Swift accountability on the Easter Sunday attacks

Seven years after the Easter Sunday bombings the country remains burdened not only by grief but by a lingering sense of unfinished justice. The coordinated attacks claimed the lives of 260 people, injured hundreds more and left scars across communities.

The Attorney General’s Department has identified former State Intelligence Service chief Major General (Retd.) Suresh Sallay as the main suspect in ongoing proceedings related to the attacks. Predictably, this has triggered an immediate political backlash. Sections of the Opposition, particularly those aligned with the Rajapaksa political camp, have moved swiftly to portray the developments as yet another attempt to target military figures under the banner of political revenge. The CID which is investigating the crime and the Catholic church that has been demanding justice have been vilified.

Such reactions were always foreseeable. High-profile investigations rarely remain confined to legal institutions for long. Allegations and counter-allegations quickly spill into television studios, political rallies and social media campaigns. Competing narratives emerge before courts have had the opportunity to examine evidence. The danger is that public opinion begins to substitute for due process.  That must not happen. 

The question of responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks cannot be settled in political speeches, media debates or orchestrated social media campaigns. It must be determined in a court of law through credible evidence, transparent proceedings and judicial scrutiny. Neither accusations nor declarations of innocence should carry more weight than due process.

At the same time, the judicial process cannot become an endless exercise in delay.  At present, the matter remains before the Magistrate’s Court, while Salley is being held under executive orders issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Neither circumstance inspires confidence in the efficiency of the process. Extended reliance on extraordinary legal mechanisms and prolonged pre-indictment proceedings risk undermining public trust regardless of the eventual outcome.

If the state possesses sufficient evidence to sustain criminal charges, it should move immediately to indictment and begin formal proceedings without delay. If the evidentiary threshold has not been met, then the authorities must act with equal transparency and explain the path forward. What cannot continue is an open-ended process that leaves room for speculation, political theatre and institutional paralysis.

Sri Lanka’s justice system has too often been weakened by delay. Cases of national significance have repeatedly become trapped in procedural inertia until public confidence eroded and political narratives filled the vacuum. The experience of previous administrations demonstrated how prolonged legal uncertainty can transform criminal investigations into political battlegrounds, regardless of the underlying facts. The lessons of the Yahapalana administration must not be forgotten.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. That principle applies equally whether the accused is an ordinary citizen, a public official or a decorated military officer. Accountability and respect for service are not mutually exclusive. Investigating serious allegations does not diminish legitimate military sacrifices, just as invoking patriotism cannot exempt anyone from legal scrutiny.

The Easter Sunday attacks were among the darkest days in Sri Lanka’s history. The victims deserve more than commemorations and promises. They deserve a justice process that is independent, credible and above all swift. We cannot afford another cycle of delay, politicisation and public disillusionment. The memory of the dead and the rights of the living demand better.