Last week, a High Court Trial-at-Bar convicted 15 men out of 24 charged for their roles in organising and plotting the Easter Sunday bombings of 2019. The 15 individuals were sentenced to between 200 and 260 years of rigorous imprisonment each.  

Among those found guilty was Naufer Moulavi, who prosecutors identified as the central mastermind behind the plot. Moulavi and his colleagues who were found guilty left the court for prison with smiles on their faces, and a few were spotted giving a Tawhid hand sign often given by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters – which invokes an extremist view of the singularity and absolute oneness of God. A total of 25 men were originally indicted in 2021 across more than 23,000 filed charges. One suspect passed away while in custody before the verdict. There were more than 2,000 witnesses listed. Despite being overshadowed by the court’s determination regarding the 22nd Amendment, last week’s verdict in the Easter Sunday attacks case was one of the most anticipated rulings in Sri Lankan history.

The April 2019 Easter Sunday extremist terror attack in Sri Lanka deeply scarred the public’s trust in the State. For nearly a decade before it, the State knew and closely monitored the growth of a strain of radical Islam which was on a path towards violent extremism, spurred on by the global rise of ISIS and its rapid expansion of a ‘caliphate,’ which was to include Sri Lanka in its plans as well. 

There is little doubt that the State failed to act decisively to prevent the attack, despite being made aware of the key suspects involved and their likely intentions; that fact has been proven before courts. Actionable and time-sensitive intelligence, supplied by India, which was also closely monitoring the group and its links to Indian counterparts, was not acted on by law enforcement agencies and the broader national security apparatus of the State. This includes the then President in his capacity as the Minister of Defence, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Public Security, the Attorney General’s Department, and law enforcement and Intelligence agencies. This was a tragedy that could have been averted. The State’s leadership at different tiers failed. Some of the officials and leaders responsible for failing to prevent the attack have been punished by the courts. Others remain at large, some even holding office today as investigators in key law enforcement positions.

However, there have been many narratives about the attack and its alleged sponsors, facilitators, etc. The narrative of a ‘mastermind’ behind the attack, which is yet to be proven before a court of law, has divided the Sri Lankan citizenry in relation to who is ultimately responsible for the terror attacks. It is important that Sri Lankans leave the delivery of justice to the Judiciary and not allow political narratives to control the agenda. In this age of digitalisation and social media, unsubstantiated narratives, once fuelled and spread, are hard to rein in.

Despite countries like the United States concluding that the attack was planned and carried out by a group of locals who were indoctrinated both online and in person, and the body of evidence supporting the ISIS modus operandi worldwide as a horizontal organisational structure with dispersed and organic attack planning, the ‘mastermind’ narrative continues to hold ground in Sri Lanka with the support of some religious leaders. Such narratives, yet to be substantiated and accepted before a court of law, may complicate the lives of those impacted by the horrific attacks and ultimately deny them the justice they deserve.

Sri Lanka’s Intelligence apparatus has also come under strong scrutiny due to the Easter Sunday attacks, with members of the affected communities and those in Government alleging collusion by segments of the Intelligence structure in facilitating the attacks. While these allegations are serious and warrant scrutiny, such inquiries should be undertaken without political narratives being attached to them. The findings need to stand on sound evidence and facts. If not, Sri Lanka risks damaging a valuable tool in statecraft through trial by public. The Intelligence community is fundamental to effective statecraft and the security of the nation. If there are concerns about it and rotten apples within the service, action must be taken promptly without favour where evidence supports the allegations. Anything less or politically driven risks efforts to craft an effective Intelligence architecture to better understand the current and future threat spectrum. Leave justice to the courts.

Sri Lanka has long suffered at the hands of religious extremists in different forms over the course of its existence. Our history is dotted with Buddhist extremists, Sinhala Buddhist nationalists, Tamil nationalists and segments of the Church who have supported them, Hindu extremists, and Islamic extremists. As a small nation, Sri Lanka cannot afford to have its social fabric strained and torn by such extremists. Especially since we are on our knees as a nation and with competing geopolitical interests in the region growing, Sri Lanka needs to stand firm in unity to ensure our national interests are protected. It is incumbent on the State to ensure that there is no room for any form of extremism to flourish in Sri Lanka. It is also incumbent on every Sri Lankan and our many communities to self-reflect about extremism and intolerance in our homes and communities. As an island nation, we have always been in the crosshairs of others; as such, we need to get our house in order and build a united and resilient country.