Shenali D Waduge The reported move by the Criminal Investigation Department Sri Lanka to obtain a statement from Asad Maulana living overseas since 2022, in connection with allegations involving Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay, raises several questions. Media reports indicate that the CID’s actions are linked to a complaint filed by Father Rohan based on claims made by Asad […]
The reported move by the Criminal Investigation Department Sri Lanka to obtain a statement from Asad Maulana living overseas since 2022, in connection with allegations involving Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay, raises several questions.
Media reports indicate that the CID’s actions are linked to a complaint filed by Father Rohan based on claims made by Asad Maulana in the Channel 4 Sri Lanka’s Easter Bombings: Dispatches.
On what legal and procedural basis is public funds being used for investigative officers to travel overseas without exhausting domestic mechanisms first?
Let us make clear that a witness who has made detailed public allegations in a fixed forum cannot freely alter those statements without undermining their own credibility.
Asad Maulana’s September 2023 testimony is not private or informal.
Once placed in the public domain, such statements become:
Asad Maulana cannot materially revise or contradict claims made in 2023. While all claims require to be independently corroborated.
Under the Evidence Ordinance (Sri Lanka), prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness in judicial proceedings.
Furthermore – where a witness provides detailed, time-specific allegations in a public forum, any subsequent material deviation from those claims must be explained and supported by objective evidence.
Accordingly, while investigative authorities may record supplementary statements, such statements cannot be selectively revised in a manner that undermines earlier sworn or publicly recorded narratives without affecting its credibility.
Publicly broadcast allegations do not, by themselves, substitute for judicially tested evidence in a court of law.
The burden of proof rests on the party making the allegation.
Serious allegations of this magnitude require more than assertions or media hype.
If materially contradicted by objective evidence or judicial findings, such statements may become vulnerable to challenge during cross-examination for reliability & credibility.
This raises the question – Is Asad a whistleblower or an accomplice given his role as facilitator and participant. If so he is liable under criminal law as an accomplice.
Untested one-sided allegations made in public or media platforms, if inaccurate or materially misleading may also expose Asad to legal consequences including defamation – given his allegation by name without judicial determination.
If Maulana possessed knowledge of a mass-casualty attack in advance, why did he not alert any authority, and how should such silence be interpreted?
All claims must be evaluated against the findings of prior investigations, international investigations, law enforcement inquiries & commissions which clearly determined operational negligence & lack of communications across the security apparatus.
Several inconsistencies arise when the claims are assessed against known facts:
If Zahran Hashim and Sallay were already known to each other (as suggested in the 2021 zoom by Fr. Cyril Gamini), there was no requirement for Maulana to function as an intermediary to introduce Sallay to Zaharan, yet the Cardinal immediately congratulated the C4 documentary with a 3 page letter.
Sallay’s location at the time is contested.
He was overseas. This can be verified through:
If the alleged meeting occurred in February 2018:
This raises a fundamental question:
What CID must first establish is whether claims made by Maulana is based on
This raises a critical legal contradiction:
Delayed disclosure of critical information may affect reliability, particularly where contemporaneous reporting would have been reasonably expected.
Even if the CID records a statement abroad:
An overseas statement cannot independently establish guilt or conspiracy even if used as negative publicity against the accused.
The case ultimately turns on verifiable questions:
These are not political questions—they test the authenticity of the claims.
The Easter Sunday tragedy demands rigorous truth-seeking, not narrative reconstruction.
Maulana’s 2023 testimony now forms a fixed public record.
It cannot be casually revised without consequence.
The central legal test is not whether an allegation is repeated, but whether it is independently corroborated, consistent, and capable of withstanding cross-examination in a court of law.
Allegations of this magnitude must stand on evidence, not assertion—and evidence must survive contradiction, not depend on repetition.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site. All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 6th, 2026. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Copyright © 2026 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress
Loading comments…