Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris informed the Fort Magistrate’s Court that investigations conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) have uncovered alleged military intelligence involvement in securing bail for suspects linked to the group of Easter Sunday suicide bomber Saharan Hashim.
Addressing court proceedings during the hearing of the Easter Sunday attacks case today (20), Peiris stated that witness Azad Maulana had testified that military intelligence officers intervened in an earlier case to obtain bail for Shiny Moulavi, the brother of Saharan Hashim, and members of his group.
According to the Additional Solicitor General, the CID has now allegedly discovered that military intelligence had paid Rs. 250,000 in legal fees and an additional Rs. 50,000 for family-related expenses to facilitate the bail process for Shiny Moulavi and his associates.
Peiris further revealed that a CID team led by former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department and Senior Superintendent of Police Shani Abeysekara had travelled to France to record a statement from Azad Maulana.
Based on Maulana’s statement, Shiny Moulavi and several members of his group had been arrested and remanded over a violent clash that occurred at Alliyar Junction in Batticaloa prior to the Easter Sunday attacks.
During their detention, they had reportedly come into contact with Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, commonly known as Pillayan, and his associates who were also being held in prison at the time. Peiris told the court that discussions allegedly took place between the two groups with the intervention of former Army Intelligence Chief Suresh Saleh in an effort to coordinate activities.
Azad Maulana had also claimed in his statement that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, and MP Namal Rajapaksa had met Pillayan while he was in prison and allegedly promised to secure his release once they returned to power.
However, no individual could be convicted solely based on Azad Maulana’s statement unless he personally testifies before a Sri Lankan court. And the allegations would also require supporting circumstantial evidence, including telephone records and other corroborative material.