Suresh Sallay: Culprit or Scapegoat?

FORMER State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director detained for more than 100 days under the Prevention of Terrorism Act due to his alleged involvement with the devastating 2019 Easter Sunday terror attack. As Sallay’s health deteriorated after his refusal of food and water Three months into his detention, he was transferred to the ICU of the Colombo National Hospital.

The detention of the former Intelligence Chief has sparked intense and emotional sentiments, especially among nationalistic political forces. Politicians who appeal to nationalistic opinions have tried their best to galvanise public opinion against the treatment meted out to Sallay. Sympathisers of the beleaguered retired intelligence officer have accused the NPP Government of unfairly harassing Sallay to appease the leaders of the Catholic Church and achieve political mileage, while the Government has maintained that they are trying to deliver justice to the victims of the catastrophic tragedy.

Since the dreadful incident which took 270 precious human lives, numerous narratives have been disseminated as to who masterminded the brutal offensive against Christian Churches. Pro-Rajapaksa camps claim that had it not been for the breakdown of the intelligence and security apparatus as well as lapses and omissions by the defence establishment under the Yahapalana dispensation, the unfortunate incident could have been avoided. On the contrary, the anti-Rajapaksa camp opine that certain influential sections of the State Intelligence collaborated with the attackers to propel Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency.

The detention of the former SIS Chief is directly tied to the testimony and evidence provided by witness Azad Maulana, a former insider and aide to ex-chief Minister of Eastern Province Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan. Maulana had told CID investigators that he helped arrange a meeting in 2018 between members of the extremist group linked to Zahran Hashim – the chief perpetrator of the Easter Sunday Attack - and Sallay. Also, in an interview with the British media network, he had alleged that Sallay had conveyed to him and the attackers that Rajapaksas needed a national security disaster to come into power. Did Gotabaya really need such a crisis-type situation to secure the presidency in 2019?

Well before 2019, the Yahapalana fiasco of Maithripala Sirisena had become highly unpopular due to lack of cohesion and disagreements between the then President and Prime Minister. No meaningful policy reforms could be realised under the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe combination due to the internal conflicts. On the other hand, in the run up to the 2019 Presidential Election, the former president who resigned in 2022 was perceived as a go-getter who got the job done, and he was making headway among voters through his well-organised Viyathmaga platform.  It must also be recalled that the 2018 Local Government Election was won quite convincingly by the SLPP, about 14 months before the contentious terror incident. At the unprecedented local council election, the SLPP obtained 40% of the votes while the UPFA, which extended support to Gotabaya during the 2019 presidential poll, received 12%.Moreover, Gotabaya had a very low following among the Muslim community, and he was recognised as a Sinhalese Buddhist hardliner. Muslims were naturally suspicious of him because of his closeness to anti-Muslim Bodu Bala Sena movement. Hence, a radicalised Islamic extremist like Zahran and his followers undertaking a suicide terror attack to make a Sinhalese Buddhist hardliner president is a claim that appears politically and socially implausible. Meanwhile, Maulana’s credibility too is under a cloud as his second wife after the explosive Channel 4 documentary had lodged a complaint at Saindamardu Police that the former married her under a false name.

Ultimately, determining whether Sallay is culpable or a scapegoat depends on the strength and credibility of evidence presented in a court of law. Investigations of this magnitude must remain insulated from political pressures and guided solely by facts. For the families of the victims, justice must not be reduced to competing political narratives. It must be rooted in truth, accountability, and due process.