Columns

The question as to who was the mastermind behind the devastating Easter Sunday attack of April 21, 2019, resurfaced last week, after a statement made in Parliament reignited public debate and predictably social media speculation. But amidst the swirl of leaks, and political finger-pointing, the real issue remains the integrity and confidentiality of the ongoing investigations—something that Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara himself had to remind Parliament of.

It all started with an announcement on social media by Muslim Congress Parliamentarian Nizam Kariapper that during a recent meeting of the High Posts Committee of Parliament, he had questioned Public Security Ministry Secretary and former Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne, who allegedly confirmed that the Police had “identified who the mastermind was.” 

Almost instantly, unverified social media posts appeared, claiming that Seneviratne had told the Committee that “India” was behind the attacks—or, in some versions, that the mastermind was “an Indian national.”

The Police Media Spokesman was quick to issue a statement denying that Senior DIG Seneviratne had named India or any foreign country as the mastermind. The Ministry Secretary himself has since lodged a complaint with the CID, requesting a full investigation into the social media reports that falsely attributed such claims to him.

Given the seriousness of the matter and Sri Lanka’s historically close relations with India, it is highly unlikely that a seasoned officer such as Ravi Seneviratne would have made such a revelation in a casual manner before a Parliamentary Committee.

When he gave evidence before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Janak de Silva to probe the Easter Sunday attacks, he was directly questioned on who he believed the mastermind to be. Rather than blurting out names in open session, he wrote his answer on a piece of paper and handed it to the Commissioners.

That quiet act of restraint speaks volumes. It demonstrated that even though he may have had strong investigative leads, he understood the gravity of making sensitive disclosures in public. It would therefore be entirely inconsistent with his track record for him to “casually” name the mastermind—or a foreign country—in front of a committee whose purpose was unrelated to criminal investigation.

Not surprisingly, the Opposition seized on Kariapper’s statement and raised the issue in Parliament, seeking clarification from the Government. Responding on behalf of the administration, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara delivered a measured and legally sound response.

He made three key points, all of which deserve emphasis:

1. Ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday bombings should not be discussed publicly, as inquiries are still active.

2. Even Parliament should refrain from ordering disclosures that could compromise those investigations.

3. Any attempt—direct or indirect—to influence or disrupt the investigation process must be prevented.

These are not merely procedural cautions; they reflect some aspects of the rule of law and due process. Investigations of this magnitude, which involve cross-border intelligence cooperation, sensitive security information, and ongoing prosecutions, cannot be conducted in the glare of the media or the heat of political debate.

Minister Nanayakkara’s intervention was a welcome moment of sanity in what has otherwise been a dangerously politicised conversation. His statement underscores an important principle that applies not only to the Easter Sunday case but to all criminal investigations: justice must be pursued through process, not publicity.

Unfortunately, that principle has been repeatedly ignored in recent months. Media outlets have been publishing a near “ball-by-ball commentary” on investigations into organised crime, narcotics networks, and other criminal cases. Politicians—especially from the ranks of the Government—have seized on leaked statements or partial confessions to make sweeping allegations against their political rivals.

Such behaviour may serve short-term political interests, but it does lasting damage to the credibility of law enforcement. Leaks from within investigations not only prejudice cases before they reach court but also undermine public trust in institutions meant to uphold justice. Worse still, they can give suspects grounds to claim procedural bias or media prejudice, weakening prosecutions down the line.

As Minister Nanayakkara rightly implied, responsible governance requires restraint, especially in matters of justice and national security. This is advice that his colleagues in Government who have been doing exactly the opposite could well heed.

Over the past several months, Sri Lankan media outlets have offered near-daily updates on investigations into organized crime and narcotics, often quoting unnamed sources within the police. Government politicians, have been quick to seize on these leaks, using them to attack Opposition figures and to cast aspersions on them.

This “trial by media” culture undermines the rule of law. It allows narratives to form before facts are verified and can prejudice potential prosecutions. In politically charged cases, it also risks transforming legitimate investigations into partisan ammunition.

While on the subject of investigations, it is worth highlighting the uneven way in which police responses have played out. When former parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa publicly claimed that a suspect who was the subject of narcotics-related investigations had links to the National People’s Power (NPP), the Police swiftly summoned him to give a statement at Tangalle Police Station.

However, similar urgency has been conspicuously absent in the follow-up to public remarks made about the Easter Sunday mastermind.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena recently stated that it was “common knowledge” who the mastermind was, but that no one dared to act against that individual. He stopped short of naming anyone. Months earlier, Bodu Bala Sena leader Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero publicly declared that he knew who the mastermind was and was ready to share that information with authorities—but, again, no formal inquiry followed.

If the goal truly is to “leave no stone unturned,” then it is only logical that investigators question both individuals about their statements. Selective enforcement of follow-up inquiries only fuels the perception that some statements are treated as political theatre while others are used as legal leverage.

The continuing uncertainty surrounding the “mastermind question” is not just a political or legal issue—it is an emotional one. For the families of the 269 victims and hundreds injured, the lack of clarity feels like a denial of justice itself. Each new rumour or contradictory statement reopens old wounds.

The repeated public controversies—often triggered by off-the-cuff remarks or media misreporting—risk overshadowing the painstaking work that genuine investigators do. The Easter Sunday attacks were a complex operation, with multiple networks and facilitators. Determining ultimate culpability requires not only evidence but also careful coordination and legal precision.

The latest controversy sparked by the remarks of the Muslim Congress Parliamentarian and the ensuing social media frenzy is a reminder of how fragile public discourse has become in the digital age. One inaccurate headline or misinterpreted statement can spiral into diplomatic embarrassment and political chaos.

Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara’s call for confidentiality and discipline should therefore be taken to heart—not only by his colleagues in government but also by journalists, and the public at large. The integrity of the investigation depends on allowing the process to unfold without interference, speculation, or sensationalism.

If Sri Lanka truly wishes to honour the memory of those who perished on Easter Sunday 2019, it must do so not with rhetoric, but with responsible governance, credible investigation, and quiet, relentless pursuit of truth. (javidyusuf@gmail.com )