On April 21, 2019, Sri Lanka faced one of its most devastating terrorist attacks, as coordinated Easter Sunday bombings claimed over 260 lives. On September 5, 2023, Channel 4 aired a documentary titled Sri Lanka's Easter Bombings – Dispatches, alleging collusion among Sri Lankan intelligence officials and political leaders in facilitating the attack. The documentary featured testimony from Hanzeer Azad Maulana, a former aide to politician and ex-militant Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan).
The allegations included claims that senior Sri Lankan officials, in collaboration with the National Tawheed Jamaat (NTJ), orchestrated the bombings to destabilize the country and pave the way for the return of the Rajapaksa family to political power.
In response, the Sri Lankan President established a committee on September 11, 2023, to investigate the claims. Led by retired Supreme Court Justice S.I. Imam and supported by Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody (Retired) and President’s Counsel Harsha Soza, the committee was tasked with conducting a fact-finding inquiry. However, it lacked subpoena power, limiting its ability to compel testimony.
Accused Individuals and Allegations
1. Overview of Key Accusations
- Major-General Suresh Sallay: Alleged orchestrator of the attacks, accused of meeting NTJ members, including leader Zaharan Hashim, in early 2018.
- Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan): Accused of arranging meetings between intelligence officials and NTJ members.
- Zaharan Hashim: NTJ leader and mastermind of the bombings, allegedly in contact with intelligence officials.
- Rajapaksa Family: Indirectly accused of benefiting politically from the attacks, though no direct evidence was presented to implicate them in planning or execution.
2. Specific Allegations from Maulana’s Testimony
- Collusion with NTJ: Major-General Sallay allegedly facilitated meetings with NTJ members, including Zaharan Hashim.
- Political Motivation: Maulana claimed the attacks were planned to create instability, benefiting the Rajapaksa family’s political ambitions.
- Meetings and Explosives: Pilleyan allegedly organized a meeting between Sallay and NTJ members at a coconut estate, where explosives were stored.
- Ignored Security Warnings: Maulana alleged that intelligence agencies disregarded warnings from Indian authorities about potential church attacks two weeks before the bombings.
Findings
3. Investigative Process and Limitations
- Mandate and Constraints: The committee’s lack of subpoena power restricted its ability to compel testimony or access critical information (Annex Y).
- Non-Cooperation: Maulana and Channel 4 declined to participate, while international privacy laws hindered access to Maulana’s whereabouts and testimony (Annexes B, C, G, H).
- Speculative Nature: The absence of direct evidence or corroboration rendered many allegations unverified.
4. Examination of Key Accused Individuals
- Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan (Pilleyan):
- Denied involvement and attributed Maulana’s testimony to personal grievances. No corroborative evidence was found to substantiate claims against him.
- Major-General Suresh Sallay:
- Denied all allegations and maintained his innocence. The committee could not verify or dismiss the claims due to lack of corroborative evidence.
- Rajapaksa Family:
- While allegations suggested indirect political benefit, no direct evidence tied them to the attacks.
5. General Observations
- Verification Challenges: The committee faced significant obstacles in validating allegations due to non-cooperation and privacy constraints.
- Speculative Claims: Many accusations remained unsubstantiated without Maulana’s testimony or corroborating evidence.
Recommendations
- Grant Subpoena Power to Future Inquiries: Strengthen investigative processes by enabling committees to compel testimony and access critical evidence.
- Enhance International Collaboration Protocols: Address privacy constraints through agreements with international organizations and foreign governments to facilitate evidence-sharing.
Annexes
The annexes provide detailed documentation of the investigative process and challenges encountered:
- Annex Y: Official mandate outlining the committee’s limited role.
- Annex B: Initial request to OHCHR for Maulana’s testimony.
- Annex C: OHCHR’s refusal to share testimony, citing privacy laws.
- Annex G: Request to the Swiss Embassy for Maulana’s details.
- Annex H: Swiss Embassy’s response citing data protection laws.
- Annexes L(i)-L(iv): Documentation verifying Pilleyan’s relationship with Maulana.
Conclusion
The committee's investigation was hindered by significant limitations, including lack of subpoena power, non-cooperation from key witnesses, and international privacy laws. While the allegations raised in the Channel 4 documentary were serious, they remained largely speculative and unverified.
The report recommends empowering future investigations with broader legal authority and improved international collaboration to ensure thorough and credible inquiries into such critical matters.
No comments