Connect with us

Midweek Review

Weerasekera’s report on SLT pits Executive against Legislature

Published

on

Having strongly opposed the privatization of Sri Lanka Telecom, the Sectoral Committee on National Security made the following recommendations:

(a) SLT is already partially privatised with international companies holding 44.98% of the stake and the government holding 49.5%. Further privatisation would expose the country’s critical communication infrastructure/sensitive information to private entities whose profit-oriented interests can compromise national security. Hence privatisation of Telecom is not recommended.

(b) Anyone/organisation who had been blacklisted/helped terrorists/extremists in any form should not be allowed to buy any share and have any control over our national assets.

(c) State can buy back the other large shareholder of Telecom as provided for in the agreement, divide the segments into sensitive and vulnerable, excess lands and buildings, critical infrastructure and the business. Whilst retaining the first segments affecting National Security, the state can divest the others holding a major share through Private Public Partnership ensuring critical infrastructure is protected and all government regulations are adhered to. This way the government can exit from doing business whilst making profit and ensuring National Security.

Sri Lanka Telecom shares fell 7.8 percent on Friday (09 June) during trades following the release of the SOC report.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

There hadn’t been a previous instance of a President having to publicly challenge a report put out by a Sectoral Oversight Committee or any other watchdog committee.

Several hours after the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on National Security tabled a report on ‘The effects of the privatization of Sri Lanka Telecom on National Security’ in Parliament on Friday (09) the President’s Media Division (PMD) countered the controversial assessment.

The 11-member SOC, led by one-time Navy Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, included war-winning Army Commander the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, MP. The SOC comprised Sarath Weerasekara (SLPP), Chamal Rajapaksa (SLPP), Chandima Weerakkody (SLPP), Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (SJB), (Prof.) Channa Jayasumana (SLPP rebel group), Charles Nirmalanathan (Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi), Sampath Athukorala (SLPP), U.K. Sumith Udukumbura (SLPP), (Dr.) Major Pradeep Undugoda (SLPP), Major Sudarshana Denipitiya (SLPP) and Nimal Piyathissa (JNP)

Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi is the leading party in the TNA, one-time ally of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The UNP and JVP with just one and three members in Parliament, respectively, are not represented in this particular SOC.

The controversial SOC report, though some asserted caught President Ranil Wickremesinghe by surprise, the writer firmly believes the the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government knew what was coming. It would be pertinent to ask whether all members of this particular SOC fully read the report available in Sinhala, Tamil and English before the former Public Security Minister tabled it.

The then CBK administration partly privatized the SLT in 1994. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation of Japan secured 35% of the SLT but those shares were bought by a Netherlands-based company, called Global Telecommunications Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysian Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd. As of today the Malaysian Company holds 44.98% of the stake and the Government holds 49.50%.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe wants to divest the remaining shares in line with his disputed strategy that the government quit business altogether. With a countrywide customer base of nine million, the income revenue of SLT in 2022 was Rs. 108 billion and the profit was Rs. 8.46 billion.

Acknowledging the SOC’s unprecedented warning over national security threat posed by total privatization of SLT and the factual content of the report, the PMD issued the following statement: “…the Government believes that it lacked a logical or scientific data analysis pertaining to the subject matter. To address this deficiency, it is necessary to examine the operation and regulation of information and communication technology service providers in Sri Lanka, analyze financial data related to the sector, understand Sri Lanka’s national ambitions in this field, assess the available capital capacity, and conduct a comprehensive study of global trends.

Furthermore, the Government has reassured that the policy decision taken will not compromise national security, contrary to what is indicated in the report.

Hence, the Government will take a final decision during an upcoming Cabinet meeting, considering this report along with recommendations from the information and communication sector.

Additionally, the President emphasizes that the current government’s policy is focused on providing opportunities to the private sector, distancing it from direct government involvement in business.”

Politics of privatization

MP Sarath Weerasekera received the leadership of the SOC on 08 March , this year. One-time Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa proposed Weerasekera while U. K. Sumith Udukumbura, also of the SLPP, seconded the naval veteran.

Having retired in 2006, Rear Admiral Weerasekera successfully contested the Digamadulla district on the then UPFA ticket at the 2010 parliamentary election. The decision to issue a report against privatization of SLT seems to be in line with MP Weerasekera’s patriotic zeal. He was the only UPFA lawmaker to vote against the 19th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in early 2015. In spite of the then President Maithripala Sirisena personally appealing to the rebel UPFA parliamentary group, Weerasekera declined to throw his weight behind what was touted as the panacea for constitutional problems.

Responding to The Island queries, MP Weerasekera explained that his committee highlighted the danger in the government losing control of the vital telecommunications sector. “The issue at hand cannot be discussed without taking into consideration political, economic and social developments that led to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s unceremonious exit last July,” the 71-year-old parliamentarian said.

MP Weerasekera said that he didn’t want to repeat the SOC report but the government couldn’t absolve itself of the responsibility for examining all aspects before fully privatizing the telecommunication sector.

Referring to the statement issued by the PMD, lawmaker Weerasekera said that the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by President Wickremesinghe, should be held responsible for whatever the consequences of the privatization.

President Wickremesinghe, who holds the finance portfolio, repeatedly declared his intention to privatize even the profit-making public enterprises as part of his economic revival strategy. However, the success of the UNP leader’s strategy entirely depends on the SLPP stand on privatization. Having elected Wickremesinghe as the eighth President at an unprecedented vote, the SLPP is deeply upset over the former’s failure, so far, to accommodate about 10 ‘pohottu’ members in the Cabinet. Can the SLPP back Wickremesinghe regardless of the blunt report on SLT, endorsed by its own party men, including rebel SLPPers?

However, the composition of the SOC seems irrational as seven out of 11 all barring three happened to be members of one political party.

Perhaps, 15 political parties represented in Parliament should state their stand on the proposed SLT privatization. Of those 15 political parties, nine are represented by one member each. UNP (National List MP Wajira Abeywardena) is among them.

There had never been such a controversial SOC report since the introduction of the system. The Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairperson of Committees, the Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament; and Ministers of Cabinet appointed under Article 43(2) of the Constitution cannot serve on SOCs appointed in terms of Standing Orders 111. SOCs have the power to examine any Bill, any subsidiary legislation, including Regulation, Resolution, Treaty, Report or any other matter relating to subjects and functions within their jurisdiction. There cannot be more than 20 SOCs at any given time.

Yugadanavi fiasco

Now that PMD has declared the final decision on SLT privatization would be taken at the Cabinet, let me discuss the Yugadanavi deal that was challenged in the Supreme Court by three members of the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Cabinet.

There hadn’t been a previous instance of ministers moving the Supreme Court against a decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers. Although the apex court dismissed petitions without giving reasons, disclosures made by petitioners, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Wimal Weerawansa and Attorney-at-Law Udaya Gammanpila bared the ugly truth. There hadn’t been a previous instance of any Sri Lankan government entering into such an agreement at midnight. The agreement signed on 17 Sept., 2021 at the behest of the then Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa is in the public domain.

The consideration of the petitions concluded on 23 February, 2022 before a five-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Priyantha Jayawardena, Vijith Malalgoda and L.T.B. Dehideniya.

The three daring ministers revealed that the government sold 40% of shares of West Coast Power Limited to New Fortress Energy of US without following proper procedures. They declared they never approved the deal. Unfortunately, the Dullas-Prof. G.L. Peiris-led group remained silent. Had they, too, raised the issue perhaps the Rajapaksa brothers could have reconsidered the decision. By the time the Dullas-Prof. Peiris group decided to oppose Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election as President, it was too late. The SLPP was in disarray. The party appeared to have accepted Wickremesinghe as its saviour, hence the decision to vote against Dullas Alahapperuma, who served the Rajapaksas diligently.

Some of those who had served President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Cabinet at the time Sri Lanka entered into the controversial Yugadanavi deal (a section of the media calls it New Fortress deal) are in the current Cabinet. Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena is among them.

The SOC Chairman said that he initiated the inquiry into the proposed sale of SLT on his own as he felt the urgent need to do. “No, the Parliament didn’t intervene in this matter.” The former minister said so when the writer asked him whether the Parliament directed him to examine the issue at hand. MP Weerasekera insisted that he had secured the consent of all before tabling the report.

Before tabling the report on SLT in Parliament, the SOC Chief took up the Canadian declaration of genocide in Sri Lanka and travel ban issued on military and political leaders over accountability issues. The former Navy Deputy Chief of Staff questioned the lapses on the part of successive governments in countering unsubstantiated war crimes accusations that led to the co-sponsorship of the Geneva Resolution by the then Yahapalana government in October 2015, a treacherous act, indeed.

MP Weerasekera stressed that the responsibility on the Foreign Ministry and of Parliament to counter the despicable Canadian move meant to please particularly Canadian voters of Sri Lankan Tamil origin, who are an important vote bank there. Yahapalana partners, the UNP and SLFP, also owed an explanation and public apology for the great betrayal of the war-winning armed forces, he said.

The SOC Chairman said that the move to sell the remaining government-owned shares should be closely examined against the backdrop of other external investments in key sectors, including harbours as well as the country’s bankrupt status.

Responsibilities of Cabinet, Parliament

Ministers exercise executive powers in Parliament. Therefore, they are not subject to the scrutiny of SOCs or watchdog committees. Secretaries to ministries in their capacity as Chief Accounting Officers of respective ministries are answerable to Parliament in all matters pertaining to finances. However, in a case of perceived national security threat as alleged by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, perhaps the entire Cabinet of Ministers should be held responsible.

The bottom line is can the Cabinet of Ministers go ahead with the sale of SLT without a proper re-evaluation of the SOC report that quite strongly advised against the privatization of the national telecommunications provider, on national security grounds.

The examination of the proposed sale of SLT has reminded all that other SOCs can engage in similar exercises in terms of Standing Orders 111. The statement issued by the PMD underscored President Wickremesinghe’s inclination to go ahead with the sale of SLT, regardless of the warning issued by Parliament. The SOC’s National Security assessment represents the considered view of the Parliament.

Therefore, it cannot be simply dismissed as an opinion of a hardline nationalist lawmaker. Even during the naval career of Weerasekera, there were occasions he resorted to actions not acceptable to political leadership in the interest of the country.

MP Weerasekera’s report should be carefully examined by the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament. The Cabinet of Ministers shouldn’t be simply a rubber seal. But there had been instances of the government even sidestepping the Cabinet in taking far reaching decisions. There cannot be a better example than the utterly disloyal act of co-sponsoring the Geneva resolution against one’s own country without parliamentary or Cabinet approval.

More recently the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government and the Opposition clashed over refusal of the government to take the Parliament into confidence in the run-up to the finalization of the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Ex-Telecommunications’ DG responds to SOC report

Meanwhile, former Director General of Telecommunications Prof Rohan Samarajiva roundly dismissed SOC assertion. Declaring that there is absolutely no basis for SOC’s claim that privatization of SLT threatened the national security, Prof. Samarajiva said national security is important. But it has, for too long, been used as a cheap slogan to mask parochial interests, he said.

In response to The Island query, the outspoken civil society activist and one time Marxist, sent us the following statement: “It should be obvious that a country whose export industries are not competitive and whose government is bankrupt because it spends more than it brings in as revenue year after year will grievously compromise its security and leave itself open to external interference. If not for the reforms that were undertaken in the telecom sector from 1997 to 2003, our export industries would be hamstrung by expensive and poor-quality services. For example, one reason we had no BPO industry in 2003 was the SLT monopoly. Once it was ended the investments came in, jobs were created, and the export earnings realized. Removing the residual advantages enjoyed by SLT so that a more level playing field is created will allow all our export industries, not limited to the BPO industry, to be competitive. The state makes more from the taxes paid by the entire telecom sector than the below-par profit share currently remitted by SLT.

There is no evidence that complete managerial control by NTT, the minority owner of SLT, during the worst years of the war, compromised security. Under 100 percent state ownership and management, national security was compromised because those in charge had not invested in redundancy for the country’s then single international gateway on Lotus Road, a location that had been subject to repeated terrorist attacks. It was after partial privatization and under regulatory direction that this glaring omission was rectified.

National security is safeguarded by identifying specific threats and responding to them appropriately as above. If the problem is data, the solution is the setting in place of effective safeguards by law and regulatory oversight, not having an unqualified presidential sibling as Board Chairman, which was a demonstrated outcome of state ownership. Independently of who sits on the Board, it is possible to require that specific officers in sensitive positions be Sri Lankan citizens who have been subject to security screening. This need not be limited to SLT, but to all major operators.”



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

At the edge of a world war

Published

on

In September 1939, as Europe descended once more into catastrophe, E. H. Carr published The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Twenty years had separated the two great wars—twenty years to reflect, to reconstruct, to restrain. Yet reflection proved fragile. Carr wrote with unsentimental clarity: once the enemy is crushed, the “thereafter” rarely arrives. The illusion that power can come first and morality will follow is as dangerous as the belief that morality alone can command power. Between those illusions, nations lose themselves.

His warning hovers over the present war in Iran.

The “thereafter” has long haunted American interventions—after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya. The enemy can be dismantled with precision; the aftermath resists precision. Iran is not a small theater. It is a civilization-state with a geography three times larger than Iraq. At its southern edge lies the Strait of Hormuz, narrow in width yet immense in consequence. Geography does not argue; it compels.

Long before Carr, in the quiet anxiety of the eighteenth century, James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, warned that war was the “true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” War concentrates authority in the name of urgency. Madison insisted that the power to declare war must rest with Congress, not the president—so that deliberation might restrain impulse. Republics persuade themselves that emergency powers are temporary. History rarely agrees.

Then, at 2:30 a.m., the abstraction becomes decision.

Donald Trump declares war on Iran. The announcement crosses continents before markets open in Asia. Within twenty-four hours, Ali Khamenei, who ruled for thirty-seven years, is killed. The President calls him one of history’s most evil figures and presents his death as an opening for the Iranian people.

In exile, Reza Pahlavi hails the moment as liberation. In less than forty-eight hours, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps collapses under overwhelming air power. A regime that endured decades falls swiftly. Military efficiency appears absolute. Yet efficiency does not resolve legitimacy.

The joint strike with Israel is framed as necessary and pre-emptive. Retaliation follows across the Gulf. The architecture of energy trade becomes fragile. Shipping routes are recalculated. Markets respond before diplomacy finds its language.

It is measured in the price of petrol in Colombo. In the bus fare in Karachi. In the rising cost of cooking gas in Dhaka. It is heard in the anxious voice of a migrant worker in Doha calling home to Kandy, asking whether contracts will be renewed, whether flights will continue, whether wages will be delayed. It is calculated in foreign reserves already strained, in currencies that tremble at rumor, in budgets forced to choose between subsidy and solvency.

Zaara was the breadwinner of her house in Sri Lanka. Her husband had been unemployed for years. At last, he secured an opportunity to travel to Israel as a foreign worker—like many Sri Lankans who depend on employment in the Middle East. It was to be their turning point: a small house repaired, debts reduced, dignity restored.

Now she lowers her eyes when she speaks. For Zaara, geopolitics is not theory. It is fear measured in distance—between a construction site abroad and a village waiting at home.

The war in Iran has shattered calculations that once felt practical. Nations like Sri Lanka now require strategic foresight to navigate unfolding realities. Reactive responses—whether to natural disasters or external shocks like this conflict—can cripple economies far faster than gradual pressures. Disruptions to energy imports, migrant remittances, and foreign reserves show how distant wars ripple into daily lives.

War among great powers is debated in think tanks. Its consequences are lived in markets—and in quiet kitchens where uncertainty sits heavier than hunger.

The conflict does not unfold in isolation. It enters the strategic calculus of China and Russia, both attentive to precedent. Power projected beyond the Western hemisphere reshapes perceptions in the Eastern theater. Iran’s transformation intersects directly with broader alignments. In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a twenty-five-year strategic agreement. By 2025, China was purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil at discounted rates. Energy underwrote strategy. That continuity has been disrupted. Yet strategic relationships do not vanish; they adjust.

In Winds of Change, my new book, I reproduce Nicholas Spykman’s 1944 two-theater confrontation map—Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War. Spykman distinguished maritime power from amphibian projection. Control of the Rimland determined balance. Then, the United States fought across two vast theaters. Today, Europe remains unsettled through Ukraine, the Pacific simmers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, Latin America remains sensitive, and the Middle East has been abruptly transformed. The architecture of multi-theater tension reappears.

At this juncture, the reflections of Marwan Bishara acquire weight. America’s ultimate power, he argues, resides in deterrence, not in the habitual use of force. Power, especially when shared, stabilizes. Force, when used with disregard for international law, breeds instability and humiliation. Arrogance creates enemies and narrows judgment. It is no surprise that many Americans themselves believe the United States should not act alone.

America’s strength does not rest solely in its military reach. Its economy constitutes roughly one-third of global output and generates close to 40 percent of the world’s research and development. Structural power—economic, technological, institutional—has historically underwritten deterrence. When force becomes the primary instrument, influence risks becoming coercion.

The United States now confronts simultaneous pressures across continents. The Second World War demonstrated the capacity to sustain multi-theater engagement; the post-9/11 wars revealed the exhaustion that follows prolonged intervention. Iran, larger and geopolitically deeper, presents a scale that cannot be resolved by air power alone.

Carr’s “thereafter” waits patiently. Military victory may be swift; political reconstruction is slow. Bishara reminds us that deterrence sustains stability, while force risks unraveling it.

At the edge of a potential world war, the decisive question is not who strikes first, but who restrains longest.

History watches. And in places far from the battlefield, mothers wait for phone calls that may not come.

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., and the author of Winds of Change: Geopolitics at the Crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, published by World Scientific

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Live Coals Burst Aflame

Published

on

Live coals of decades-long hate,

Are bursting into all-consuming flames,

In lands where ‘Black Gold’ is abundant,

And it’s a matter to be thought about,

If humans anywhere would be safe now,

Unless these enmities dying hard,

With roots in imperialist exploits,

And identity-based, tribal violence,

Are set aside and laid finally to rest,

By an enthronement of the principle,

Of the Equal Dignity of Humans.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Saga of the arrest of retired intelligence chief

Published

on

Retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay’s recent arrest attracted internatiattention. His long-expected arrest took place ahead of the seventh anniversary of the bombings. Multiple blasts claimed the lives of nearly 280 people, including 45 foreigners. State-owned international news television network, based in Paris, France 24, declared that arrest was made on the basis of information provided by a whistleblower. The French channel was referring to Hanzeer Azad Moulana, who earlier sought political asylum in the West and one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan aka Pilleyan. May be the fiction he wove against Pilleyan and others may have been to strengthen his asylum claim there. Moulana is on record as having told the British Channel 4 that Sallay allowed the attack to proceed with the intention of influencing the 2019 presidential election. The French news agency quoted an investigating officer as having said: “He was arrested for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the Easter Sunday attacks. He has been in touch with people involved in the attacks, even recently.”

****

Suresh Sallay of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) received the wrath of Yahapalana Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in 2016, over the reportage of what the media called the Chavakachcheri explosives detection made on March 30, 2016. Premier Wickremesinghe found fault with Sallay for the coverage, particularly in The Island. Police arrested ex-LTTE child combatant Edward Julian, alias Ramesh, after the detection of one suicide jacket, four claymore mines, three parcels containing about 12 kilos of explosives, to battery packs and several rounds of 9mm ammunition, from his house, situated at Vallakulam Pillaiyar Kovil Street. Chavakachcheri police made the detection, thanks to information provided by the second wife of Ramesh. Investigations revealed that the deadly cache had been brought by Ramesh from Mannar (Detection of LTTE suicide jacket, mines jolts government: Fleeing Tiger apprehended at checkpoint, The Island, March 31, 2016).

The then Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, told the writer that a thorough inquiry was required to ascertain the apprehended LTTE cadre’s intention. The Chavakachcheri detection received the DMI’s attention. The country’s premier intelligence organisation meticulously dealt with the issue against the backdrop of an alleged aborted bid to revive the LTTE in April 2014. Of those who had been involved in the fresh terror project, three were killed in the Nedunkerny jungles. There hadn’t been any other incidents since the Nedunkerny skirmish, until the Chavakachcheri detection.

Piqued by the media coverage of the Chavakachcheri detection, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration tried to silence the genuine Opposition. As the SLFP had, contrary to the expectations of those who voted for the party at the August 2015 parliamentary elections, formed a treacherous coalition with the UNP, the Joint Opposition (JO) spearheaded the parliamentary opposition.

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned former External Affairs Minister and top JO spokesman, Prof. G.L. Peiris, over a statement made by him regarding the Chavakachcheri detection. The former law professor questioned the legality of the CID’s move against the backdrop of police declining to furnish him a certified copy of the then acting IGP S.M. Wickremesinghe’s directive that he be summoned to record a statement as regards the Chavakachcheri lethal detection.

One-time LTTE propagandist Velayutham Dayanidhi, a.k.a. Daya Master, raised with President Maithripala Sirisena the spate of arrests made by law enforcement authorities, in the wake of the Chavakachcheri detection. Daya Master took advantage of a meeting called by Sirisena, on 28 April, 2016, at the President’s House, with the proprietors of media organisations and journalists, to raise the issue. The writer having been among the journalists present on that occasion, inquired from the ex-LETTer whom he represented there. Daya Master had been there on behalf of DAN TV, Tamil language satellite TV, based in Jaffna. Among those who had been detained was Subramaniam Sivakaran, at that time Youth Wing leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), the main constituent of the now defunct Tamil National Alliance. In addition to Sivakaran, the police apprehended several hardcore ex-LTTE cadres (LTTE revival bid confirmed: TNA youth leader arrested, The Island April 20, 2016).

Ranil hits out at media

Subsequent inquiries revealed the role played by Sivakaran in some of those wanted in connection with the Chavakachcheri detection taking refuge in India. When the writer sought an explanation from the then TNA lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, regarding Sivakaran’s arrest, the lawyer disowned the Youth Wing leader. Sumanthiran emphasised that the party suspended Sivakumaran and Northern Provincial Council member Ananthi Sasitharan for publicly condemning the TNA’s decision to endorse Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election (Chava explosives: Key suspects flee to India, The Island, May 2, 2016).

Premier Wickremesinghe went ballistic on May 30, 2016. Addressing the 20th anniversary event of the Sri Lanka Muslim Media Forum, at the Sports Ministry auditorium, the UNP leader castigated the DMI. Alleging that the DMI had been pursuing an agenda meant to undermine the Yahapalana administration, Wickremesinghe, in order to make his bogus claim look genuine, repeatedly named the writer as part of that plot. Only Wickremesinghe knows the identity of the idiot who influenced him to make such unsubstantiated allegations. The top UNPer went on to allege that The Island, and its sister paper Divaina, were working overtime to bring back Dutugemunu, a reference to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A few days later, sleuths from the Colombo Crime Detection Bureau (CCD) visited The Island editorial to question the writer where lengthy statements were recorded. The police were acting on the instructions of the then Premier, who earlier publicly threatened to send police to question the writer.

In response to police queries about Sallay passing information to the media regarding the Chavakachcheri detection and subsequent related articles, the writer pointed out that the reportage was based on response of the then ASP Ruwan Gunasekera, AAL and Sumanthiran, as had been reported.

Wickremesinghe alleged, at the Muslim media event, that a section of the media manipulated coverage of certain incidents, ahead of the May Day celebrations.

In early May 2016 Wickremesinghe disclosed that he received assurances from the police, and the DMI, that as the LTTE had been wiped out the group couldn’t stage a comeback. The declaration was made at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKIIRIS) on 3 May 2016. Wickremesinghe said that he sought clarifications from the police and the DMI in the wake of the reportage of the Chavakachcheri detection and related developments (PM: LTTE threat no longer exists, The Island, May 5, 2016).

The LTTE couldn’t stage a comeback as a result of measures taken by the then government. It would be a grave mistake, on our part, to believe that the eradication of the LTTE’s conventional military capacity automatically influenced them to give up arms. The successful rehabilitation project, that had been undertaken by the Rajapaksa government and continued by successive governments, ensured that those who once took up arms weren’t interested in returning to the same deadly path.

In spite of the TNA and others shedding crocodile tears for the defeated Tigers, while making a desperate effort to mobilise public opinion against the government, the public never wanted the violence to return. Some interested parties propagated the lie that regardless of the crushing defeat suffered in the hands of the military, the LTTE could resume guerilla-type operations, paving the way for a new conflict. But by the end of 2014, and in the run-up to the presidential election in January following year, the situation seemed under control, especially with Western countries not wanting to upset things here with a pliant administration in the immediate horizon. Soon after the presidential election, the government targeted the armed forces. Remember Sumanthiran’s declaration that the ITAK Youth Wing leader Sivakaran had been opposed to the TNA backing Sirisena at the presidential poll.

The US-led accountability resolution had been co-sponsored by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to appease the TNA and Tamil Diaspora. The Oct. 01, 2016, resolution delivered a knockout blow to the war-winning armed forces. The UNP pursued an agenda severely inimical to national interests. It would be pertinent to mention that those who now represent the main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), were part of the treacherous UNP.

Suresh moved to Malaysia

The Yahapalana leadership resented Sallay’s work. They wanted him out of the country at a time a new threat was emerging. The government attacked the then Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, who warned of the emerging threat from foreign-manipulated local Islamic fanatics on 11 Nov. 2016, in Parliament. Rajapakshe didn’t mince his words when he underscored the threat posed by some Sri Lanka Muslim families taking refuge in Syria where ISIS was running the show. The then government, of which he was part o,f ridiculed their own Justice Minister. Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe feared action against extremism may cause erosion of Muslim support. By then Sallay, who had been investigating the deadly plot, was out of the country. The Yahapalana government believed that the best way to deal with Sallay was to grant him a diplomatic posting. Sally ended up in Malaysia, a country where the DMI played a significant role in the repatriation of Kumaran Pathmanathan, alias KP, after his arrest there.

Having served the military for over three cadres, Sallay retired in 2024 in the rank of Major General. Against the backdrop of his recent arrest, in connection with the ongoing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, The Island felt the need to examine the circumstances Sallay ended up in Malaysia at the time. Now, remanded in terms of the Prevention of terrorism Act (PTA), he is being accused of directing the Easter Sunday operation from Malaysia.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader and former Minister Udaya Gammanpila has alleged that Sallay was apprehended in a bid to divert attention away from the deepening coal scam. Having campaigned on an anti-corruption platformm in the run up to the previous presidential election, in September 2024, the Parliament election, in November of the same year, and local government polls last year, the incumbent dispensation is struggling to cope up with massive corruption issues, particularly the coal scam, which has not only implicated the Energy Minister but the entire Cabinet of Ministers as well.

The crux of the matter is whether Sallay actually met would-be suicide bombers, in February 2018, in an estate, in the Puttalam district, as alleged by the UK’s Channel 4 television, like the BBC is, quite famous for doing hatchet jobs for the West. This is the primary issue at hand. Did Sallay clandestinely leave Malaysia to meet suicide bombers in the presence of Hanzeer Azad Moulana, one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, aka Pilleyan, former LTTE member?

The British channel raised this issue with Sallay, in 2023, at the time he served as Director, State Intelligence (SIS). Sallay is on record as having told Channel 4 Television that he was not in Sri Lanka the whole of 2018 as he was in Malaysia serving in the Sri Lankan Embassy there as Minister Counsellor.

Therefore, the accusation that he met several members of the National Thowheeth Jamaath (NTJ), including Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Zahran, in Karadipuval, Puttalam, in Feb. 2018, was baseless, he has said.

The intelligence officer has asked the British television station to verify his claim with the Malaysian authorities.

Responding to another query, Sallay had told Channel 4 that on April 21, 2019, the day of the Easter Sunday blasts, he was in India, where he was accommodated at the National Defence College (NDC). That could be verified with the Indian authorities, Sallay has said, strongly denying Channel 4’s claim that he contacted one of Pilleyan’s cadres, over, the phone and directed him to pick a person outside Hotel Taj Samudra.

According to Sallay, during his entire assignment in Malaysia, from Dec. 2016 to Dec. 2018, he had been to Colombo only once, for one week, in Dec. 2017, to assist in an official inquiry.

Having returned to Colombo, Sallay had left for NDC, in late Dec. 2018, and returned only after the conclusion of the course, in November 2019.

Sallay has said so in response to questions posed by Ben de Pear, founder, Basement Films, tasked with producing a film for Channel 4 on the Easter Sunday bombings.

The producer has offered Sallay an opportunity to address the issues in terms of Broadcasting Code while inquiring into fresh evidence regarding the officer’s alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday conspiracy.

The producer sought Sallay’s response, in August 2023, in the wake of political upheaval following the ouster of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, elected at the November 2019 presidential election.

At the time, the Yahapalana government granted a diplomatic appointment to Sallay, he had been head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). After the 2019 presidential election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named him the Head of SIS.

The Basement Films has posed several questions to Sallay on the basis of accusations made by Hanzeer Azad Moulana.

In response to the film producer’s query regarding Sallay’s alleged secret meeting with six NTJ cadres who blasted themselves a year later, Sallay has questioned the very basis of the so called new evidence as he was not even in the country during the period the clandestine meeting is alleged to have taken place.

Contradictory stands

Following Sajith Premadasa’s anticipated defeat at the 2019 presidential election, Harin Fernando accused the Catholic Church of facilitating Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory. Fernando, who is also on record as having disclosed that his father knew of the impending Easter Sunday attacks, pointed finger at the Archbishop of Colombo, Rt. Rev Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, for ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena, as well as JVP frontliner Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, accused India of masterminding the Easter Sunday bombings. Then there were claims of Sara Jasmin, wife of Katuwapitiya suicide bomber Mohammed Hastun, being an Indian agent who was secretly removed after the Army assaulted extremists’ hideout at Sainthamaruthu in the East. What really had happened to Sara Jasmin who, some believe, is key to the Easter Sunday puzzle.

Then there was huge controversy over the arrest of Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah over his alleged links with the Easter Sunday bombers. Hizbullah, who had been arrested in April 2020, served as lawyer to the extremely wealthy spice trader Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s family that had been deeply involved in the Easter Sunday plot. Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim had been on the JVP’s National List at the 2015 parliamentary elections. The lawyer received bail after two years. Two of the spice trader’s sons launched suicide attacks, whereas his daughter-in-law triggered a suicide blast when police raided their Dematagoda mansion, several hours after the Easter Sunday blasts.

Investigations also revealed that the suicide vests had been assembled at a factory owned by the family and the project was funded by them. It would be pertinent to mention that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government never really bothered to conduct a comprehensive investigation to identify the Easter Sunday terror project. Perhaps, their biggest failure had been to act on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) recommendations. Instead, President Rajapaksa appointed a six-member committee, headed by his elder brother, Chamal Rajapaksa, to examine the recommendations, probably in a foolish attempt to improve estranged relations with the influential Muslim community. That move caused irreparable damage and influenced the Church to initiate a campaign against the government. The Catholic Church played quite a significant role in the India- and US-backed 2022 Aragalaya that forced President Rajapaksa to flee the country.

Interested parties exploited the deterioration of the national economy, leading to unprecedented declaration of the bankruptcy of the country in April 2022, to mobilie public anger that was used to achieve political change.

Continue Reading

Trending