PTA Detention of Suresh Salley Challenged

COLOMBO (News 1st); A petition seeking a writ order to invalidate the detention order imposed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act on former State Intelligence Chief, retired Major General Suresh Salley, in connection with the Easter Sunday terror attacks, was taken up for consideration today before the Court of Appeal.

The matter was heard before a bench comprising President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando.

Appearing for the Attorney General, Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath informed court that the State intends to raise preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.

She stated that the preliminary objections would specifically address whether the Court of Appeal has the authority to entertain the petition.

President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena, appearing for Suresh Salley, submitted that several commissions and investigative committees were appointed by the government following the Easter Sunday attacks to inquire into the incident.

He pointed out that none of those investigations produced any evidence linking his client to the Easter Sunday attacks.

President’s Counsel Jayawardena further told court that Salley was not in Sri Lanka at the time the attacks were carried out.

He said his client had been attending a defence course at India’s National Defence College from January 2019 until November 30, 2019.

The President’s Counsel also submitted that investigations against his client had been initiated following statements made by an individual named Azad Moulana, who is currently overseas, to the United Kingdom’s Channel 4 television network, and argued that those claims have no evidentiary value.

Jayawardena further stated that while serving as head of military intelligence, Salley had raised concerns at meetings of the National Security Council regarding the growing threat of Islamic extremism in Sri Lanka.

He said those warnings were not acted upon and claimed that authorities instead responded by targeting only the individual who conveyed the messages.

The Court of Appeal decided to hear further submissions in the matter on June 4.