LEN - www.lankaenews.com | Colombo Court of Appeal — Suresh Sallay Habeas Corpus Proceedings Attorney General's Department opposes intervenient petitions; ruling on notice reserved to October 7

Colombo Court of Appeal — Suresh Sallay Habeas Corpus Proceedings Attorney General's Department opposes intervenient petitions; ruling on notice reserved to October 7

By Ruwan Weerakoon

(Lanka-e-News -26.Aug.2026,3.30 PM) The Attorney General's Department told the Court of Appeal today that the arrest of former State Intelligence Service Director Suresh Sallay was based on reasonable suspicion, and firmly rejected allegations that CID Director Shani Abeysekara acted with malice in the investigation.

Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath made the submissions before a two-judge bench comprising President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando, in response to a writ petition filed by Sallay challenging his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) over the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings.

On the malice allegation

DSG Herath told the bench the claim that Abeysekara pursued the case against Sallay out of malice was "completely baseless." She noted the investigation was assigned to the CID on the direction of the Inspector General of Police, and began under then-CID Director Mangala Dehideniya — before Abeysekara held that post. She further said Sallay's overseas travel ban was obtained by Senior DIG Himesha Muthumala while she headed the CID, again predating Abeysekara's tenure — and argued this timeline demonstrates the probe predates Abeysekara's involvement entirely.

On the petitioner's separate claim that several Commissions of Inquiry had made adverse findings against Abeysekara, the DSG said this too was denied outright, adding that while the Janak De Silva Commission had recommended disciplinary inquiries against many police officers, Abeysekara's name did not feature among them.

On alleged non-cooperation

The DSG told the court Sallay had not cooperated with the investigation, specifically alleging he failed to properly provide passwords to unlock his electronic devices sought by the CID in connection with communications relevant to the Easter Sunday attack, including WhatsApp records. She said he supplied differing passwords on four separate occasions, forcing investigators to obtain a court order — which the Fort Magistrate subsequently issued, directing the passwords be handed over.

On the passport discrepancy

The DSG alleged Sallay's petition itself concealed material facts. She said his police statement claimed that, on returning from an official assignment in Malaysia, he handed in his diplomatic passport to the Foreign Ministry before being issued an official passport — yet the petition filed with the court annexed selected pages from the diplomatic passport itself. "If it was handed over, how can selected pages of it be produced to court?" she asked, characterising this as a distortion of facts.

On the 13 intervenient petitions

The DSG told the court that of 13 intervenient petitions filed in the matter, all but one — filed by a Cardinal — sought that the court grant the very relief Sallay himself is seeking. She argued Sallay remains in detention under the PTA based on reasonable suspicion connecting him to the Easter Sunday attacks, and questioned how intervenients could allege his arrest was unlawful on that footing.

She noted that roughly 80% of the intervenient petitioners are Buddhist monks, whose petitions cite Article 9 of the Constitution and frame the matter as a public interest case alleging violation of fundamental rights and a breach of Article 9 through the arrest. The DSG argued that public interest cannot be invoked in writ proceedings of this nature, since the intervenients had not shown how Sallay's individual detention prejudiced them personally, nor were they themselves victims of the Easter Sunday attack. She submitted the applications were premature and asked the court not to issue notice on them.

She added that an arrest is inherently a matter concerning individual liberty, not a matter of public interest. That writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked on public-interest grounds in such a case — warning that if the intervenient petitions were entertained. The main petition was later dismissed; this would amount to an abuse of court process.

Court's ruling

Having heard submissions, the bench announced it would deliver its ruling on October 7 on whether notice would be issued on the intervenient petitions.

Separately, the court noted that it would further consider Sallay's own petition on September 3.