Produce Suresh Sallay on April 22: Fort magistrate orders CID

The Colombo Fort Magistrate Isuru Neththikumara today ordered the Criminal Investigation Department to produce former State Intelligence Service Director, retired Major General Suresh Sallay, who is currently detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), before court on April 22.   

At the outset, the Magistrate questioned the CID as to why the suspect had not been produced before court when the matter was called.   

In response, a CID officer informed court that the suspect is currently being detained under the provisions of the PTA.   

Addressing the officer, the Magistrate stated, “This person is now a suspect, not merely a detainee. Therefore, he must be produced before court,” and accordingly ordered that the suspect be produced on the next date.   

The Magistrate then inquired into the progress of investigations carried out in relation to the third suspect, Suresh Sallay.   

Responding to the court, CID officers stated that following the previous court date, a group of Army intelligence personnel had visited the residence of a witness in the Negombo area. They informed court that the witness has since fled his residence and is currently living at an undisclosed location.   

The officer further stated that according to the witness’s statement, the suspect Suresh Sallay had allegedly sent a group of Muslim individuals to him and had instructed that information regarding mosques in the area be provided to them. The CID officer submitted that this amounted to interference with witnesses.   

At this point, the Magistrate directed the CID to investigate whether the Army intelligence officers had visited the witness’s residence for any official purpose.    The Magistrate noted that if the visit had been carried out for legitimate official duties under lawful orders, there would be no issue. However, if it had been done with the intention of influencing a witness, it would constitute a criminal offence, and directed that immediate action be taken and responsible persons be produced before court.   

Thereafter, Counsel Asith Siriwardena, appearing for the suspect, made submissions before court.  He stated, “Your Honour, this is an investigation that has completely deviated from justice. Investigations into the Easter Sunday attacks have been conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police. All these agencies have stated that the attacks were carried out by a local terrorist group acting in association with ISIS. None of these foreign agencies have implicated my client in the attack.”   

Counsel further pointed out that several commissions, including the Malalgoda Commission, the Presidential Commission of Inquiry headed by Supreme Court Justice Janak de Silva, and the Parliamentary Select Committee, had conducted investigations into the Easter attacks, and none had made allegations against his client.   

He further submitted that a commission headed by Jayaki de Alwis had recommended filing criminal cases against current Defence Ministry Secretary Ravi Seneviratne and current CID Director Shani Abeysekara. He argued that since the present investigation against his client is being conducted under such officials, a fair investigation cannot be expected.   

Counsel also questioned how fairness could be expected from a person who had admitted in an affidavit before the Supreme Court that he had engaged in political activity.   

Making further submissions, Counsel stated that an individual currently residing overseas had made a statement to Channel 4 alleging involvement of his client, yet the CID had not recorded a statement from that individual.   

He also alleged that the CID was withholding facts from court and introducing new elements into statements. Referring to a witness named “Hadiya,” counsel stated that a recent statement claimed she had heard the voice of Sara Jasmine during the Sainthamaruthu explosion, whereas a statement she had given six years ago before former Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake contained no such claim.   

He further noted that a statement given by former CID Director, Senior DIG Rohana Premaratne, regarding DNA reports of Sara Jasmine had not been presented to court, allegedly because it contained information favorable to his client.   

Accordingly, counsel requested that the investigation be removed from the supervision of Shani Abeysekara and assigned to any other division of the police.   

Delivering his order on this request, the Magistrate stated that the incident in question is a serious and sensitive criminal matter and that strong grounds must be presented to justify such a request.   

He noted that the initial investigations had also been conducted under the current CID Director and observed that no sufficient grounds had been presented to transfer the investigation. The request was therefore rejected.   

Subsequently, CID officers informed court that the investigation had not been initiated at the personal discretion of the CID Director but to uncover hidden facts relating to the Easter Sunday attacks.   

They further stated that the investigation seeks to examine several unresolved issues, including why the bomb at the Taj Samudra Hotel did not explode, why Colombo and Batticaloa were selected as targets, and the circumstances surrounding the killing of an Army informant named Niyas during the Sainthamaruthu incident.   

The CID also informed court that further investigations are being conducted into how the suspect Suresh Sallay had allegedly influenced the security apparatus in the past, and that relevant documents have been requested from the Presidential Secretariat.   

After considering all the facts, the Magistrate questioned whether a statement had been recorded from an individual named Asaad Maulana, who had made statements to a British television programme regarding the incident.   

In response, CID officers stated that no such statement had yet been recorded.   

Emphasizing the importance of obtaining such a statement, the Magistrate directed the CID to make efforts to record it before the next court date.   

The Magistrate also drew attention to submissions made by the suspect’s counsel that investigating officers remain present when the suspect meets his attorneys.   

The Magistrate stressed that even the court cannot inquire into instructions given by a suspect to his lawyers, and accordingly directed that CID officers must not listen to communications between the suspect and his legal counsel.   

The Magistrate also directed the CID to inform court on the next date whether charges would be filed under the PTA against two other suspects in custody, or whether the PTA would be lifted and proceedings instituted under general law.   

After the Magistrate instructed the CID to expedite the investigations and ordered that the case be called again on April 22.