News
Massacre on Easter Sunday: Former President blames top officials
Testifying before the Commission probing the Easter Sunday attacks Former President Maithripala Sirisena said he believed the massacre took place because those holding responsibility had failed in their duties.
He told the Commission this week that if he was informed of the advance information about the planned massacre he could have taken steps to prevent the attacks.
The Commission comprises Court of Appeal Judge Janaka de Silva (Chairman), Court of Appeal Judge Nishshanka Bandula Karunarathna, Retired High Court Judges Nihal Sunil Rajapaksa and A. L. Bandula Kumara Atapattu and the Justice Ministry’s former Secretary, W. M. M. R. Adikari.
Responding to questions by Additional Solicitor General Ayesha Jinasena, the former President said:
On the day of the Easter Sunday attacks where were you?
I had gone to Singapore for a medical check up. My Security Officer told me about reports of the attacks circulating on social media. Then I received a call from the Presidential Secretary Udaya R. Seneviratne who confirmed the attacks. Then I contacted former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and former Police Chief Pujith Jayasundara, and instructed them to take necessary action.
What were your instructions?
I told them to act in a manner that does not incite the people and to arrest the suspected terrorists. I instructed them to deploy the military in addition to Police. I informed them that I was returning the next day and gave instructions to summon a meeting of the National Security Council.
When you became the President you established a Ministry for Reconciliation?
Yes, I realised at the time that the country was facing several issues internationally. Foreign aid had been halted. Though the war had ended, steps still needed to be taken to bring about reconciliation among different communities.
What is your response to the claim that the Eastern Province is the traditional homeland of the Muslims, and that a separate state should be established encompassing the areas where the Muslims are in majority?
I reject this claim. It infringes on the unitary status of the country and legal action must be taken against anyone who makes such claims.
In the sixth parliament of 2004, 18 out of 27 Muslim MPs went onto become Government ministers?
Yes. This shows that the Muslims held significant influence within the Government.
What is the situation in the seventh parliament?
Out of the 17 Muslim MPs who were elected,13 became ministers. In the eighth parliament during my presidency, 11 out of 22 Muslim MPs held ministerial portfolios.
It seems all governments needed the help of Muslim MP?
Yes, but I could rule only for six months with the cooperation of Parliament. I did not have a Cabinet of my own nor a premier. This led to conflicts.
The former President said that due to the arrest of commanders and intelligence officers of the armed forces, the relevant sections showed a decline. He said the Police were brought under his purview in 2018. Thereafter he summoned senior police officers and held discussions.
He said there were no reports about terrorism, but as soon as reports of extremist activities started to come in, he gave orders to arrest Zahran Hashim, who would ultimately go onto become the ringleader of the Easter Sunday attackers.
The former President said the State Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Chief of Defence Staff were also present at the meeting attended by senior police officers. The objective of the meeting was to strengthen law and order and give priority to end extremism.
“As police officers were able to discuss issues relevant to their areas, the police service was strengthened. The National Security Council was not weakened, though some have made this allegation. The Commission may take note of my attendance at these meetings. My private diary may be checked for this purpose. If necessary the Government Analyst’s help could be sought to check my diary to make sure the entries were not made recently,” he said.
Mr Sirisena said intelligence services informed him about ISIS ideology in the 2017-2018 period, and in January 2019 they informed him about Zahran spreading this ideology. He said former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe also made a statement in Parliament in this regard.
Responding to a question as to why Zahran was not arrested despite directives given in this regard, the former President maintained that it was not necessary for him to give directives to arrest a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued.
“I need not give orders to arrest persons who are engaged in terrorism. That is the duty of the Police. If that is the case, directives from the President will be needed to arrest persons involved in the illicit liquor trade. When a bomb goes off there is no need to point the finger at the President. It is the responsibility of those who perform the related duties. The person in the relevant position should perform his duty.”
“This massacre occurred as the persons who bear responsibilities did not perform their duties,” he said in response to a question as to how the attacks took place.
He said it was made known to him that Zahran was spreading Wahabism and was aware that he evaded courts, but it was not his duty to arrest him.
“It is clear that directives were not carried out. The persons with those responsibilities did not carry out their duties. They should have acted immediately. I left the country on April 16. The information about the attacks was supposed to have come on April 4. On April 12, I presided over a meeting of senior police officers,” he said in response to a question whether the April 21 attacks were not proof that the President’s directives were not carried out.
Mr. Sirisena insisted that neither he nor his Chief Security Officer was made aware of information on the impending attacks, and that it was not mentioned even at the April 14 meeting. He said former Defence Secretary and Hemasiri Fernando and former Police Chief Pujith Jayasundara called over at his residence for the National New Year, but did not inform him of any intelligence reports about the impending attacks.
He said on his departure from the country on April 16, the former Police Chief was at the airport to see him off, and still did not say anything about the information regarding the possible attacks.
“The persons who received the information failed to fulfill their responsibilities. This tragedy was painful for me. It was only at the meeting held on April 22 that I was told that advance information had been available. If I had this information, I wouldn’t have gone overseas,” he added.
“Such attacks cannot be prevented even in developed countries. But I could have taken some steps. I could have summoned the National Security Council and could have taken necessary action. I would have informed the Cardinal. I would have stopped the tragedy taking place. The biggest tragedy is that I was not informed. When reports of this nature come, those holding responsibility should take immediate action. When there were reports that extremist ideology was being spread among Muslims, there was a possibility of an attack. I gave advise that could be followed,” the former President said.
In response to a question whether there were objections to his advise, the President said that a powerful person within the Government protested against moves to ban the niqab.
The Commission requested the former President to mention the name of the person. The former President produced a newspaper article from the Sunday Times. The former President was told to mention the name. He said it was the former Prime Minister who objected to the ban on the niqab and as such its implementation was suspended.
He said that the former Prime Minister possibly objected as there was no stable Government and because he was depending on the support of Muslim MPs. The former President is due to testify before the Commission again tomorrow.