By The Pulseline News Desk
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has launched a fresh line of investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks, seeking to question three convicted individuals who allegedly told court that others connected to the attacks remain at large.
Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris has informed the Fort Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday (21) that the CID intends to record statements from Milhan, Riskhan and Zainul Abdeen, who have been convicted and sentenced by a Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar in connection with the attacks.
The prosecution has sought permission for eight CID investigators to visit the prison and record their statements between October 22 and November 8, 2026.
Presenting the request, Peiris has said the three individuals had made the remarks while the Trial-at-Bar was delivering its judgment in the Easter Sunday attacks case.
“Although we have gone to prison, those connected to this are still outside,” the convicted individuals had reportedly said, according to the Additional Solicitor General.
Peiris has told court that the remarks warranted further investigation, given that they were made openly during proceedings in a case directly related to the attacks.
The request marks a further development in the investigation into the Easter Sunday bombings, which killed more than 250 people in April 2019.
Douglas Devananda’s alleged links under scrutiny
The court was also informed that investigators had recorded a statement from former Minister Douglas Devananda over allegations that he had introduced Asad Maulana, a key witness in the investigation, to former LTTE commanders Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan, alias Karuna Amman, and Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, alias Pillayan.
According to Peiris, investigators had received information that Devananda had instructed an individual named Shankar, who had later served as Chairman of the Cashew Corporation, to arrange meetings between Maulana and the two former LTTE cadres.
Peiris has said Devananda had denied the allegations.
The Additional Solicitor General has told court that investigators had subsequently recorded a statement from Shankar, whom he has described as a former head of Devananda’s political unit.
According to the prosecution, Shankar had stated that Devananda had instructed him to introduce Maulana to the Karuna group, while Maulana also maintained contacts with Pillayan.
Peiris has further told court that Shankar had left politics in 2005 and sought visas for his family to migrate to Switzerland.
Addressing claims that Maulana had made false allegations implicating former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Suresh Salley and former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Peiris has argued that investigators had grounds to examine the information provided by the witness.
He has also alleged that Maulana had received political protection as early as 2005 and 2006.
The allegations and statements presented by the prosecution remain matters for investigation.\
Alleged suppression of information after attacks
Peiris has also outlined information relating to an alleged failure to properly investigate intelligence received after the Easter Sunday attacks, claiming that certain officers had acted with Salley’s knowledge to suppress information connected to the bombings.
According to the submission, a military informant named Rajan had provided information to Army Corporal Suranga concerning a woman and a man seen at the residence of an uncle of Inshaf, one of the suicide bombers.
Rajan had reportedly been instructed to monitor the residence and observe the individuals visiting it.
Peiris has told court that Rajan had encountered a woman wearing a burqa who spoke Tamil. The informant had allegedly noted that her dialect appeared different from that commonly spoken in the area and seemed more consistent with the Batticaloa region.
The prosecution has said that after photographs of Sarah Jasmine had appeared in the media following the attacks, Rajan had identified her as the woman he had seen at the residence and had informed Corporal Suranga.
According to Peiris, Suranga had then told the informant not to concern himself with the matter and to forget about it.
The Additional Solicitor General has alleged that the incident indicated attempts to prevent information received after the attacks from being properly investigated, adding that such conduct had occurred with Salley’s knowledge.
These claims were presented as part of the prosecution’s account of the ongoing investigation and have not been established as findings of court.
Karuna Amman passport allegations disputed
The court has also heard submissions concerning allegations that intelligence officers, including Salley, had arranged a diplomatic passport for Karuna Amman to travel to the United Kingdom.
Peiris has alleged that Salley had subsequently travelled to meet Karuna Amman, although Salley had denied the claim.
The prosecution has further told court that Karuna Amman had reportedly been arrested in the United Kingdom approximately two days after the alleged meeting over possession of a forged passport, before being deported to Sri Lanka.
According to the submission, the passport had allegedly been obtained under the name Dushmantha Gunawardena, who was said to have been a former Secretary to the Ministry of Environment.
Peiris has said investigators needed to obtain further information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish the details surrounding the passport and the identity used to obtain it.
He has also alleged that Salley possessed two or three passports.
Appearing for Salley, President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando has challenged the allegations and called for the relevant passport numbers to be produced before court.
Fernando has argued that Salley had been serving at the Sri Lankan Embassy in France at the time he was alleged to have facilitated the passport’s issuance, questioning how he could have arranged for a passport to be issued in Sri Lanka.
“These are entirely false allegations,” Fernando has submitted.
He has further told court that only one statement had so far been recorded from his client and that it had concerned a passport allegedly linked to Karuna Amman, rather than the Easter Sunday attacks investigation itself.
The competing submissions highlight the continuing dispute over the alleged links between intelligence personnel, political figures and individuals whose activities are being examined in connection with the attacks.
The case is scheduled to be called again on November 25, 2026.
Leave a comment