They claim that the decision to hold the trial on a daily basis will prevent them from appearing in other cases they have taken on and will not have time to seek advice from the defendants regarding the trial. They are demanding that the trial be held only three days a week.
An opposition politician told Sri Lanka Brief that the authorities wants to deliver its verdict before April 21, when the trial will be held on a daily basis. Even if the case is heard urgently, the question of the mastermind of the Easter Sunday attacks will remain.
Furthermore, neither the government nor the Attorney General has shown this urgency in the case of the kidnapping of Prageeth Ekneligoda, which is being heard by a three-member High Court. That trial has been continuously postponed.
This Trial‑at‑Bar was convened following indictments against the 24 individuals, who together face 23,269 charges. The court has been presented with roughly 23,000 pages of translated indictment material in Sinhala and Tamil. The Attorney General has also listed 184 physical items as evidence, such as 76 swords, detonators, and batteries, while naming 2,190 potential witnesses. Among them, Dr. Rohan Gunaratne, former head of the Institute of National Security Studies, and retired Major General Suresh Salley, former SIS chief, are first and second witnesses.
Hearings run daily from 9.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. at the former official residence of a state minister on Bullers Lane, Colombo 07. The lawyers have reportedly found it increasingly difficult to prepare for these lengthy sessions while balancing other professional responsibilities. An earlier request to limit hearings to three days a week was denied by the Bench of High Court Judges Nawaratne Marasinghe (President), Sujeewa Nissanka and Ramanathan Kannan.
In their motion, counsel noted that the defendants—who pleaded not guilty—have been in remand custody for more than six years across multiple prisons. Under these conditions, they argued, securing proper consultations and obtaining specific legal instructions has become nearly impossible.
Consequently, the lawyers stated that stepping down was their only viable option to safeguard the accused persons’ right to adequate legal representation. They argued the withdrawal would allow the defendants to retain counsel better positioned to handle the demanding day‑to‑day trial schedule.
