DID A MISCONCEPTION LEAD TO THE “MASTERMIND” ALLEGATION? – How an alleged factual error, repeated allegations and disputed evidence came to implicate Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay

Aug 20, 2026 at 01:32 PM

|

Lanka Leader

When an alleged error in a court petition can put a man’s liberty on the line. The question before the public is what happens when the premise on which an allegation against Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay rests is itself wrong? In the Intervening Petition filed by His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith before the Court of Appeal, Clause 18(1) states: “Petitioner-Respondent Suresh Sallay had held the position of Director Military Intelligence during the stage that the Easter Sunday Attacks took place on the 21st April 2019.”

THE SAME CLAUSE CONTAINS THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THAT IMPRESSION

Clause 18(2) records Sallay’s evidence that:

“he was out of the country and arrived in Sri Lanka only by the 2nd December 2019”

Clause 18(3) records his position that Zaharan and the JMI movement had begun around 2017, from which period he had not been in Sri Lanka.

Clause 18(4) records: “He had left Sri Lanka by November 2016.”

Clause 18(5) records that on 20 April 2019, he was in India at the National Defence College.

The Imam Committee subsequently examined this very issue and concluded:

“Sallay was out of the country from 2016 to 2019 November.”

It further found: “There is no evidence at all to show any involvement on the part of Sallay with Zahran or the members of the National Tawheed Jamaat…”

This goes to the foundation of the allegation (negating the 2021 allegation by Fr. Cyril, the 2023 C4-Asad Maulana allegation as well)

When Cardinals intervening petition claims Sallay was serving as Director of Military Intelligence when the Easter Sunday attacks occurred – it raises a serious problem.

He was not serving as Director of Military Intelligence in Sri Lanka from Nov 2016, nor was he serving as Director of SIS in April 2019 while during the period from 2016 to 2019; he was outside Sri Lanka.

Sallay-Zaharan connection did not begin with C4 in 2023.

The 1^st claim connecting Sallay to Zaharan was main in October 2021 in a Zoom discussion.

Those allegations were serious enough for Gen. Suresh Sallay to take defamatory action. Fr Cyril filed FR to prevent arrest.

Serious allegations must be supported by evidence.

What evidence supported the original 2021 allegation?

Was that allegation ever independently established?

Was the 2021 alleged relationship subsequently established by Channel 4 in 2023 or by the inquiry that examined the Channel 4 allegations?

And if not, what evidence establishes that relationship today?

FROM “DMI HEAD” TO “MASTERMIND” — HOW DID WE GET THERE?

Cardinal’s premise that “Suresh Sallay was Director Military Intelligence when Easter Sunday occurred” is critical.

DMI → access to intelligence → knowledge of Zaharan → relationship with Zaharan → involvement in the Easter plot → mastermind.

But if Sallay had left Sri Lanka in November 2016 as confirmed in Imam Committee report and he was abroad during the relevant period, that entire chain has to be reconsidered.

Sallay may previously have served as Director Military Intelligence.

That is one proposition.

But having previously held that position is not evidence that he was directing Military Intelligence in Sri Lanka during the Easter Sunday attacks as Cardinal claims.

Nor does his previous service establish:

• that he had a relationship with Zaharan;
• that he met Zaharan;
• that he facilitated the Easter attacks;
• that he knew the suicide bombers;
• that he ordered or assisted anyone;
• or that he was the mastermind.

Each of those propositions requires evidence of its own.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE CHANNEL 4 ALLEGATIONS?

Clause 20 of the Cardinal’s petition relies extensively on allegations made by Azad Maulana in the Channel 4 documentary.

But there is now an important development that cannot simply be ignored.

The Imam Committee specifically investigated those allegations.

It examined the allegations concerning:

• the alleged 2018 meeting;
• the alleged relationship between Sallay and Zaharan;
• the alleged telephone call on Easter Sunday;
• the alleged Taj Samudra connection;
• and the allegation that Sallay played a major role in facilitating the attack.

The Committee’s finding was:

“the allegations made in the Channel-4 telecast by Azad Maulana are unproved at this inquiry.”

It also found that:

“The evidence of Pilleyan and Suresh Sallay did not support the allegations of Azad Maulana.”

The Committee further noted that Azad Maulana did not appear before it to explain or clarify his statement.

The Imam Committee also recommended action concerning the allegations made by Maulana and recommended that investigations be conducted into whether he had links with the suicide bombers.

That matters.

Because the public cannot fairly be presented with the allegation while the findings of the inquiry into that allegation are omitted.

And the same principle applies to the earlier Zoom allegations.

If an allegation made publicly in 2021 was serious enough to result in defamation proceedings by Sallay, then that allegation cannot simply be carried forward as though it were an established fact.

The public must be able to distinguish between what was alleged in 2021, what was alleged by Azad Maulana in 2023, what was actually investigated, and what — if anything — was ultimately proved.

THE SEPTEMBER 2023 CARDINAL STATEMENT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Another important part of this chronology cannot be separated from the Channel 4 allegations.

Channel 4 broadcast its documentary on 5 September 2023.

The following day, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith publicly responded, thanking Channel 4 for bringing worldwide attention to what he described as “this great plot of the Easter Sunday 2019 attacks.”

He called for a free, impartial, transparent and broad investigation into “the alleged plot behind that tragedy and all facts and a study of the persons mentioned in that programme especially with regard to their role in this mass murder.”

The Cardinal called for the investigation to be assisted by Sri Lankan CID officials who had originally been involved in the Easter Sunday investigations but had subsequently been transferred away.

He also called for senior police and intelligence officials named in the Channel 4 programme to be removed from their positions pending investigation, specifically naming Nilantha Jayawardena and Deshabandu Tennakoon.

The obvious question is: which “original investigators” did the Cardinal have in mind?

Among those prominently associated with the Easter Sunday investigations were Shani Abeysekara and Ravi Seneviratne. Both subsequently returned to prominent positions after the change of government after campaigning on political stages. Minister Bimal publicly identified their appointments and attributed them to a request made by the Cardinal.

That sequence is significant because it raises a broader question about how different investigative narratives have been treated.

On the one hand, the Channel 4 programme was publicly welcomed as bringing to light an alleged “great plot,” and its allegations were followed by calls for particular officials to be removed and for earlier investigators to be brought back into the process.

On the other hand, the allegations concerning Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay were subsequently examined by the Imam Committee, which found no evidence to substantiate the central claims against him.

This therefore raises a legitimate question:

If the Channel 4 narrative helped trigger demands for officials to be removed and for particular investigators to return to prominent roles, what weight is now being given to the subsequent inquiry that found the central allegations against Sallay unproved?

The issue is not simply who investigated Easter Sunday, or who should hold particular positions. The issue is whether all investigative findings are being given equal weight—or whether one narrative continues to be relied upon even after the allegations at its centre have been found unsubstantiated.

Is Suresh Sallay, the subject of such continued allegations?

HOW DID THE ALLEGATION EVOLVE?

October 2021
Public allegations concerning a Sallay–Zaharan connection were made by Fr. Cyril Gamini in a Zoom discussion, leading to defamation proceedings by Gen. Suresh Sallay.

↓

5 September 2023

Channel 4 broadcasts allegations concerning an alleged Easter Sunday “plot”.

↓

6 September 2023

Cardinal Ranjith publicly praises the revelations, describes the matter as an alleged “great plot”, demands a broad investigation, calls for international investigators, seeks the involvement of the original CID investigators and demands that officials under investigation be removed from relevant positions.

↓

Subsequent investigation

The Imam Committee examines the Channel 4 allegations concerning Azad Maulana, Pillayan and Suresh Sallay.

↓

Imam Committee finding

The allegations against Sallay are unproved.

↓

2025

Bimal Rathnayake states in Parliament that Shani Abeysekara and Ravi Seneviratne were appointed at the Cardinal’s request. The Catholic Church later disputes that specific characterization while confirming that the Cardinal had sought reinstatement of the original investigators.

↓

2026

The Channel 4 allegations concerning Sallay nevertheless reappear in the Cardinal’s Court petition.

The question is therefore not simply whether an allegation was made.

It is whether an allegation has been carried from one forum to another without the underlying evidence ever being established.

THE QUESTION IS STILL: WHERE IS THE SALLAY–ZAHARAN EVIDENCE?

• Not the allegation.
• Not the documentary.
• Not repetition.
• Not an inference based on a former appointment.

If the answer is Azad Maulana, then the public must also consider what happened when his allegations were examined.

The Imam Committee did not accept those allegations as proved.

It found them unproved at the inquiry.

Therefore, if there is now additional evidence establishing a Sallay–Zaharan relationship, the question is unavoidable:

What is that new evidence?

And if such evidence exists:

Why has it not been produced and tested?

Because this is ultimately not about which side has the more powerful narrative.

It is about whether the evidence supports the narrative.

And when the consequence is the continued detention and public branding of a man as a participant — or even a “mastermind” — of Easter Sunday, the evidentiary standard cannot be replaced by repetition, political alignment or institutional preference.

IF SALLAY WAS THE DMI HEAD — WHY STOP WITH SALLAY?

If the 2021 allegation made by Fr. Cyril was itself serious enough to result in defamation proceedings by Sallay, then it belongs in the evidentiary chronology. It should be possible to identify what evidence supported that allegation, whether it was ever tested, and whether any later evidence independently established the alleged Sallay–Zaharan relationship.

The issue is consistency: the same evidentiary standard must apply whether the allegation comes from a Zoom discussion, a television documentary, a witness statement or a court petition.

There is another question the public deserves answered.

If merely having held an intelligence position is being used to infer knowledge or responsibility for Easter Sunday, why is the same standard not being applied to those who actually held the principal intelligence and security responsibilities in 2019?

The Imam Committee identifies:

Nilantha Jayawardena — Director General, SIS;

Sisira Mendis — Chief of National Intelligence;

Hemasiri Fernando — Secretary, Defence.

Shani Abeysekera – CID Director

SDIG Ravi Seneviratne – Head of CID

These were the senior officials operating within the intelligence and defence structure during the relevant period.

The issue is therefore not simply:

Who once held an intelligence position?

The relevant question is:

Who actually held responsibility for receiving, coordinating and transmitting intelligence concerning Zaharan immediately before Easter Sunday?

That question must be answered from the evidence.

THE MOST DANGEROUS STEP IS THE JUMP FROM ERROR TO “MASTERMIND”

There is a vast difference between:

“Sallay previously headed Military Intelligence.”

and:

“Sallay was involved in the Easter Sunday attacks.”

There is an even greater leap between:

“Sallay was involved.”

and:

“Sallay was the mastermind.”

The latter is an extraordinarily serious allegation.

It requires extraordinarily strong evidence.

A former appointment cannot establish it.

A disputed witness statement cannot automatically establish it.

A television documentary cannot establish it merely because it was broadcast.

And repetition cannot turn an allegation into proof.

HOW DID THE ALLEGATION EVOLVE?

October 2021 — allegations concerning a Sallay–Zaharan connection emerge via a Zoom implied by Fr. Cyril

5 September 2023 — Channel 4 broadcasts Azad Maulana’s allegations.

6 September 2023 — Cardinal Ranjith responds within approximately a day, congratulating C4 and referring to the alleged “great plot” and calling for investigation into the alleged plot and those named.

Thereafter — the Imam Committee investigates the Channel 4 allegations.

The Imam Committee found those allegations unproved at the inquiry.2026 — the Channel 4 allegations nevertheless reappear in the Cardinal’s Intervening Petition.

Has an allegation been repeated so many times that people have stopped asking whether it was ever proven?

THE CARDINAL MAY HAVE BEEN MISADVISED — BUT THE CONSEQUENCE IS REAL

The question is whether those advising him have provided him with the complete and accurately contextualised facts before allegations are placed before a court.

If Clause 18(1) creates the impression that Sallay was the Director of Military Intelligence when Easter Sunday occurred, while Clauses 18(2)–(5) themselves record that he had left Sri Lanka in 2016 and was abroad during the relevant period, then the obvious question is:

How did this contradiction enter a court petition?

Because a misconception about a man’s position during a terrorist attack can transform:

former DMI

into:

DMI during Easter Sunday

then:

intelligence access

then:

knowledge of Zaharan

then:

relationship with Zaharan

then:

facilitation

and finally:

mastermind.

That is an enormous evidentiary journey.

It cannot be travelled by inference alone.

BEFORE ANOTHER DETENTION ORDER — ASK THE BASIC QUESTIONS

To protect the integrity of the investigation.

Before another detention order is signed, before another allegation is repeated, and before another public statement turns an allegation into an accepted narrative, the most basic facts must be established.

Was Suresh Sallay the Director of Military Intelligence in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday 2019?

• Was he in Sri Lanka?
• When and from whom did the allegation of a Sallay–Zaharan relationship first arise?
• What evidence supported the 2021 allegation made by Fr. Cyril Gamini
• What evidence supported Azad Maulana’s later Channel 4 allegation?
• What happened when those allegations were actually investigated?
• Did he know Zaharan?
• Where is the evidence of that relationship?
• What evidence exists today that was not available when the Imam Committee found the Channel 4 allegations unproved?

If there is evidence, produce it through proper legal process & allow it to be tested.

Because a previous appointment is not evidence of a conspiracy.

An allegation is not proof.

A documentary is not proof.

Repetition is not proof.

And when a man’s liberty is at stake:

A misconception must never become the foundation of a criminal allegation.

Shenali D Waduge