150th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 05th March 2026|
Venue: Special Trial-at-Bar, Colombo 07
On this day, the voir dire inquiry to examine the voluntariness of the confession given by the 4th accused under Section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary provisions) Act (PTA) continued.
The fourth accused was cross-examined regarding the fact that he had gone to Turkey. During the cross-examination, he stated that he had gone to that country to study a basic course in the Turkish language and that the need to learn Turkish arose because he thought to apply for a scholarship to pursue his degree in Turkey and that if he could speak Turkish, his chances of getting selected for the scholarship would increase. However, he further stated that he failed to complete his Turkish language studies properly. He studied Turkish at the University of Tomer.
During the cross-examination, he further stated that he had completed a Higher Diploma in Business Management at NIBM between 2009 and 2011 and had hopes to pursue a degree, but did not have the financial means to do so, so he decided to obtain a scholarship.
He also mentioned that he then began studying for a degree in Business management at the ICBT in Sri Lanka in 2016.
The fourth accused was also questioned about the period of his stay in Turkey. He stated that he had stayed in the country for four months and that he was unable to attend the relevant language course in the first two months due to the delay in obtaining the relevant visa. He further stated that Turkey is a country with a historical Islamic religion and that Muslims are welcomed and treated well. He also mentioned that his family (father, uncle) provided the money to go to Turkey.
During the cross-examination of the fourth accused, it was stated that he had taught mathematics and science to those who were doing the Ordinary Level exam and had given extra classes at the school in the evenings. Also, when cross-examined on whether he ever had a job, he stated that after completing his Higher Diploma in Business Management, he worked
(training) at Rainco and after completing his training there, he did private classes and later he had his own farm. He also stated that while he was teaching voluntarily, he was paid an allowance by the school development society.
He was also asked during the cross-examination that whether he was a member of any association during his school days. In response, he stated that he was a member of the Rural Development Association and Sports Club. He further stated that he also worked in the Sri Lanka Jamaat -e- Islami organisation. He was also cross-examined about the type of work done by him at the Sri Lanka Jamaat-e-Islami organisation. In response, he stated that mostly the social service activities were organized by this organisation. It was also asked during the cross-examination whether the Sri Lanka Jamaat-e-Islami organisation had student associations, to which he stated that he did not know exactly what those associations were. It was further asked during the cross-examination whether the Sri Lanka Islamic Students Association (Jamiya) was affiliated with the association. He stated that there was an association of maulavis in Sri Lanka called Jamiya and that he had no knowledge of that association.
The fourth defendant further stated that he was married and that he got married after returning from Turkey. During cross-examination, it was further asked whether the 4th Accused continued to work with the Sri Lanka Jamaat-e-Islami organization after marriage. In response, he stated that he had been involved and helped during the flood disaster that occurred in the year 2016 and that he had participated in the Iftar ceremonies during Ramadan and that the Iftar ceremony is held every year.
He further stated that he did not join or work for that organization and was a participant in programs organized by that organization.
The Prosecution asked during the cross-examination whether the 4th accused was removed from the Sri Lanka Jamaat-e-Islami organization. In response, the accused stated that religious organizations do not add or remove individuals and he was not added or removed.
The prosecution suggested that the fourth accused had traveled to Turkey in 2014 with the intention of crossing the border into Syria, but this was denied by the accused.
The prosecution asked in cross-examination whether the fourth accused had any previous criminal charges. In response, he stated that there was a case against him in the Kegalle High Court where he was sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended for seven years.
During the cross-examination, the fourth accused further stated that Mr. Prasanna Alwis had stated that if he does not give a statement to the Magistrate, his sister would be arrested. He also stated that he would also arrest fourth accused’s brother. He further stated that they were arrested and released. He also stated that Mr. Prasanna Alwis had forced him to go to court and make a statement before the magistrate and that since he did not do so, they had made a statement under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary) Act. He further stated that he did not state that he wanted to give a statement to a higher-ranking police officer.
In cross-examination, the prosecution made several further suggestions. One was that on 2020/09/08, the accused told police Sergeant Namal Bandara that he wanted to meet a higher officer. In response, the accused stated that he did not. It was further suggested that the accused was summoned to Kavinda Piyasekara’s room since the above request was made by the accused and also suggested that the fourth accused had stated that he wanted to give a statement to Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara to free his mind on 14/09/2020. Also suggested, at that time, Kavinda Piyasekara instructed about Section 16 of the PTA. It was also suggested that it was asked whether the evidence was being made under any inducement under Section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance, and also suggested that he had been recalled on 23/09/202 after being given time to reconsider whether he would give a statement. The prosecution also suggested that on 23/09/2020, the 4th Accused told Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara that he needed to give a statement, and on that day, Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara also explained Section 16 of the PTA. It was further suggested that after being presented to the Judicial medical officer (JMO) on 10/4/2020, the accused was asked whether he needed an interpreter and that on 10/04/2020, this statement was given to Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara in the presence of Police Constable 786 Bandara. It was also suggested that the statement was recorded on the laptop computer of Police Constable 786 Bandara. It was also suggested that the confession, which has already been marked temporarily, was given voluntarily and was read carefully and signed by the accused. All of these were denied by the 4th accused.
After the cross-examination was completed, the re-examination began. However, since the 4th Accused was not represented by a lawyer, he began to mention the points that should be mentioned during the re-examination. He also stated that he was asked during the cross-examination why he did not mention the toothache when he went to the JMO. He stated that he thought that he would be taken to the dentist after meeting the JMO because he was not informed that he would be taken to the JMO on that day. However, he stated that he was not taken to the dentist on that day.
He also stated that during the cross-examination, he was asked about his knowledge of the Sinhala language. Accordingly, he stated that he could not say that he did not know the Sinhala language at all, and that he had learned Sinhala as a second language for the Ordinary Level examination and passed. The 4th accused further stated that during the cross-examination he was asked about the provision of the list of evidence in Sinhala. He stated that the list of evidence was written in Sinhala by his younger brother and that he did not know whether what he said was correctly translated into Sinhala.
The accused also stated that he was asked during cross-examination about a word mentioned in the statement he made at the Gampola Court; however, he stated that only he knows in what sense he gave that statement and that there may be some mistakes in the statement he made due to his limited knowledge of Sinhala and poor pronunciation. He also stated that in some cases, if something was pronounced incorrectly, there may have been instances where it was corrected and recorded. He also stated that since he did not give a statement, his wife was detained, and he made a statement at the Gampola Court because his wife was detained. He further stated that he gave the statement he gave in Gampola without the assistance of a lawyer. He also stated that he made the statement in a context where he could not understand whether what he was saying in Sinhala was mistranslated at the time of giving it. He stated that he did not object to the marking of the statements given by him at the Gampola Court when it was marked by the prosecution in this case, because it further confirms that he did not make a statement under Section 16(1) of the PTA.
After further questioning, the court inquired about the other witnesses to be called by the accused. At that time, the accused stated that if the prosecution admitted the journal entries related to two cases in the Gampola Magistrate’s Court and the Mawanella Magistrate’s Court, there is no need to call any other witnesses. After considering all the facts, the prosecution agreed to accept (admit). Accordingly, it was decided that it was not necessary to call any further witnesses on behalf of the 4th accused. However, the prosecution holds the right to prove the contradiction marked as E2. Accordingly, the case of the 4th accused was concluded with the evidence of the 4th accused in relation to the interim investigation (voir dire), marking the documents as 4VD1, 4VD2 and 4VD3.
The fourth accused made a request to forward his signature to the analyst, and the court stated that it would make an order in this regard at an appropriate time, whether to allow the request. The court further stated that it would make the relevant order by showing the relevant legal facts.
Thereafter, the prosecution sought permission to call other witnesses regarding the E1 document (confession). Accordingly, the witness who is the 16th witness in the list of additional witnesses filed on 29.01.2026 and the witness who is the 1984 witness in the indictment, Police Constable 786 Bandara, was called to testify. This witness, while giving his initial evidence, stated that he joined the Police Department on 29.07. 2007 and has been working in the Criminal Investigation Department since 2017. He further stated that he currently holds the rank of Police Sergeant and was promoted to that position on 28.08.2020. He stated in response to the questions asked by the prosecution that he typed a statement relevant to this case and that it was made in the office of Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara of the Criminal Investigation Department. He also stated that he went to the official room after being informed by an internal telephone at his workplace to come to that room. He further stated that after being informed, he went to the official room with the laptop used for official purposes, and when he went to the room, he saw Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara and a suspect involved in the Easter attacks. When he was asked about the suspect’s appearance, he stated that the suspect was a thin man with a beard and that he did not have any special identifying features. After entering the relevant official room, he stated that there were two chairs in front of the place where Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara was sitting and that the suspect was sitting on one of the chairs and he sat on the other chair. He further stated that at that time, Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara stated that the statement given by the 4th accused could be used against the 4th accused in court proceedings, and that Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara asked the accused to reconsider giving the statement. Still, the accused had replied that he did not mind. Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara also asked whether the accused was given this statement under any influence, and accordingly, he stated that the suspect had voluntarily confessed under the PTA. He also stated that the accused gave his answers to Mr. Kavinda Piyasekara in Sinhala, and that he further stated that the statement he received and typed was that of Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim Sadiq Abdullah.
The witness stated that at that time, the 4th accused was asked if he needed an interpreter and that the suspect stated that he did not need an interpreter at that time. He also stated that the witness had not participated in any other investigations related to the easter attacks. It was stated that the typing was done in Sinhala and that the accused had the opportunity to look at the computer while typing. He stated that the accused checked it in such a way that the facts were not recorded incorrectly and it was stated that this statement was taken for about two and a half hours. He further stated that the statement was read by the accused while it was on the laptop. It was stated that the accused read the statement and corrected the errors. It was stated that after the suspect stated that the relevant statement was correct, it was printed, then it was read to him again, and after reading it, the accused signed it. When asked whether the witness was able to identify the accused, the witness first identified the 5th accused as the accused who gave the relevant statement. Initially, the witness did not identify the 4th accused, and later, after showed by the 5th accused his number, the witness pointed out that the 4th accused as who gave the statement. On 29.01.2026, witness number three in the additional evidence list and witness number 1980 in the indictment, police sergeant 38640 Namal Bandara was summoned to appear in court on the following day.
Further trial will be held on 6th March 2026 at 10am.
