Why the Easter Bombings MUST Be Fully Investigated as a Priority

When forensic facts contradict themselves, the State must explain—or forfeit credibility

Nearly seven years after the Easter Sunday bombings, Sri Lanka is no longer entitled to plead complexity. What confronts the country now is something far more troubling: a pattern of investigative inconsistencies and unexplained delays that raise questions not about evidence, but about intent.

This is not an assertion of conspiracy. It is a demand for clarity.

After the attacks of April 21, 2019, security forces moved swiftly to the Eastern Province, pursuing those believed to be linked to Zahran Hashim and his network. In Sainthamaruthu, as a security cordon tightened, members of Zahran’s family—including women and children—detonated explosives, killing themselves as forces closed in.

The official position was unequivocal: the cell was annihilated; there were no survivors; there would be no witnesses.

That position rests heavily on forensic conclusions. And it is precisely there that the narrative begins to strain.

The DNA That Would Not Settle

Following the Sainthamaruthu explosions, a comprehensive DNA analysis was conducted on recovered human remains. By official accounts, the exercise was extensive and conclusive. The remains were said to correspond to twelve individuals, among them Sarah Jasmin, Zahran Hashim’s wife—someone who, had she survived, could have been a significant witness to the internal workings of the terror network.

Years later—two to three by most accounts—the Judicial Medical Officer was asked to test another DNA sample, reportedly to confirm whether it belonged to Sarah Jasmin.

The results were unambiguous. Twice, the DNA did not match.

Then came a third test.
This time, astonishingly, the result was positive.

No public explanation followed. No technical clarification. No disclosure of what changed between the second and third tests.

This is not how forensic certainty is meant to function.

DNA analysis does not evolve with narrative convenience. While contamination, degradation, or mislabelling are known risks, each requires transparent explanation. Absent that, confidence erodes—not only in this conclusion, but in the integrity of the investigative process as a whole.

Questions That Remain Legitimate

At a minimum, the public is entitled to answers to the following:
Were the same samples used in all three tests?
Were different laboratories involved?
Who authorised the retesting years after the initial conclusions?
What procedural or scientific basis justified reopening the determination? Were any investigative outcomes revised as a result?

These are not hostile questions. They are necessary ones.

Why This Matters

Sarah Jasmin matters not because of who she was married to, but because of what she may have known. Living inside the ecosystem of radicalisation, logistics, financing, and external contact, she represented

Continued in page : 3

something the state has consistently lacked since Easter: a living witness

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Issue

This DNA contradiction sits alongside a broader, well- documented pattern:
Intelligence warnings that were received but not acted upon.

Responsibility that has remained diffused rather than fixed.
Senior officials questioned rhetorically but not prosecuted.

Findings of commissions that have not translated into indictments.

The public has been told repeatedly that Easter is “complex,” ( previously the same terminology was used regarding the alleged bond scam) that accountability takes time, and that national security considerations require caution. None of that explains forensic contradiction—or prolonged investigative inertia. For example Prageeth Ekneligoda has been missing for so long, investigators know what happened but for whatever reason charges have not been made. Perhaps the murderers were so professional that they carried out the perfect crime. Then lets have honesty – make a statement say sorry but we can’t do anymore and bring limited closure. But no, they carry on, giving family hope where hope was extinguished a very long time ago.

The Question Rarely Asked Publicly

There is another issue, discussed quietly and cautiously in private: the possibility that elements of the investigation are being oriented toward connecting dots that lead to a particular individual, not because the evidence inevitably points there, but because such a conclusion offers political utility.

This is not an allegation of fabrication. It is a question about direction.

In complex investigations, choices matter: which leads are pursued, which are deprioritised, and which are allowed to fade. Once a theory acquires institutional momentum, contradictory facts can begin to look like obstacles rather than signals.

What makes this possibility perplexing is the political context.

This government enjoys a resounding parliamentary mandate. It does not face an existential electoral threat. It does not require a symbolic villain to consolidate authority.

If anything, it has the political capital to pursue truth without fear.

From Dismissal to Drift

It is worth recalling that post the election campaign, President Gothabya Rajapaksa publicly dismissed the Channel 4 documentary on Easter as “absurd… a tissue of lies.”

That was his right.

What is now becoming difficult to defend, however, is not skepticism toward a documentary—but the pace, direction, and intensity of the state’s own investigation into what remains Sri Lanka’s most significant peacetime act of terror.

An investigation confident of its footing does not drift. It does not contradict itself silently. And it does not leave forensic anomalies unexplained.

Closure Versus Truth

There is a difference between closure and truth.

Closure is administratively convenient. It allows institutions to move on, files to be closed, and narratives to stabilise. Truth, by contrast, is disruptive. It reopens chains of responsibility. It implicates systems, not just individuals.

If the objective has shifted—subtly—from truth to usable closure, the cost will be lasting mistrust.

The State’s Obligation

This is not about relitigating tragedy. It is about safeguarding credibility.

A state that demands public trust must be willing to explain its own contradictions—especially when they arise in a case of this magnitude.

That requires:
A full forensic chronology of the DNA testing.
A technical explanation for the discrepancy in results. Disclosure of who authorised retesting and on what legal basis.
Clarification of whether investigative conclusions were altered.

Silence is no longer neutral. It is a position.

An Unfinished Reckoning

Easter is not history. It is unfinished business.

When DNA appears to change its mind, the country deserves to know why.
When witnesses vanish into forensic certainty, scrutiny must increase—not recede.

And when questions persist seven years on, investigation is no longer optional.

The Easter bombings must be fully investigated as a priority—not ceremonially remembered, not administratively managed, and not politically channelled.

No majority, however large, can outrun that truth.

Faraz Shauketaly
NEWSLINE – The Daily by Faraz – “Questioning The Answers”.