The entire Channel 4 conspiracy narrative surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks rests fundamentally on one alleged event — a purported February 2018 meeting between Suresh Sallay and Zaharan Hashim.
If that meeting cannot be independently verified through objective evidence, then every subsequent allegation built upon it rests primarily on delayed recollection rather than independently established fact.
Given the gravity of the accusations — including allegations of state complicity in terrorism and mass murder — the evidentiary threshold required must necessarily be exceptionally high.
THE ALLEGED FEBRUARY 2018 MEETING QUESTIONS RELATING TO ACTION TAKEN BY AUTHORITIES ON ASAD MAULANA’S CLAIMS
• What was the action taken by authorities when Asad Maulana made the initial allegation in September 2023
• Can authorities corroborate Maulana’s claims with below evidence to justify Presidential Detention Order/ Extension and CID arrest?
The following questions therefore arise.
A. VERIFICATION OF SURESH SALLAY’S PRESENCE IN SRI LANKA
Yes or No
1. Was Sallay officially on a diplomatic assignment overseas in February 2018
2. Is there immigration records proving Sallay entered Sri Lanka during February 2018
3. Are there passport records confirming travel and travel agent details issuing ticket to travel
4. Are there airline manifests confirming arrival & departure / boarding pass etc
5. Are there record of official leave requested to travel to Sri Lanka
6. Are there record of official leave granted to travel to Sri Lanka
7. Are there airport CCTV records confirming arrival/departure
8. Did immigration systems record entry under diplomatic clearance
B. VERIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS
Yes or No
1. Are there call records between Sallay and Maulana across during the relevant period either in Sri Lanka or from overseas?
2. Are there encrypted messaging records between alleged participants?
3. Are there WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, or SMS records supporting the allegations?
4. Were communication devices forensically examined?
5. Were deleted communications recovered?
6. Were international roaming records examined?
7. Were metadata records independently verified?
· Has any telecom provider authenticated the alleged Easter Sunday call?
· Has any judicial or forensic authority independently authenticated these communications?
· Are there intercepted intelligence communications or surveillance transcripts produced to support the allegations?
C. VERIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MEETING LOCATION
Yes or No
1. Did the alleged meeting venue physically exist in February 2018
2. Are there municipality approvals / construction records to confirm house existed in February 2018
3. Does satellite imagery confirm structure existed during the relevant period
4. Does the caretaker or nearby residents confirm such a meeting
5. Are there neighboring properties with witnesses who saw unusual visitors as training was also conducted at this estate
6. Was the alleged estate under surveillance by any state authority at the time
7. Did any local police station record any unusual movements at this venue?
8. Were fingerprints / DNA collected from the alleged venue
D. VERIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP OF ESTATE
1. Who legally owned the Karadipuval coconut estate in February 2018?
2. Are there land registry records confirming ownership?
3. Who was residing at or managing the estate during the relevant period?
4. Did the owner or caretaker confirm the alleged meeting took place?
5. Was the estate leased, rented, or informally occupied by any person linked to NTJ or Zaharan?
6. Were payments made for use of the property and can these be traced?
7. Did investigators record statements from the owner, caretaker, laborers, or neighboring residents?
8. Was the owner questioned regarding unusual visitors, vehicles, or activities?
9. Did authorities establish who had access to the estate at the relevant time?
10. Were any links established between the estate owner and alleged participants?
11. Was the estate previously known to intelligence or law enforcement agencies?
12. If the estate later became linked to explosives or training activities, when exactly did such activities begin?
13. Is there evidence the estate was being used for militant activity as early as February 2018?
14. Were utility records (electricity, water, phone usage) examined to determine occupancy during the relevant period?
15. Were there any financial or property transactions connected to the estate before or after the attacks?
If the ownership, occupancy, operational use, and physical existence of the alleged meeting venue itself cannot be independently established, the credibility of the alleged February 2018 meeting becomes fundamentally weakened.
E. VERIFICATION OF MAULANA’S ARRIVAL AT THE ESTATE
Yes or No
1. Has Maulana provided any evidence showing he travelled to the estate on the alleged date?
2. What mode of transport did Maulana allegedly use to reach the estate?
3. Did he travel alone or with others?
4. Are there fuel receipts, toll records, transport tickets, or travel logs supporting his journey?
5. Is there mobile phone location data placing Maulana at the estate?
6. Are there telecom tower records confirming his device presence in the area?
7. Were Maulana’s devices forensically examined to verify his movements?
8. Did Maulana communicate with Pillayan, Zaharan, or Sallay immediately before or after the alleged meeting?
9. Are there call records or message logs supporting coordination of the alleged meeting?
10. Are there independent witnesses confirming Maulana arrived at the estate?
11. Did Maulana inform anyone that he was attending such a meeting?
12. Was Maulana’s financial activity during the relevant period examined for travel-related expenditure?
13. Did investigators reconstruct Maulana’s movements for the alleged date?
14. If no objective evidence exists placing Maulana at the estate, upon what basis is the allegation being treated as credible?
15. Did investigators reconstruct Maulana’s movements for the alleged date?
16. Did Maulana provide investigators with the precise date, time, route, and duration of the alleged journey?
If even Maulana’s own presence at the alleged meeting cannot be independently established through objective evidence, the foundation of the entire allegation becomes increasingly dependent upon unverified retrospective narration rather than corroborated fact.
F. VERIFICATION OF SALLAY’S PRESENCE AT THE ESTATE
Yes or No
1. Is there mobile phone location data placing Sallay at the alleged estate
2. Are there telecom tower records confirming device presence in the area
3. Is there GPS, vehicle tracking/security log evidence placing him there
4. Were mobile devices belonging to alleged participants active in the area
5. Was any forensic examination conducted on devices allegedly linked to participants & Asad Maulana
G. VERIFICATION OF ZAHARAN’S ALLEGED PRESENCE
Yes or No
1. Where was Zaharan allegedly hiding in February 2018?
2. Do intelligence or police records place Zaharan in Puttalam during the relevant dates?
3. Are there witnesses confirming Zaharan attended?
4. If Zaharan was a wanted fugitive how did Maulana allegedly maintain direct access to him to arrange presumed meeting?
5. Have authorities examined how Asad Maulana was able to reach Zaharan who was on the run from authorities due to open arrest warrant since 2017
6. Were Maulana’s communication with Zaharan independently established to arrange meeting?
7. If Zaharan was a wanted fugitive since 2017, how did he allegedly travel to and from the estate without detection?
The credibility of the alleged meeting depends not only on proving Sallay’s presence, but also on independently establishing Zaharan’s whereabouts, movements, and ability to secretly travel to the alleged estate while being a wanted fugitive under active investigation.
H. VERIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MEETING ITSELF
Yes or No
1. Is there any photographic, video, audio evidence of the Feb 2018 meeting?
2. If the meeting lasted 3 hours – were food supplies arranged & can it be corroborated.
3. Can any individual independently confirm Maulana arranged the meeting?
4. If he arranged the meeting but was asked to wait outside – how does he know what went on inside the meeting.
5. Asad Maulana claimed it was Pillayan who had suggested arranging meeting with Zaharan & Sallay & the objective of that meeting. If he know the objective, why was Maulana kept outside.
6. If Maulana claims the objective was known by him, why would he claim Suresh Sallay told him what the plan was after the meeting?
7. What proof does Maulana have to claim Sallay told him what went on inside when he was not part of the meeting & why would Sallay a top intel officer disclose what was discussed in secret?
8. In October 2021, Fr. Cyril claimed over a zoom that Zaharan & Sallay knew each other and that they had evidence. This allegation became a defamation case filed by Sallay. If Fr. Cyril claims Zaharan & Sallay knew each other – why would he need Maulana to arrange a meeting.
9. Why would an alleged covert state conspiracy involving mass murder require the physical presence of a senior intelligence official at a remote estate meeting personally exposing himself to operational risk?
I. QUESTIONS RELATING TO MAULANA’S ACCOUNT
Yes or No
1. If in 2018 Maulana knew about a plan to attack innocent people – what did he do about it?
2. Did Maulana report the alleged meeting to an authority before April 2019, given that Sallay was holding any position in military or intelligence and the yahapalana govt was in power?
3. Did Maulana report to the authorities immediately after the attacks in April 2019 about the Feb2018 meeting & the supposed plan?
4. Did Maulana make a sworn affidavit immediately after the attacks about what he knew
5. Did Maulana even anonymously inform authorities after the attacks?
6. Why did Maulana not come forward to testify before any earlier investigate body/commission given he fled Sri Lanka only in January 2022?
7. Did Maulana disclose this alleged meeting to anyone prior to Sept 2023 if so whom & can they confirm and face cross-examination?
8. Has Maulana maintained notes, messages, emails or sms about the meeting or the plans presumably discussed with Pillayan?
9. Did law enforcement investigate Maulana’s own role as facilitator or intermediary to the attacks?
10. The Channel 4 documentary was taken up by the Justice Imam committee –did they link Suresh Sallay with the attacks
11. Does any evidence exist beyond Maulana’s delayed recollection years later?
12. Why did Maulana wait until after leaving Sri Lanka and seeking asylum abroad before making these allegations publicly?
Has any financial trail been established?”
· bank transfers
· cash withdrawals
· asset movements
· covert payments
· intelligence funds
· travel reimbursements
· shell companies
· unexplained cash movements
· third-party intermediaries
Because every conspiracy allegation eventually requires financial infrastructure.
Commentary
Asad Maulana is
• The single and only source
• Claiming a “mastermind” theory alongside “political pawn” theory regarding Easter Sunday attacks.
• This only single source is attributing allegation against former State Intelligence Service Head retired Suresh Sallay
The allegations against retired State Intelligence Service Head Suresh Sallay presently appear to rely substantially upon claims made by a single witness to a foreign media outlet in September 2023, approximately five years after the alleged meeting and four years after the Easter Sunday attacks by one who is unwilling to come & place the evidence for his claims before Courts.
The purpose of these questions is not to prevent investigation, but to determine whether the allegations can be independently substantiated through objective evidence rather than retrospective assertion.
The alleged February 2018 meeting forms the foundation of the broader conspiracy narrative presented in the documentary.
If the meeting itself cannot be independently verified through objective evidence, then every subsequent allegation built upon it remains dependent primarily on a single person’s retrospective witness claims rather than established fact.
The seriousness of the allegation requires a correspondingly high evidentiary threshold and corroborating evidence. Assertions involving terrorism, state complicity, and mass casualty events cannot reasonably rest on delayed recollection alone without independent corroboration through records, witnesses, forensic verification, and documentation.
The documentary presents an internal contradiction by simultaneously portraying Suresh Sallay as both:
• the alleged mastermind orchestrating events from behind the scenes, and
• the operational intermediary personally handling meetings, communications, logistics, and coordination.
The documentary appears to begin with a predetermined political conclusion and then selectively assembles witness testimony, anonymous claims, visual framing, and narrative interpretation to reinforce that conclusion.
Rather than allowing independently verified evidence to lead viewers toward an objective finding, the presentation repeatedly guides the audience toward the presumption of Suresh Sallay’s guilt before the allegations themselves are subjected to judicial scrutiny, cross-examination, or forensic verification.
• Media is not a Court of Law – Media trials and vilifications are not valid though they influence public perception.
• The Courts are better placed to assess facts and evidence as well as cross examine those making allegations.
The issue at hand is – Asad Maulana while making serious allegations is not willing to appear and make the claims before a Court of law.
Questions must always be asked, particularly in relation to a national tragedy of this magnitude.
The issue is whether allegations of state complicity in mass murder can responsibly be transformed into public conclusions without independently verified evidence capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.
If the alleged February 2018 meeting cannot be objectively established,
if the alleged communications cannot be authenticated,
if the alleged conspiracy leaves no documentary, forensic, digital, financial, or operational trail,
then the entire narrative remains dependent primarily upon delayed recollection and interpretive inference of a single person unwilling to appear before courts, rather than proven fact.
A serious allegation does not become a proven fact merely through repetition across media platforms and the vilification of the alleged individual by social media platforms. In essence, such tactics are used when there is insufficient evidence!
Those relentlessly portraying Suresh Sallay as guilty across media and social media platforms should also be asked a simple question: do they possess the above evidence to justify such certainty of guilt, or is public condemnation being orchestrated first to replace lack of evidence?
In matters involving terrorism, reputations, institutions, and criminal liability, allegations alone cannot substitute for evidence.
In any society governed by law, the burden remains on those making the accusation to prove the allegation through independently verifiable evidence — not on the accused to disprove an uncorroborated narrative amplified through media repetition.
By Shenali D Waduge
