A retired senior military intelligence officer faces legal scrutiny over his detention under Sri Lanka's Prevention of Terrorism Act, with intervenient petitioners arguing the arrest breaches constitutional protections and was based on questionable allegations.
The Court of Appeal heard arguments challenging the arrest of retired Major General Suresh Sallay, former head of the State Intelligence Service, who was detained by the Criminal Investigation Department in late February under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Attorney-at-law Manoli Jinadasa, representing intervenient-petitioner Dr. Kumara Kaluarachchi, a pharmacology department head at Rajarata University, contended that the arrest targeted a senior military officer who had contributed to counter-terrorism efforts.
A central legal argument raised concerns about the procedural framework under which Sallay was detained. Jinadasa pointed out that Section 9 of the PTA grants the Defence Minister—rather than the judiciary—authority to order and determine the continuation of detention, thereby limiting judicial oversight. She argued that this provision fundamentally contradicts constitutional guarantees to due process, effectively removing protections that citizens typically receive through the independent judiciary. She questioned whether circumstances justified invoking the PTA when existing criminal procedure codes could have accommodated any prosecution.
Jinadasa emphasized that the PTA's preventive framework requires an active, current, or imminent threat to public safety. She argued that detention powers derogating constitutional protections should only apply in genuine emergencies, not for investigating past incidents. The court also heard that another intervenient petitioner, Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, revealed the detention stemmed from a Channel 4 documentary featuring allegations by fugitive Azad Maulana. However, the court was informed that the timeframe Maulana cited proved inaccurate, as Sallay was outside the country during the alleged incident.
Dr. Kaluarachchi sought intervention in the petition, asserting his moral obligation to protest what he viewed as unlawful detention and emphasizing his concern that such precedent threatened broader citizens' rights and personal security.
