Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Allegations from Channel 4’s Broadcast on Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Bombings Introduction On...
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Allegations from Channel 4’s Broadcast on Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Bombings
Introduction
On April 21, 2019, Sri Lanka experienced a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday, leading to the tragic loss of over 260 lives. On September 5, 2023, Channel 4 aired a documentary titled Sri Lanka's Easter Bombings – Dispatches, alleging high-level collusion within Sri Lanka’s intelligence and political circles in facilitating the attack. The documentary featured Hanzeer Azad Maulana, a former close aide to politician and former militant Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan). Maulana alleged that certain senior Sri Lankan officials conspired with the National Tawheed Jamaat (NTJ) — the group responsible for the attacks — to create fear and instability in Sri Lanka that would aid the Rajapaksa family’s return to political power.
Following the documentary’s broadcast, the President of Sri Lanka appointed a committee on September 11, 2023, to investigate the claims. The committee, led by Justice S.I. Imam (Retired Supreme Court Judge) with Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody (Retired Commander of the Sri Lanka Air Force) and President’s Counsel Harsha Soza, had the mandate to conduct a fact-finding inquiry but lacked subpoena power to compel testimony. This report presents the committee’s findings, detailing the accusations, investigative challenges, and connections to supporting annexes.
Accused Individuals and Allegations
1. Overview of Key Accusations
- Major-General Suresh Sallay: A senior intelligence officer who, according to Maulana, was the main orchestrator behind the Easter Sunday attacks. Maulana claimed that Sallay met with NTJ members in early 2018, specifically with Zaharan Hashim, the leader of the NTJ. Sallay was accused of plotting to create an unstable environment that would benefit the Rajapaksa family, particularly Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in regaining power.
- Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan): A former LTTE member turned politician, Pilleyan was accused of facilitating the NTJ’s efforts by arranging meetings between intelligence officials and NTJ members. Maulana alleged that Pilleyan played a supporting role by connecting NTJ members with state intelligence.
- Zaharan Hashim: The NTJ leader and orchestrator of the Easter Sunday attacks, Hashim was allegedly in contact with Sri Lankan intelligence officials, facilitated by Major-General Sallay, as claimed by Maulana.
- Rajapaksa Family (Indirectly Accused): The documentary implied that Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Mahinda Rajapaksa indirectly benefited from the destabilization caused by the attacks. Maulana’s testimony suggested that the Rajapaksas desired a climate of fear that would facilitate Gotabaya’s presidential campaign. However, the committee did not find direct evidence of their involvement in planning or executing the attacks.
2. Specific Allegations from Azad Maulana’s Testimony
- Collusion with NTJ: Major-General Suresh Sallay was alleged to have orchestrated the bombings with Zaharan Hashim’s NTJ group. Maulana stated that he personally witnessed Sallay meeting with NTJ members in early 2018.
- Political Motivation for Instability: Maulana suggested that the attacks were strategically planned to create instability, ultimately favoring the Rajapaksa family’s return to power. He claimed that Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa stood to benefit politically from the ensuing unrest.
- Meetings and Coordination: Maulana detailed an alleged meeting organized by Pilleyan between Sallay and NTJ members at a coconut estate in Karadiyanaru, Eastern Sri Lanka. He also claimed that explosives were stored there, which intelligence allegedly ignored.
- Suppression of Security Warnings: According to Maulana, Sri Lankan intelligence services ignored warnings from Indian intelligence agencies about a potential attack. This warning, received two weeks before the bombings, allegedly specified Catholic Churches as targets. Despite this, Maulana claimed, the intelligence agencies took no action.
Findings
3. Investigative Process and Limitations
- Mandate and Constraints (Annex Y): The committee’s mandate limited it to fact-finding without the authority to compel witnesses. This restriction, detailed in Annex Y, hindered the inquiry’s depth and scope.
- Non-Cooperation from Key Figures: Maulana, a primary witness, did not respond to summons, and Channel 4 refused to participate, citing journalistic confidentiality (Annexes D and E). The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also declined to share Maulana’s sworn testimony due to privacy constraints (Annexes B and C).
- International Privacy Restrictions: Efforts to trace Maulana’s whereabouts and secure his testimony were thwarted by privacy laws. The Swiss Embassy confirmed they could not release his contact details due to Switzerland’s data protection laws (Annex G and H).
4. Examination of Key Accused Individuals
- Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan):
- Background and Relationship with Maulana: Pilleyan, formerly affiliated with the LTTE, confirmed that Maulana served as his private secretary. They shared a close relationship, documented in Annexes L(i)-L(iv).
- Denial of Involvement: Pilleyan denied any collusion with NTJ or involvement in the attacks, attributing Maulana’s departure from Sri Lanka to personal family issues (Annex N). Pilleyan’s testimony lacked corroboration linking him to NTJ or intelligence collusion.
- Committee’s Conclusion on Pilleyan: Due to Maulana’s absence and lack of supporting evidence, the committee could not substantiate claims against Pilleyan. His testimony and documented personal history with Maulana did not indicate involvement in the conspiracy.
- Major-General Suresh Sallay:
- Role and Denial of Involvement: Sallay, alleged to be the primary orchestrator, denied any connection to the Easter Sunday bombers. His service record and testimony countered Maulana’s claims, but his involvement could not be verified or dismissed without Maulana’s direct testimony.
- Absence of Corroborative Evidence: Sallay’s denial, combined with the committee’s inability to cross-examine Maulana or obtain further evidence, meant that allegations remained unsubstantiated.
- Committee’s Conclusion on Sallay: Sallay’s testimony stood uncontested due to lack of supporting documentation or corroborative witnesses. The committee did not find sufficient evidence linking him to the alleged collusion with NTJ.
- Rajapaksa Family (Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa):
- Indirect Allegations: While Maulana suggested that the Rajapaksas benefited politically from the attacks, no direct evidence or testimony indicated their involvement in planning or facilitating the bombings.
- Committee’s Conclusion on the Rajapaksas: Without any specific or direct evidence tying the Rajapaksas to the attacks, the committee concluded that Maulana’s claims regarding their involvement remained speculative.
5. Committee’s General Observations
- Challenges in Verifying Maulana’s Allegations: Without Maulana’s firsthand testimony, the committee found it challenging to validate the allegations against the accused. Privacy constraints from OHCHR and the Swiss Embassy also limited access to his records.
- Speculative Nature of Allegations: While Maulana’s claims were serious, the committee emphasized that they remained largely unverified due to lack of cooperation from essential parties and the speculative nature of the accusations.
Recommendations
In light of the investigative limitations encountered, the committee recommends:
- Granting Subpoena Power to Future Inquiries: To improve the efficacy of future investigations, it is crucial for such committees to have the authority to compel key witnesses to testify.
- Enhanced Protocols for International Collaboration: Privacy laws significantly limited access to key information, underscoring the need to establish international cooperation protocols for future inquiries.
Annexes
The annexes listed below provide supporting documentation for the investigative process, evidence attempts, and challenges faced by the committee:
- Annex Y: The official mandate setting forth the committee’s limited role and lack of subpoena power.
- Annex A: Public notice inviting individuals with relevant information to come forward.
- Annex B: Initial request to OHCHR for Maulana’s sworn testimony.
- Annex C: OHCHR’s response declining to share Maulana’s testimony due to privacy constraints.
- Annex D: The committee’s request to Channel 4 for a representative to testify.
- Annex E: Channel 4’s response, declining to participate due to journalistic confidentiality.
- Annexes F(i), F(ii), F(iii): Communications with Sri Lankan officials (Department of Immigration, District Secretariat of Ampara) in attempts to verify Maulana’s identity and history.
- Annex G: The committee’s request to the Swiss Embassy regarding Maulana’s possible residence.
- Annex H: Swiss Embassy’s response, citing privacy laws preventing the sharing of Maulana’s information.
- Annex I: Documentation confirming the variations in Maulana’s name for identification purposes.
- Annexes L(i)-L(iv): Documents verifying Pilleyan’s political background, relationship with Maulana, and denial of NT
No comments