to do so.

Objecting to the application, President's Counsel Shavindra Fernando submitted that when issuing orders under Section 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court should ensure that the constitutional rights of the suspect are not violated.

He further submitted that Article 13 of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence and that no action should be taken in a manner that diminishes or violates that right.

The case was fixed for September 2.

The Magistrate also stated that the order relating to the application made by Counsel appearing for the original complainant would also be delivered on that date.