Deputy Solicitor General Says Petitioner Has Not Come Before Court With ‘Clean Hands’
The State on Monday urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss, at the threshold, the writ petition filed by former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Director Major General (Retd.) Suresh Salley, arguing that the petitioner had failed to come before court with “clean hands” and had sought to mislead both investigators and the judiciary.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petition should be rejected without even notice being issued, contending that Salley’s application was fundamentally defective and that there was no legal basis for the relief sought.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
Salley has petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking to prevent his arrest and detention in connection with the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) ongoing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
The matter came before a bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando. A significant portion of the State’s submissions focused on attempts by the petitioner to remove CID Director Shani Abeysekara from the investigation.
Herath told court that over several hearings, Salley’s principal argument had consistently been that Abeysekara should not be permitted to supervise the inquiry. She submitted that there was no legal or factual basis for such a request.
The Deputy Solicitor General noted that two other suspects connected to the same investigation remain in remand custody and that their cases are also being investigated under the supervision of the CID Director. Removing one investigation from the Director’s oversight, she argued, would therefore be entirely inconsistent.
She further submitted that Salley’s allegation of personal animosity on the part of Abeysekara had already been considered and rejected by the Magistrate’s Court.
Tracing the history of the investigation, Herath told the Court of Appeal that the original complaint had been lodged by Rev. Fr. Rohan Silva with the Ministry of Public Security before being referred through the Inspector General of Police to the CID. The first B Report, she noted, was filed on 11 November 2024, at a time when Abeysekara was neither serving in the CID nor in active police service.
The Deputy Solicitor General also pointed out that overseas travel restrictions obtained against Salley and former State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, widely known as Pillayan, had been secured under the tenure of former CID Director Mangala Dehideniya, while subsequent investigations had continued under another CID Director, Himesha Muthumali.
“This is a serious investigation,” Herath submitted. “If the CID is not to investigate it, should it be investigated by the Pettah Police?” The State also challenged the accuracy of information provided by Salley concerning his overseas movements in 2019.
Herath submitted that Salley had informed investigators and the court that he travelled to India on 3 January 2019 to attend a defence course and remained there until December that year. However, immigration endorsements contained in his official passport, according to the State, indicated that he had departed India during that period before subsequently re-entering the country.
The Deputy Solicitor General further questioned the petitioner’s handling of his diplomatic passport.
She told court that Salley had informed CID investigators that, upon returning from his diplomatic posting in Malaysia, he had surrendered the passport to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yet, she argued, he had subsequently produced a certified copy of the same passport before court.
Herath also noted that only selected pages of both the diplomatic and official passports had been annexed to the petition rather than complete copies of the travel documents. When counsel for Salley later sought to produce the diplomatic passport in court, the State objected.
Herath submitted that the petitioner could not simultaneously maintain that the passport had been surrendered while relying upon it in support of his application. She argued that the circumstances demonstrated that Salley had failed in his duty of full and frank disclosure and therefore had not approached the Court with clean hands.
The Deputy Solicitor General also referred to a statement given by former Deputy Inspector General of the CID Prasad Ranasinghe concerning the Easter Sunday investigation.
According to the State’s submissions, the former DIG had alleged that Salley repeatedly asserted during investigative review meetings that Sarah Jasmine, believed to have been associated with the Easter Sunday network, had died during the Sainthamaruthu explosion and criticised the CID for pursuing further inquiries into reports that she may have survived.
Herath submitted that Ranasinghe’s statement, which forms part of a B Report filed before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court on 11 March 2026, alleges that Salley pressed for further DNA testing through presidential intervention in an effort to reinforce that position.
Meanwhile, Attorney-at-Law Suren D. Perera, appearing for Rev. Fr. Rohan Silva, raised a separate issue concerning material relied upon by the petitioner.
Perera submitted that what had been tendered as the Janak De Alwis Commission Report had never been officially published by the State. He argued that the document placed before the Court was merely a photocopy of a report previously circulated publicly and that its production failed to comply with the procedural requirements governing proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal President Justice Abeysuriya directed counsel for the petitioner to address that issue at the next hearing. The writ application has been fixed for further hearing today, when counsel for Salley is expected to respond to the State’s objections and the issues raised regarding the documentary material relied upon in support of the petition.
