Dear Rev. Asiri Perera,
I acknowledge receipt of your open letter responding to my recent media statement concerning my husband, Major General (Retd.) Suresh Sallay.
At the outset, I appreciate your recognition of my right to express my thoughts and concerns as a wife. However, despite that acknowledgment, the substance of your letter seeks to portray my public declaration of my husband’s innocence as improper or misguided. I respectfully disagree.
I continue to maintain, without hesitation or reservation, that my husband is innocent of the allegations being levelled against him. This conviction is not based merely on marital loyalty, but on my knowledge of his character, his service to the nation, and the facts that have thus far emerged. I am equally aware that there are individuals, including certain persons occupying influential positions, who appear determined to implicate him in matters for which he bears no responsibility.
For ease of reference, I shall respond under the same headings adopted in your letter.
1. Due process matters
I agree that innocence or guilt is ultimately determined by a competent court of law. However, modern jurisprudence recognises that a fair trial cannot exist without a fair and impartial investigation. The right to due process guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution extends beyond the courtroom and encompasses the integrity of the investigative process itself.
My concern has never been with the lawful administration of justice. Rather, it is with the involvement of investigators whose impartiality is reasonably open to question due to their prior conduct, public positions, and documented adverse findings connected to dereliction of duties by their part to matters arising from the Easter Sunday investigations. Where conflicts of interest exist, the integrity of the process itself is compromised.
You suggest that my public assertion of my husband’s innocence undermines the justice system. On the contrary, the presumption of innocence is one of the foundational principles of our very system. Article 13(5) of the Constitution guarantees that every person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. My statement was not an attempt to determine innocence as a matter of law, but simply an expression of my belief as a citizen and as a wife, unless and until a competent court determines otherwise.
2. Public perception
You state that many citizens have questioned the validity of my statement. Equally, many others have supported my right to express it. Public opinion, whether favorable or unfavorable, cannot determine legal truth.
At no stage have I sought to diminish the suffering of the victims of the Easter Sunday attacks or the importance of a thorough investigation. Indeed, it is precisely because of the gravity of those tragic events that any investigation connected to them must be conducted with the highest standards of independence, professionalism, and objectivity.
Our position has never been that investigations should cease. We have merely requested that my husband be treated with dignity and that investigations be conducted by officers whose independence cannot reasonably be questioned. Such a request strengthens rather than weakens public confidence in the administration of justice.
3. Political echoes
I note your attempt to associate my statements with the rhetoric of disgruntled politicians and your suggestion that I may be serving political interests.
With respect, such speculation is unsupported by any evidence and appears to be based solely on assumption. Neither my husband nor I have ever campaigned for any political party or political personality. Throughout his distinguished career, my husband served under multiple administrations of differing political affiliations while maintaining his professional obligations as a military officer.
Ironically, it is your own observations that introduce a political dimension into what should be a discussion concerning fairness, legality, and justice. If the objective is truly to ensure that truth emerges through a fair inquiry, then all persons concerned should advocate for an investigative process free from political influence, actual or perceived.
4. Impact on investigations
You suggest that our concerns regarding investigators and investigative procedures interfere with the search for truth. I respectfully disagree.
A credible investigation requires not only competence but also independence. Raising legitimate concerns regarding conflicts of interest is not an attack on the investigative process; it is a call to preserve its integrity, since justice requires not only fairness itself but public confidence in its fairness.
I would respectfully invite you to examine the evidence recorded before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday attacks, including the observations made regarding institutional failures and investigative shortcomings. You may also consider the evidence of His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, who repeatedly emphasised the necessity of conducting investigations free from political influence.
The principles advocated by religious leaders and victims alike demand impartiality. It is therefore entirely reasonable to seek investigative arrangements that inspire public confidence.
5. Mask and transparency
I was particularly disappointed by your comments regarding my decision to wear a face mask while speaking to the media.
Whether I choose to wear a mask is a matter of personal choice and has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness of my statements. Respectfully, the credibility of an argument depends on the strength of its facts, not on whether the speaker’s face is visible.
More troubling is your suggestion that my choice somehow indicates that ‘truths are being withheld.’ Such a conclusion is entirely speculative and unsupported by any evidence. It represents precisely the kind of insinuation that contributes little to meaningful public discourse.
Similarly, your suggestion that my husband is withholding the truth is presented without factual foundation. If one wishes to engage in a discussion grounded in fairness and justice, conclusions should be based on evidence rather than conjecture.
6. Spiritual care during visitation
Your observations concerning my husband’s mental state are particularly concerning.
You suggest that he is experiencing guilt, inner turmoil, an inability to confront the truth, or psychological despair arising from wrongdoing. Yet these assertions appear to have been made without any personal knowledge of his condition, without reference to medical evidence, and without any professional basis upon which such conclusions could reasonably be drawn.
The medical and psychiatric assessments available in relation to my husband paint a very different picture and raise serious concerns regarding the treatment he has endured while in custody. It is therefore regrettable that, rather than addressing those documented concerns, you chose to speculate about guilt, conscience and an alleged unwillingness to face the truth, matters that no court of law has determined.
As a former head of a respected religious institution, I would have expected greater caution before making observations that may be interpreted as indirect allegations against a person who remains legally presumed innocent.
As for spiritual visitation, our family will make such decisions according to our own wishes and needs. While I appreciate your concern, I do not believe it appropriate for others to prescribe how our family should approach matters of faith and pastoral care.
7. Moral responsibility
You suggest that if guilt were ultimately established, my public defence of my husband might appear as complicity.
With respect, this proposition misunderstands both loyalty and principle.
My support for my husband is based upon my genuine conviction that he is innocent. That conviction is not diminished by public criticism, political pressure, or speculative allegations.
Where investigations are perceived as selective, subjective, or influenced by extraneous considerations, citizens are entitled to question whether justice is being administered fairly. Confidence in the justice system depends not merely on outcomes but on the fairness of the process by which those outcomes are reached.
Accordingly, I stand by my husband today and will continue to do so.
Closing remarks
Rev. Perera, I reject the suggestion that I have made any ‘premature declaration.’ The Constitution of Sri Lanka recognises the presumption of innocence, and I am fully entitled to believe in and publicly affirm my husband’s innocence until proven otherwise by a competent court.
As a Buddhist, I am also mindful of the teachings that caution against bearing false witness, making unfounded accusations, or causing suffering to innocent persons. The Dhamma teaches that actions rooted in falsehood and injustice inevitably bear consequences for those who commit them. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to exercise restraint, fairness, and truthfulness when commenting on matters that profoundly affect the lives of others.
Finally, I do not wish to engage in a prolonged public exchange through the media with members of the clergy or with any other individual. Public debate serves little purpose when it is founded upon assumptions rather than facts.
I therefore respectfully request that serious allegations, insinuations, and conclusions regarding my husband be made only after a careful examination of the evidence and the relevant facts. Differences of opinion are understandable, but unwarranted accusations, whether direct or implied, do not contribute to justice, reconciliation, or truth.
I remain committed to seeking justice through lawful means while continuing to support my husband with dignity, conviction, and faith.