News
Counsel won’t be allowed to visit Sallay daily – CID
… detainee’s wife challenges Shani’s decision
Director CID SSP Shani Abeysekera has declined to grant permission for Asith Siriwardena, Counsel for Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay, detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), and now warded at the National Hospital, to visit him five days of the week, from Monday to Friday.
Responding to a letter received from Manori, wife of the detainee, SSP Abeysekera has emphasised that the Counsel could meet Sallay on Wednesdays, as arranged previously.
Abeysekera has pointed out that as Sallay had been moved from the CID and warded at the National Hospital, he didn’t require legal advice at the moment. Sources said that the Director CID had asserted that such visits could be detrimental to Sallay as he required rest. SSP Abeysekera has said that, as agreed, Manori and her son, as well as daughter, could visit the detainee daily.
Manori Sallay, has written again requesting that the Counsel be allowed to visit her husband daily. The text of her letter: I refer to your letter dated 13 June 2026 regarding my husband, Retd. Maj. Gen. Tuan Suresh Sallay.
Whilst your letter attempts to justify the refusal of legal access to my husband on the basis of his present medical condition, it conspicuously fails to address the circumstances that led to his hospitalisation in the first place.
I wish to place on record that my husband’s hunger strike did not arise in a vacuum. It was a direct consequence of the physical, psychological, and emotional suffering he has endured whilst under the custody and control of officers attached to the Criminal Investigation Department. As Director of the CID, you exercise authority, supervision, and command over the officers responsible for his detention and treatment. Consequently, the responsibility for ensuring his safety, dignity, and well-being rests squarely upon your office.
Your assertion that hospitalisation eliminates the need for legal consultation is both legally unsustainable and deeply troubling. Access to legal counsel is not a privilege to be granted or withheld at the discretion of the detaining authority. It is a fundamental legal right afforded to every detainee and a safeguard against abuse, coercion, and arbitrary action. Neither you nor any officer under your command possesses the authority to determine whether my husband requires legal advice.
Equally concerning is your suggestion that consultations with his lawyers would somehow interfere with his “psychological freedom” or recovery. Such a position is extraordinary given that the very institution responsible for his detention is also the institution whose conduct has contributed to his present condition. It is difficult to reconcile your stated concern for his psychological well-being with the fact that he has felt compelled to embark upon a hunger strike whilst under the exclusive control of the CID.
The chronology of events further raises serious concerns. Prior to his hospitalisation, my husband was questioned only on a limited number of occasions over a period of nearly two months. This fact alone undermines any suggestion that his prolonged detention is genuinely required for investigative purposes. Instead, it creates the appearance that detention has become a mechanism of pressure rather than a legitimate tool of investigation.
Your attempt to portray the denial of legal access as an act undertaken for my husband’s benefit is wholly unacceptable. Decisions regarding his legal representation are matters for him, his lawyers, and his family. They are not matters to be determined unilaterally by the very authority whose conduct is under scrutiny.
Accordingly, I hold the CID, and in particular its leadership, responsible for the circumstances that have resulted in my husband’s deterioration in health and subsequent hospitalization. Any continued obstruction of his access to legal counsel will only reinforce concerns regarding the fairness, legality, and propriety of his treatment whilst in custody.
I therefore demand that immediate and unrestricted access be granted to his legal representatives in accordance with the law and that no further attempts be made to interfere with or curtail this fundamental right.”
The government has chosen not to respond to questions raised by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) regarding the detention of retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay in connection with the ongoing investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested the ex-official in late February this year. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers have jointly raised the issue on 20 July, 2026.
Drawing attention of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to what they called alleged arbitrary detention of Sallay, former Director General of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) and former Director of Military Intelligence (DMI), under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), as well as allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in custody, resulting in the grave deterioration of his health, and imminent risks of retaliation through further torture and ill-treatment resulting in irreparable harm, should he be released from hospital and returned to custody, the UN sought the government explanation with a 60-day period.
The UN has stated: “This communication, and any response received from your Excellency’s Government, will be made public via the communications reporting website at the 60 days mark. Should your Excellency’s Government respond within 60 days, both the communication and the response, may be published before the 60 days mark. The communications and responses
will also be made available in the subsequent periodic report to be presented to the Human Rights Council.”
In the absence of the government’s response, the UN posted the letter, dated 20 July, 2026, addressed to President Dissanayake. The full letter can be accessed https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=31125
News
Section of wartime KKS High Security Zone vacated to facilitate economic development in the area
The Army, last week, vacated an area, within the wartime high security zone in the Jaffna peninsula. The Defence Ministry said that an extent of 187.56 acres of land, belonging to the Cement Corporation in Kankesanthurai, Jaffna, has been released by the military. The released land, located in Grama Niladhari Division J/233, Kankesanthurai West, within the Valikamam North (Tellippalai) Divisional Secretariat Division, had been utilised by the Sri Lanka Army since the middle of 1997.
The release of the 187.56-acre extent forms part of the initiative to make State land available for the proposed investment zone in Kankesanthurai, thereby facilitating future investment and economic development in the area.
A complaint has been lodged with the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau against the Government Printer and the Secretary to the Ministry of Media regarding the online release of falsified documents bearing a forged Speaker’s certificate.
Attorney-at-Law Aruna Laksiri has lodged a complaint with the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau requesting legal action against the Government Printer of the Department of Government Printing (No. 118, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 08), Prasanna Jayaratne, and the Secretary to the Ministry of Mass Media (Asidisi Medura, 163, Kirulapone Mawatha, Polhengoda, Colombo 05), Dr. Anil Jasinghe.
The complaint alleges the commission of offences by forging and uploading falsified documents online using a forged Speaker’s certification, failure to perform statutory duties, and misappropriation of public property.
The complaint states that a copy of the English translation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was downloaded and printed from the official website of the Government Printing Department (www.documents.gov.lk), which operates under the Ministry of Mass Media. On its outer cover and on page 1, the text “certified on 25th of September, 2026” is inscribed inside brackets.
The complaint pointed out that the Speaker has certified an English translation. Under Articles 23, 79, 83, and 80 of the Constitution, Parliament enacts laws and the Speaker certifies bills strictly in the Sinhala and Tamil languages; under the Constitution, therefore the Speaker cannot apply such certification to an English translation.
Showers or thundershowers will occur at several places in the most part of the island after 1.00 p.m
GS1 Lanka drives Sri Lanka’s shift to 2D barcodes
Geneva takes up Sallay’s case and govt. ignores opportunity to answer accusations
Section of wartime KKS High Security Zone vacated to facilitate economic development in the area
Lawyer lodges complaint against Govt. Printer, Media Ministry Secy.
Sri Lankan troops in joint anti-terrorist exercise in Russia
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
Latest News5 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
Features5 days agoWhy Sri Lanka needs an Inclusive Civic Nationalism – urgently
-
News4 days agoUS-assisted ‘Ice’ detection: NPC to examine IGP’s move to transfer drug-busting team
-
Features6 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
-
News6 days agoFirst cases taken up by SC after enactment of 22A dismissed
-
News5 days agoCivil society activist accuses govt. of favouring Ven. Gnanasara
-
Editorial3 days agoColombo Port drug bust: The plot thickens
-
Editorial6 days agoAftershocks of 22A