Date: 19th August 2026
Case No: HC (TAB) 2972/21
Court: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar)
Venue: Special Permanent Three-Judge High Court (Trial-at-Bar), 2nd Floor, MCC Building, Adhikarana Mawatha, Colombo 12.
All the accused, except the 17th accused who has passed away, were present today. The 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 18th, 19th and 20th to 25th accused were represented and the others appeared in person.
The defence trial continued today and the 15th, 13th, 3rd, 16th 11th and 4th accused made their dock statements.
The 15th accused denied all charges against him and said there was significant hatred and discrimination against Muslims at the relevant period, which he attributed to statements and activities of persons including Namal Kumara, Dan Priyasad, Amith Weerasinha and Gnanasara Thero. He referred to allegations concerning Dr. Safi, attacks on mosques, the Digana incident, and other anti-Muslim sentiments. He stated that his restaurant was also affected by this hostility and that a social-media campaign had urged people not to patronise it. He stated that he attended religious programmes where Saharan Maulavi, Riswi and others discussed difficulties faced by Muslims. He maintained that these were religious programmes and that discussions concerning bomb attacks did not take place. He described he thought Saharan as a good person but denied any involvement in terrorist activities. He challenged the evidence of Anas, particularly the evidence concerning the name “Abu Hina” and the Nuwara Eliya -Shanthipura programme. He stated that the programme lasted two days, that he attended only on the second day, and that police had in fact attended and taken identity cards from those present. He stated that this could be established through telephone tower records. The 15th accused further alleged that his Section 127 statement was obtained under pressure and contained both truth and falsehood because he was instructed by the CID as to what he should say. He stated that he was arrested on 28 April 2019, taken to the CID on 29 April, and that his restaurant subsequently had to close. He also referred to the death of his youngest daughter and the arrest of his two sons. He alleged that officers threatened him and his family and pressured him to give evidence.
The 13th accused denied all charges against him and stated that his name had been referred to in the Section 127 statement of the 11th accused and the statement related to the 12th accused. He categorically denied ever attending Saharan’s lectures at Malwana or having any conspiracy or connection with Saharan. He described his educational and employment background, including an ICT diploma, employment at a computer software company and subsequent employment in Qatar. He stated that he was arrested on 26 April 2019, assaulted by officers, and taken to the TID on 27 April 2019. He alleged that his two phones, laptop and pen drives were taken into custody and that he was assaulted when officers questioned the use of a keells nexes card found among his belongings. He further alleged that he was denied necessary medication despite suffering from medical difficulties and that he suffered epileptic attacks while in custody. He claimed that he was assaulted using PVC pipes and brooms and that his family was threatened. He referred to proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court and stated that the TID had at one stage sought his release because there was no direct or indirect connection between him and the attacks. He further stated that analysis of his phones and laptop did not reveal evidence connecting him to the attacks. He denied participating in weapons training or extremist programmes and stated that there was no DNA, fingerprint or witness evidence connecting him to such activities. He also denied being known as “Abu Mohammed” and challenged the basis upon which that name had been attributed to him. He stated that he was now unable to walk without crutches due to torture at TID and concluded by requesting that he be acquitted of all charges.
The 3rd accused first mentioned about his request that the name “Abushila” appearing before his name in the indictment be removed. He explained his educational and employment background, including his work as a Laboratory Technical Officer, his employment in Qatar, his marriage in 2016 and his subsequent establishment of a quail farm. He stated that on 17 April 2019, his wife and her parents went on a pilgrimage. Following the Easter Sunday attacks, he was arrested by Saudi authorities and detained for approximately 40 days. He alleged that a Sri Lankan CID officer and translator threatened him that his family would be arrested if he did not accept the allegations against him. After being brought to Sri Lanka on 16 June 2019, he alleged that he was assaulted by CID officers and pressured to give a statement. He stated that he remained in CID custody for approximately one and a half years before being remanded at the Batticaloa Prison. He denied allegations that he participated in weapons training, extremist programmes or activities related to the purchase of explosives. He acknowledged knowing Saharan and his brother Rilwan because they were from the same village and stated that Rilwan had attended the same school as him. However, he denied having a close relationship with Saharan. He challenged the evidence concerning the alleged programmes at Rambewa, Malwana, Nuwara Eliya and Hambantota, stating that there was no witness who had seen him participating in weapons training or extremist activities. He also challenged the evidence concerning the names “Abushila” and “Milhan”, stating that the statements of Anas did not contain those names in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Regarding the DNA evidence, he acknowledged that his DNA had matched a toothbrush recovered from Janapada Mawatha. However, he argued that DNA evidence could not establish when or where the DNA had been deposited. He suggested that the toothbrush could have been mistakenly taken to the premises because he had previously stayed at Rilwan’s house. He emphasised that no explosives, weapons, extremist literature or other incriminating materials had been recovered from his possession and maintained that the case against him was politically influenced.
The 16th accused stated that, before his arrest, he was staying at home because his child was due to be born in 2019. He was arrested on 1 May 2019. He alleged that he was severely assaulted by CID officers and remained in CID custody for approximately one year. He denied having any connection with the 1st to 9th accused and stated that no illegal item had been recovered from his possession. He maintained that he had remained in prison for more than seven years without committing any offence and categorically denied any connection with the Easter Sunday attacks. He therefore requested the Court to acquit him of all charges.
The 11th accused stated that he was arrested on 27 April 2019. Referring to the evidence of PW-1401 Jaufer Sadiq, he stated that he had been promised that, if he give a Section 127 statement to the Magistrate, he would be released and made a Government witness. He acknowledged that he knew Saharan, but stated that he did not know Saharan as a terrorist. He stated that Saharan had purchased a motorcycle for him. He argued that, if he had known that Saharan was involved in terrorism, he would not have provided his personal details in connection with the motorcycle purchase because he would have feared being associated with him. The 11th accused further addressed the allegation that he had assisted in purchasing washing-machine circuits and laboratory equipment allegedly required for the manufacture or repair of bombs. He categorically denied this allegation and stated that there was no recovery of such items from him and no evidence establishing that he had purchased or assisted in purchasing them. He further pointed out that there were no bills, receipts, book entries or other documentary evidence showing that he had purchased such items from any particular shop. He also stated that none of the relevant shop owners or employees had identified him as the person who had visited the shops or purchased such equipment. Accordingly, he maintained that the allegation was unsupported by evidence and requested the Court to acquit him of all charges contained in the indictment. He also denied the allegation that he has assisted to rent the safe houses. He claimed that it was CID who trained the witness to say so. Accordingly, he challenged the credibility and reliability of the witness’s evidence and maintained that there was no independent evidence establishing his involvement in renting or arranging safe houses. The 11th accused further addressed the allegations that he had assisted in purchasing washing-machine circuits and laboratory equipment allegedly required for the manufacture of bombs and that he had assisted in renting safe houses. He categorically denied both allegations and stated that there was no recovery of such equipment from him and no evidence establishing that he had purchased or assisted in purchasing those items. He further pointed out that there were no bills, receipts, book entries or other documentary evidence showing that he had purchased such items from any particular shop, and that none of the relevant shop owners or employees had identified him as the person who had visited the shops or purchased the equipment. Accordingly, he challenged the credibility and reliability of the evidence related to both allegations and maintained that there was insufficient independent evidence connecting him to either the purchase of the alleged equipment or the renting of safe houses. He therefore requested the Court to acquit him of all charges against him.
The 4th accused began his dock statement by explaining his educational and professional background. He stated that he completed his Advanced Levels in the Arts stream, studied Combined Mathematics, obtained a Business Management degree from ICBT and a Business Management Diploma from NIBM. He also conducted Mathematics and Science classes, worked as a volunteer and disciplinary teacher, and engaged in various small businesses. He stated that Charges 4 and 11 were specifically applicable to him, while the remaining charges were common charges. He denied being known by the name “Abu Umar”. He then analysed the evidence of Anas, Jaufer Sadiq and Munishif, identifying what he submitted were several contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence. He relied on these contradictions to challenge the reliability of the prosecution case against him. The Court thereafter adjourned the proceedings, and the continuation of the 4th accused’s dock statement was fixed for the following day (20/08/2026) at 9.30 a.m.
