Court to rule on mental health applications in Sallay case next week

The Colombo Magistrate’s Court yesterday fixed 10 June to deliver its order on applications relating to the mental health condition of former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Major General (Retd.) Suresh Sallay, following extensive submissions by both the defence and prosecution.

Appearing for the suspect, President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando argued that findings contained in reports prepared by a panel of five consultant psychiatrists warranted relief under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

Counsel submitted that Sections 9B(3), 9B(4) and 9B(5) of the PTA required authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment and a suitable environment conducive to the suspect’s mental health condition. He further contended that authorities should investigate whether the suspect had been subjected to torture or any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in custody.

The defence maintained that the medical opinions expressed by the psychiatrists justified court intervention to safeguard the suspect’s health and wellbeing in accordance with the provisions of the PTA.

Responding on behalf of the prosecution, Attorney General’s Department Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris rejected the allegations and challenged the credibility of the claims.

He submitted that the suspect, who was arrested on 25 February, had sought extraordinary relief from court and had only raised claims of mental illness after psychiatric reports became available in May.

The Additional Solicitor General argued that if the suspect had genuinely suffered from a psychiatric disorder, supporting medical evidence should have emerged much earlier. He further alleged that the psychiatric reports were being relied upon to gain an advantage in related legal proceedings and divert attention from the ongoing investigation.

Referring to one of the psychiatric assessments, he noted that the suspect had reportedly cried throughout the examination, but argued that no such behaviour had been observed during court proceedings and that there was no known prior history of mental illness. He also questioned claims of memory loss, stating that investigators had recovered passwords to the suspect’s electronic devices despite assertions that he could not remember them.

The prosecution further rejected allegations of ill-treatment, maintaining that the suspect had received appropriate medical care while in custody, including access to specialist clinics and regular communication with family members. The court was told that investigators had taken extensive measures to ensure the suspect’s welfare and security.

The Additional Solicitor General contended that motions alleging mistreatment and mental illness amounted to an attempt to mislead the court and shift the focus away from the investigation.

In reply, President’s Counsel Fernando rejected suggestions that the defence had acted in concert to influence proceedings, noting that the medical reports had been received on 21 May and the relevant motion had only been filed thereafter.

He told court that the reports had been prepared by a panel of five consultant psychiatrists and stressed that they had been compiled under the supervision of specialist medical professionals.

The defence also disputed remarks made by the prosecution regarding the credibility of the medical assessments and raised concerns over public confidence in the investigation process.

Following submissions from both parties, the Magistrate reserved order and fixed 10 June to rule on the applications and requests before court.