176th Day of the Main Easter Attack Trial – HC (TAB) 2972/21
Date: 27th April 2026|
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
The matter was taken up before the Trial-at-Bar. All accused were present, except the 17th accused, who had passed away. The 12th and 13th accused were represented by a counsel.
In relation to the voir dire inquiry of the 9th accused, Witness No. 2073, retired ASP Nihal Jayathilake, appeared before the Court to testify regarding a statement allegedly made to him on 8th October 2020 by the 9th accused, under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979, (PTA) while the witness was serving as an Assistant Superintendent of Police attached to the Criminal Investigation Department.
Accordingly, Witness No. 2073 testified before the Court that on 5th October 2020 he received a letter from the Officer-in-Charge of the Criminal Investigation Department informing him that the 9th accused, who was being detained on the fourth floor of the CID, wished to make a statement before a senior officer, and requesting him to take necessary action and report progress. The Prosecution informed the Court that this letter dated 5th October 2020 had been marked as P78 in the case bearing No. HC TAB 107/21 before the Puttalam Trial-at-Bar, and with leave of Court it was marked as P186 in the present case.
The witness No. 2073 further testified that at approximately 14:30 hours on 5th October 2020, the 9th accused was brought to his office, and at that time the accused informed him that after joining an organization with Zahran he had gone astray, causing great distress to his family and the Muslim community, and that he wished to make a statement disclosing all that he knew. The witness testified that he explained to the accused the implications of making a statement under Section 16(1) of the PTA, observed that the accused was in a sound physical and mental condition, and nevertheless afforded him time to reconsider his decision to make such a statement.
The Witness No. 2073 further testified that he again brought the 9th accused to his official chamber on 7th October 2020, at which time the accused reiterated his intention to make a statement under Section 16(1) of the PTA, and that even on that day he advised the accused to further reflect on the decision to make such a statement. The witness No. 2073 testified that on 8th October 2020, after producing the accused before a Judicial Medical Officer under Medico-Legal Examination Form (MLEF) No. 131/20, the accused was brought to his office, where the statement given by the accused was typed in his official chamber.
At this stage, the Prosecution informed Court that the MLEF No. 131/20 had been marked as P79 in the Puttalam Trial-at-Bar case bearing number HC TAB 107/21, and with leave of Court it was marked as P187 in the present case. The Prosecution further sought to mark the statement allegedly made by the 9th accused on 8th October 2020 before Assistant Superintendent of Police Nihal Jayathilake under Section 16(1) of the PTA, which had been marked as P80 in the said Puttalam case, as P188 in the present case.
At that point, the 9th accused objected to the marking of the said document, contending that it was inconsistent with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, that he had never made any such statement before Assistant Superintendent of Police Nihal Jayathilake, and that the document was inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance. On these three grounds, he opposed the marking of the document as P188. In response, Court observed that it was necessary to conduct a voir dire inquiry to determine the voluntariness of the alleged statement said to have been made by the 9th accused on 8th October 2020 under Section 16(1) of the PTA. Accordingly, the three-page document containing the said statement was marked provisionally as L01 with the leave of Court.
Following the conclusion of the examination-in-chief, the testimony of Witness No. 2073 was translated into Tamil for all accused in terms of Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, after which the 9th accused proceeded to cross-examine the witness, suggesting that the witness had given false evidence before Court, that the letter dated 5th October 2020 was a fabricated document prepared jointly by the witness and the Officer-in-Charge of the CID, that the accused had never been brought to the witness’s office on that date, and that it was implausible for a suspect who had been under detention orders for approximately one and a half years and nearing the end of such detention to voluntarily seek to make a statement before a senior officer in order to unburden himself.
The matter was fixed to be called again on 28th April 2026 at 10.00 a.m. for further trial.
