PTA: What’s not good for the Goose is not good for the Gander 

The arrest of former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Suresh Sallay marks a potentially significant turning point in the search for truth and accountability over the Easter Sunday attacks of 2019. Those coordinated bombings, which killed more than 260 innocent civilians and injured hundreds more, remain one of the darkest incidents in our country’s recent history. For years, grieving families and a concerned public have demanded not only justice against the suicide bombers who carried out the atrocity but also answers to the deeper and more disturbing question of whether there were others involved.

Reports emerging over time including a Presidential Commission of Inquiry and a documentary by UK’s Channel 4 have raised troubling allegations about possible involvement of Sri Lanka’s intelligence units in the atrocity in order to orchestrate a return of the Rajapaksas to power. No office, past service, or reputation should shield anyone from scrutiny. Sallay’s distinguished record as a military intelligence officer and his role in the defeat of the LTTE cannot and must not place him above the law if evidence suggests complicity in crimes of this magnitude.

In that sense, the principle underlying his arrest is sound. Sri Lanka cannot move forward without confronting the truth. Justice must be pursued wherever it leads.

However, the manner of Sallay’s arrest raises profound concerns. The decision to detain him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) undermines both the credibility of the investigation and the broader commitment to democratic norms and human rights.

For decades, the PTA has been widely criticised, domestically and internationally, as a draconian instrument that permits prolonged administrative detention without meaningful judicial oversight. It allows suspects to be held for extended periods based on executive authority rather than transparent legal scrutiny. More troubling still, it permits the admission of confessions made to senior Police officers, a provision that has historically opened the door to abuse.

Confessions obtained under the PTA have frequently been challenged as having been extracted under duress or torture. This has not only damaged individual lives but also weakened prosecutions and eroded public trust in the justice system. Instead of serving as a tool for truth, the PTA has too often become a weapon against fundamental rights.

If authorities possessed sufficient grounds to arrest someone of Sallay’s stature, and one would assume that they did, then reliance on the PTA should have been unnecessary. A robust criminal investigation conducted under ordinary law, subject to judicial oversight, would have strengthened the legitimacy of the case. By invoking the PTA, the State risks casting doubt on its own evidence and motives.

This is not merely a procedural issue. The use of extraordinary laws in high-profile cases invites suspicion that due process may be secondary to political expediency. It allows defenders of the accused to shift the conversation from the substance of the allegations to the fairness of the process. In doing so, it may ultimately weaken the pursuit of accountability for the Easter Sunday attacks themselves.

Opposition to the PTA must be principled and consistent. It cannot depend on who is being detained. The same legal safeguards demanded for ordinary citizens must apply equally to powerful figures. Otherwise, calls for justice become selective,  and selective justice is no justice at all.

It is long past the time to uncover the full truth behind the Easter Sunday tragedy and to hold all responsible parties accountable. But this pursuit must be grounded in the rule of law, not undermined by reliance on legislation long associated with rights violations.