Expertise or Ego? Questions Mount Over Rohan Gunaratna’s Defence of Suresh Sally
By Staff Correspondent
When terrorism academic Rohan Gunaratna rushed to publicly defend retired Major General Suresh Sally following his arrest on February 25, 2026, he did so with characteristic certainty.
Sally, Gunaratna declared, is “Sri Lanka’s most respected national security professional,” a man with an “unblemished record” whose arrest is “politically motivated and based on conspiracy theories.” He further asserted that during the Easter Sunday attacks of April 21, 2019, Sally was studying at India’s National Defence College — a claim presented as dispositive proof of innocence.
Gunaratna also invoked his own authority. As the author of Sri Lanka's Easter Sunday Massacre - Lessons for the International Community, published by Penguin Random House, he insisted that his findings align with those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Australian Federal Police, New Scotland Yard, and INTERPOL.
It was a forceful statement. But forcefulness is not the same as proof.
The Problem With Self-Certification
Gunaratna has long styled himself as a “counter-terrorism expert,” a title frequently repeated in media appearances. Yet critics within academic and security circles have periodically questioned both the depth and independence of his analyses, as well as aspects of his academic trajectory in Singapore.
To be clear: holding a degree from Singapore does not invalidate expertise. But expertise is not self-declared; it is established through transparent methodology, peer review, and evidentiary rigor.
Gunaratna’s statement on Sally reads less like a scholarly assessment and more like a character reference — emphatic, categorical, and dismissive of ongoing legal processes.
In any rule-of-law system, arrest is not conviction. Nor is professional reputation immunity from investigation. If Sally’s record is indeed “unblemished,” that determination must emerge from judicial scrutiny, not pre-emptive declarations.
The “National Defence College” Argument
Gunaratna’s central factual defence rests on the assertion that Sally was studying at India’s National Defence College at the time of the Easter Sunday attacks.
Even if factually correct, that argument may not be dispositive.
Modern intelligence operations do not require physical presence at a target location. Questions raised by investigators reportedly concern potential foreknowledge, communications, or institutional omissions — issues that transcend geography.
An alibi of location does not automatically resolve questions of prior intelligence awareness or subsequent reporting obligations. That is precisely why investigative agencies examine communications records, digital correspondence, and chains of command.
To treat physical absence as categorical exoneration oversimplifies the matter.
Appeals to Authority
Gunaratna further strengthens his defence by aligning his book’s findings with those of the FBI, the Australian Federal Police, New Scotland Yard, and INTERPOL.
However, citing respected agencies is not equivalent to producing their formal conclusions verbatim.
None of those agencies has publicly released a comprehensive report explicitly exonerating every domestic official from scrutiny. Their involvement primarily concerned technical assistance, forensic analysis, and international intelligence cooperation.
It is a rhetorical device — an appeal to authority — to suggest that because international agencies participated in aspects of the investigation, any subsequent inquiry into domestic officials must be conspiratorial.
Investigations evolve. New evidence emerges. Intelligence leaks — such as those reportedly prompting Sally’s arrest — can reopen lines of inquiry that were previously incomplete.
Political Motivation or Legal Process?
Gunaratna characterises the arrest as “politically motivated.” That is a serious allegation.
If such motivation exists, it must be demonstrated through evidence of procedural irregularity, selective prosecution, or political interference. Thus far, the arrest appears to have followed confidential investigative reports submitted to the magistrate’s court and the issuance of a lawful detention order.
Criticism of state action is legitimate. But to dismiss any inquiry into a former intelligence chief as conspiracy risks undermining public confidence in judicial independence.
The Role of the Public Intellectual
There is also a broader concern about the role of public commentators in active investigations.
Scholars and analysts serve an important function: contextualising events, critiquing policy, and clarifying complex security dynamics. But when commentary shifts from analysis to advocacy — particularly on behalf of individuals under investigation — credibility can erode.
A credible expert acknowledges uncertainty. He distinguishes between verified facts, contested allegations, and ongoing inquiries.
Gunaratna’s statement does not exhibit such nuance. It asserts absolutes in a context defined by active investigation.
Respect Versus Accountability
No one disputes that Major General Suresh Sally held senior national security positions. Nor does arrest negate years of service.
But democratic accountability demands that even “most respected” professionals remain subject to scrutiny where credible evidence warrants it.
The Easter Sunday attacks claimed 273 lives. The gravity of that event necessitates exhaustive examination of all relevant actors, irrespective of rank or reputation.
To frame scrutiny as defamation before courts have spoken is to invert the presumption of due process.
A Question of Credibility
Ultimately, the controversy may say as much about Gunaratna as about Sally.
Expertise is measured not only by publications but by intellectual independence. When a commentator’s intervention appears aligned with defending specific power structures, observers will inevitably question impartiality.
The public deserves rigorous analysis — not rhetorical shield-building.
If Sally is innocent, evidence will vindicate him. If investigations uncover misconduct, the law must take its course.
Either outcome should emerge from judicial process, not proclamations of untarnished virtue.
In complex national security cases, certainty is rare. What is required instead is transparency, patience, and institutional integrity.
Those principles apply to investigators — and to experts — alike.