WHO ADVISED THE ARREST OF GEN. SURESH SALLAY? – Continuing detention likely to be a Political Liability for President

Aug 19, 2026 at 06:00 AM

|

Lanka Leader

The mastermind behind the decision to arrest Gen. Suresh Sallay may prove easier to identify than the increasingly sporadic efforts being made to connect him to the Easter Sunday attacks. Attempts to link him to Easter Sunday raises more questions than answers. For the President this poses a major issue. More than extending the PTA DO, President must ponder what political, institutional & national-security purpose is served by continuing to keep a retired distinguished officer in custody when even the Govt is aware they have no case against him. The President & Govt must now foresee where a continued detention will head.

THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY FACING RISING UNPOPULARITY

Is continuing Gen. Suresh Sallay’s detention worth the political cost?

Gen. Sallay is not a politician.

He has no political ambition

He is not aligned to any political party or political movement.

He is not contesting elections.

He has retired from service.

Yet his detention is increasingly becoming an issue around which people are rallying.

A Government does not need to manufacture an opposition movement when its own decisions can inadvertently create one.

Gen. Sallay is a retired senior military and intelligence officer who served the State for 37 years under five Presidents, without a publicly established record of abuse of power or personal controversy associated with that career.

His family too represents military service to the country.

His mother raised three sons who served the nation, with all three spending years away from home in military service.

Whatever one’s political position, that history matters.

The Government should ask itself:

What does it gain by keeping such a man in prison?

What does it risk losing for the President & Govt?

Neither President or Govt should take blame to fulfill personal vendettas of officers in service.

WHO ADVISED THE ARREST?

Gen. Sallay was arrested by the CID on 25 February 2026 and placed under a 90-day PTA detention order in connection with the Easter Sunday investigation. He was subsequently named as the third suspect in the investigation.

Who recommended these actions to the Govt/President?

Who fooled them that they had the necessary evidence?

Was the decision based on:

new evidence;

newly obtained witness testimony;

scientific evidence;

documentary evidence;

financial evidence;

communications;

or a reassessment of evidence already available?

The public is entitled to ask.

Because if the arrest is evidence-driven, the Government should have no reason to fear scrutiny of the evidentiary chain.

THE CHRONOLOGY CANNOT BE IGNORED

Gen. Sallay faced the first allegation in

October 2021 (2 years after Easter Sunday attacks)

Allegations by Fr. Cyril Gamini during a Zoom discussion?

This resulted in a defamation case against Fr. Cyril

September 2023  

Channel 4 documentary interviewing Asad Maulana

Incidentally, in the documentary Asad Maulana claims Pillayan asked him to introduce Suresh Sallay to Zaharan. This contradicts with Fr. Cyril who claims Gen. Suresh knew Zaharan before 2018.

April 2024

Arrest of Pillayan with Govt claiming links to Easter Sunday.

So far no charges have been filed on Easter Sunday against him. He is in remand for other incidents.

February 2026

Arrest of Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay

These questions are critical because the Government cannot simply recycle an old allegation and call it new evidence.

If the evidence is new & not linked to the findings of the PSC, PCOI, FBI, SC FR or even included into the 23,000 charges against 24 Muslims by the AGs dept:

What is this new evidence?

If the evidence was overlooked: Why

And if the Government cannot answer any of these questions:

Why should the public believe continued detention will suddenly produce the evidence?

THE 2021 ALLEGATIONS

In October 2021, Fr. Cyril Gamini publicly alleged during a Zoom discussion that then-Brigadier Suresh Sallay knew Zaharan Hashim and referred to alleged receipts of payments.

Gen. Sallay denied the allegations and subsequently took legal action.

That was not the end of the matter.

Where are the receipts?

Where is the payment trail?

Where are the communications?

What independent evidence corroborated the allegation?

And if such evidence existed:

Why was it not placed before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry or the Parliamentary Select Committee by Fr Cyril or the Church?

An allegation is not evidence merely because it is repeated.

THEN CAME CHANNEL 4

In September 2023, Channel 4 broadcast its documentary containing allegations against Gen. Sallay, by Azad Maulana.

The documentary generated enormous controversy.

The Government appointed the Justice Imam Committee to examine the claims.

What did that process establish?

Which allegations were corroborated?

Which were not?

What independent evidence existed?

What evidence specifically implicated Gen. Sallay?

And what did the investigation establish independently of the documentary?

The public should not have to choose between believing Channel 4 and believing the Government.

The evidence should decide.

NOW THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE IS SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE

Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala has said in Parliament that scientific and other evidence obtained during the investigation supports allegations of Gen. Sallay’s involvement in a conspiracy connected with the Easter attacks.

If that is the Government’s position, then the question becomes even simpler:

Where is that evidence – why has it not been presented?

This is the same Minister who claimed Pillayan was arrested for Easter Sunday & everyone anticipated charges filed against him on Easter Sunday. It did not occur.

Nobody is asking the Government to compromise national security by publicly revealing classified intelligence.

But there is a difference between protecting intelligence sources and failing to demonstrate that a prosecutable case exists.

The Government can tell the country:

What offence is alleged?

What conduct is attributed to Sallay?

What category of evidence supports that allegation?

What independent corroboration exists?

Why is that evidence sufficient to justify continued detention?

If there is a genuine case, prosecute him.

If there is not, why keep him imprisoned?

INVESTIGATION & IMPRISONMENT

An investigation can continue without a person being kept in prison indefinitely.

If investigators have evidence: Charge him.

If investigators need further evidence: Investigate.

“The investigation is continuing” is not a justification to keep a person behind bars given his passport has also been impounded.

This is especially important when the person in question is a retired senior officer with an unblemished service record.

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT & GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY ACHIEVING?

What does continued detention achieve?

Does it provide justice to Easter victims?

Does it strengthen the Government politically?

Does it improve public confidence?

Does it reassure the Armed Forces?

Does it reassure the intelligence services?

Or does it simply create another controversy?

Because if six months of detention produces no publicly demonstrated prosecutorial breakthrough, an evidence that has to be proportionate to the individual concerned.

Is the State investigating a crime — or searching for a crime with which to justify the detention?

This perception alone can damage the Government.

SURESH SALLAY IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAT TO THE GOVERNMENT

Gen. Sallay is retired.

He is not seeking political office.

He is not involved in any political movement.

He has never campaigned against President Dissanayake.

He is not aligned with a political party.

He has no obvious political goals

Therefore, what possible political advantage does the Government obtain by continuing to keep him imprisoned?

Very little.

But the potential disadvantages are growing. Government supporting social media channels can no longer sustain sensationalism. People are asking logical questions even from the Cardinal.

His detention has already generated:

lawyers challenging the detention;

multiple intervening petitions;

public debate;

the backing of the Maha Sangha

questions within the security establishment;

growing media attention including international;

concern among former military personnel;

and the possibility of wider public mobilisation.

The Court of Appeal is currently dealing with his challenge to the detention, while multiple parties have sought to intervene on his behalf. The sole intervening petition against his writ is the Cardinal whose petition itself claims Gen. Suresh was heading DMI at the time of the attacks – this is a major error presented to the Courts & signed by Cardinal. It is a factor that even the Pope will be concerned about.

The Government should ask itself:

Why turn a retired military/intelligence officer with no political ambition into a political symbol?

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT ANGERING THE SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT

A government depends upon the confidence of its Armed Forces and intelligence services.

If serving and retired personnel begin to believe that a long-serving officer can be detained indefinitely without evidence, the consequences may extend beyond Gen. Sallay personally.

The issue can become:

“If this can happen to him, can it happen to us?”

That is not a healthy sentiment for any government to create within its security establishment.

The President should therefore distinguish between:

holding someone accountable for proven wrongdoing

and

creating a perception that security personnel can become political casualties.

The former strengthens national security.

The latter weakens confidence.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER WHO SURESH IS NOT

He is not an opposition politician.

He is not a political organiser.

He is not leading demonstrations.

He is not mobilising the public against the Government.

He is not campaigning for the Rajapaksas.

He is not contesting an election.

He has retired.

So if the Government continues his detention, it risks creating something that does not currently exist:

A political cause centred around his detention.

THE EASTER CASE ITSELF RAISES A QUESTION

The main Easter Sunday prosecution has already involved an enormous body of evidence and an extensive criminal process – 23,000 charges, over 3000 witnesses & 24 Muslims facing trial.

Therefore, if Gen. Sallay is now being presented as a central figure in the Easter conspiracy, the Government must explain precisely where he fits into that narrative.

Not:

“There are allegations.”

But:

What did he actually do?

What offence did he commit?

What evidence proves it?

What evidence independently corroborates the allegation?

That is the standard required in a criminal justice system.

THE “MASTERMIND” THEORY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR A CASE

The word “mastermind” is being substituted for evidence.

If Zaharan Hashim was the operational leader of the NTJ network, and the Government now alleges that Gen. Sallay was secretly responsible for directing or facilitating that network, then that relationship must be demonstrated.

Where are his instructions?

Where are his communications?

Where are his financial transactions?

Where are the witnesses?

Where are the operational links?

Where is the corroboration?

And if the allegation depends substantially upon a witness whose credibility and account are disputed, what independent evidence confirms that account?

The country deserves evidence, not labels.

WHAT ABOUT THE ALLEGED MASTERMINDS AND CONFESSIONS?

Zaharan Hashim died in the Easter attacks.

The second-level leadership and other suspects are under arrest.

The public has heard extensive allegations concerning the NTJ network.

Therefore, if the Government now proposes a fundamentally different theory — that Gen. Sallay was secretly directing the operation — it must explain what new evidence has produced that conclusion.

Otherwise, the public is entitled to ask whether the narrative is changing because the earlier evidentiary trail has failed to establish the desired connection.

THE CARDINAL’S INTERVENTION DOES NOT CHANGE STATUS QUO

Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has intervened in the Court of Appeal proceedings opposing Sallay’s petition.

That is his legal right.

The Cardinal represents families and victims who have waited for justice.

Justice for Easter victims does not mean that every person accused must remain imprisoned.

The victims deserve:

the truth.

They deserve to know:

the planners, financiers, facilitators and negligent officials to be identified where evidence establishes responsibility.

Those making allegations against Gen. Suresh must prove he was directly spearing the suicide attacks

Or

That he was part of the intelligence apparatus that was responsible for neglect in preventing the attacks.

So far no substantial evidence has been shown how a person outside of the NTJ network could steer a mass murder influencing even the leader of the NTJ to commit suicide.

THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT ALLOW REVENGE POLITICS TO ENTER THE CASE

There is another political danger.

If the public begins to perceive Gen. Sallay’s detention is part of a broader campaign against the former Rajapaksa administration, the Government will be creating an entirely different political narrative.

That may be particularly damaging because the Easter attacks have already been surrounded by competing claims about political advantage, institutional failures and foreign connections.

The Government should not give anyone reason to say:

“This is revenge dressed up as justice.”

The only way to prevent that perception is simple:

Evidence.

THE GOVERNMENT’S BEST POLITICAL MOVE MAY ACTUALLY BE TO RELEASE GEN. SURESH

Politically it is the most intelligent decision available for the President & Govt

The Government could say:

“We will not protect anyone. We will not obstruct the Easter investigation. But neither will we keep anyone imprisoned without sufficient evidence. If there is a case against Gen. Sallay, it will proceed before court. If there is insufficient evidence to justify continued custody, he will be released.”

That statement would be difficult for any democratic government to oppose and would raise the President’s stature considerably.

It would demonstrate:

confidence rather than fear;

justice rather than revenge;

evidence rather than politics.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD LOOK AT THE BIGGER POLITICAL PICTURE

The Government is already facing growing public dissatisfaction.

Every unnecessary controversy therefore becomes more dangerous.

Why choose Gen. Sallay as another battlefield?

He is not challenging the Government electorally.

He is not organising an opposition movement.

He is not a political threat.

But his continued detention can unite people who otherwise have little reason to stand together:

military personnel, intelligence personnel, retired servicemen, even Catholics many of whom are angered by the politicization of the Church by Cardinal & a handful of his followers, nationalists, civil-liberties advocates, legal professionals and ordinary citizens concerned about due process.

That is how a politically insignificant individual can become a politically significant symbol.

And the Government itself can create that symbol.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ASK ONE SIMPLE QUESTION

Before extending Gen. Sallay’s detention, President Dissanayake should ask his officials:

“If we extend this detention, what exactly do we expect to achieve that six months of detention has not already achieved?”

If the answer is:

“We need more evidence.”

Then ask:

“Why do we need to keep him in prison to obtain that evidence?”

If the answer is:

“We already have evidence.”

Then ask:

“Why has he not been charged on the basis of that evidence?”

And if the answer is:

“We are still assessing the evidence.”

Then ask:

“Why should a person’s liberty depend upon an investigation that has not yet established a prosecutable case?”

These are reasonable questions for any President.

THE MOTHER’S LETTER TO THE POPE

There is also a human dimension that the Government should not underestimate.

Gen. Sallay’s mother has appealed to Pope regarding her son’s continued detention.

The appeal comes from a Catholic mother of three sons who served the country.

The Church will naturally have an interest in the welfare of a Catholic family member who believes her son is being unjustly detained.

The Government should not allow the issue to develop into an international religious and human-rights controversy that could have been avoided through a simple evidence-based decision.

SURESH HAS ALREADY GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT AN EASY WAY OUT

He is retired.

He has no political ambitions.

He is not seeking public office.

If the Government genuinely believes there is a criminal case, it can pursue it through the courts.

If the Government does not have sufficient evidence, it should release him.

Either way, the Government does not need to keep him behind bars simply to demonstrate that it is serious about Easter justice.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT CREATE A MARTYR

A retired intelligence chief who is detained for months without a publicly demonstrated prosecutable case will become a symbol.

A symbol can become a movement.

A movement can become an opposition rallying point.

And opposition movements rarely need to be created deliberately.

Sometimes governments create them through avoidable decisions.

WHAT WOULD SERVE THE GOVERNMENT BEST?

Not another detention order.

Not another political confrontation.

Not another round of competing allegations.

Not another extension followed by another extension.

Not eventually moving from PTA detention into prolonged remand without a clear prosecutorial path.

Instead:

Investigate.

Follow the evidence.

Charge anyone against whom there is sufficient evidence.

Give every accused person due process.

And release those whom the State cannot legitimately keep imprisoned.

PRESIDENT DISSANAYAKE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY

The President can demonstrate his Government will not repeat the mistakes of previous governments.

He can say:

“The Easter attacks will be investigated without fear or favour.”

He can also say:

“No person will be kept imprisoned simply because the Government needs more time to find evidence.”

It would protect the reputation of the Government.

It would reassure the Armed Forces and intelligence community.

It would reduce the possibility of political mobilisation around Gen. Sallay.

And it would remove one unnecessary source of controversy at a time when the Government has more important national problems to address.

THE WISEST COURSE FOR PRESIDENT DISSANAYAKE

DO NOT EXTEND THE DETENTION ORDER.

DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO BECOME A PATHWAY INTO PROLONGED REMAND.

DO NOT TURN AN INVESTIGATION INTO INDEFINITE INCARCERATION.

IF THERE IS A CASE — CHARGE HIM.

IF THERE IS NO CASE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED CUSTODY — RELEASE HIM.

Gen. Sallay is not a politician.

He is not challenging the Government.

He has no political machinery.

He has no reason to become a political rallying point.

The Government should not make him one.

At a time when the Government is already facing growing public dissatisfaction, it would be strategically unwise to create another issue around which citizens, veterans, serving personnel, intelligence officers and others will unite in opposition.

The President should ask:

“Does keeping Suresh Sallay in prison serve the interests of justice — or are we simply creating a new political problem for ourselves?”

If there is evidence:

Prosecute.

If there is no sufficient evidence:

Release.

But do not keep a retired, non-political, decorated former military and intelligence chief in prison because the State has failed to establish a prosecutable case — or because this has become an exercise in settling political or personal scores.

This does not strengthen the Government.

It weakens it.

And it does not bring Easter Sunday justice closer.

It risks turning the pursuit of justice into another political movement against the Government.

Shenali D Waduge