Easter Attacks: Accused Personally Cross‑Examines Witness

COLOMBO (News 1st); The cross‑examination in the case against 25 suspects remanded over the Easter Sunday suicide bombings was carried out by the accused themselves during the ongoing evidence examination.

The case, filed against 25 individuals detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), was taken up again before the Permanent High Court Trial‑at‑Bar in Colombo. 

The bench comprises Judges Navaratne Marasinghe, Sujeewa Nishshanka, and Ramanathan Kannan, and from yesterday the trial has been scheduled for daily hearings.

Today, the court recorded the testimony of Senior Superintendent of Police Kavinda Piyasena, who had documented a statement given by the fourth accused, Mohamed Ibrahim Shahid Abdullah Haq, while the accused was in custody under the PTA. 

The evidence was led by a team of lawyers representing the prosecution under Senior Deputy Solicitor General Sudarshana Silva.

The fourth accused, identified as Mohamed Ibrahim Shahid Abdullah Haq, informed court that he did not have legal representation and therefore began cross‑examining the witness personally. 

During questioning, he asked the witness about matters related to promotions and appointments in the police service.

The accused questioned the witness regarding whether he was among the officers who joined the Criminal Investigation Department following the transfers of officers such as Shani Abeysekara after the November 2019 change of government. The witness confirmed this, stating “yes.”

The accused then asked about the procedure for promotion from the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). The witness explained that an ASP must complete four years of service along with other required qualifications.

When asked how long he had served as a Police Superintendent, the witness replied that he had held the position for one year before being promoted to SSP. 

He added that he and several other officers had faced delays in promotions and were later promoted following legal action.

It was also revealed during testimony that the statement taken from the accused had been signed by the witness while serving as an SSP, and that the then‑Director of the CID, W. Thilakarathna, under whom the statement was recorded, had previously served as a member of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s personal security detail.

The accused then attempted to question the witness about a letter sent by W. Thilakarathna instructing the recording of his statement. 

At this point, the court intervened, informing the accused that cross‑examination cannot proceed without marking the relevant document.

Although the accused sought permission to mark the document himself, the Attorney General’s Department objected. 

After considering the matter, the bench stated it would decide tomorrow whether the accused may personally mark documents during cross‑examination.

Accordingly, the court adjourned the trial until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, pending the bench’s decision.