Who Orchestrated the Detention of Hijaz Hizbullah?
Unravelling the PTA, Intelligence Influence, and a Troubling Question of Justice in Sri Lanka
By Staff Correspondent
In the fraught aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, Sri Lanka’s security apparatus moved with urgency—sometimes with precision, often with opacity. Among the most controversial detentions to emerge from that period was that of Hijaz Hizbullah, a prominent human rights lawyer who found himself arrested under the sweeping provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Years later, the central question remains unresolved: was Hizbullah’s detention a legitimate national security measure—or the product of a calculated conspiracy involving powerful figures within the state?
The Arrest That Shocked the Legal Community
On 14 April 2020, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) detained Hizbullah, alleging links to extremism and suggesting indirect connections to the Easter attacks. Authorities claimed he had associations with a charity operating in Puttalam, where, they alleged, children were being exposed to radical ideologies.
The allegations quickly escalated. Hizbullah was portrayed not merely as a peripheral figure but as someone whose professional and personal associations raised suspicions of deeper involvement. Yet, as proceedings unfolded, the evidentiary basis appeared increasingly fragile. Much of the case reportedly hinged on statements from a single informant—claims that were later widely questioned and, in some accounts, discredited.
Compounding concerns was the fact that Hizbullah had acted as legal counsel for individuals accused in terrorism-related cases. In a functioning legal system, such representation is not only legitimate but essential. However, in the charged post-attack climate, this professional duty appeared to have been recast as suspicion.
Allegations of a Deeper Conspiracy
More troubling are emerging claims from sources suggesting that Hizbullah’s arrest was not purely investigative, but orchestrated.
At the centre of these allegations is a former Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS), described as a counter-terrorism academic with close ties to the then administration of Gotabaya Rajapaksa. According to these accounts, this figure may have played a decisive role in shaping the narrative that led to Hizbullah’s detention.
The alleged conspiracy does not end there. Sources further point to the involvement of a politically connected Presidential Counsel—reportedly a Muslim lawyer with proximity to the Rajapaksa administration. The implication is stark: that elements within both the security establishment and the legal elite may have collaborated, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the arrest.
If substantiated, such claims would point to a deeply troubling misuse of state power—where intelligence influence, political loyalty, and legal authority intersected to target an individual.
Political Context and the Rajapaksa Administration
To understand the plausibility of these allegations, one must situate them within the broader political environment of the time. The post-Easter period saw an intensified focus on national security, often accompanied by expanded executive authority.
Under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, himself a former defence secretary, the state’s security machinery wielded significant influence. Critics argue that this environment created conditions in which dissenting voices—or those perceived as inconvenient—could be sidelined under the guise of counter-terrorism.
The question inevitably arises: was Hizbullah’s detention an outcome of this climate? Or more pointedly, was there direct or indirect involvement from political leadership in enabling or endorsing the arrest?
To date, no conclusive evidence has publicly established direct presidential involvement. However, the absence of transparency has done little to dispel suspicion.
The Role of the PTA: Law or Instrument?
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has long been criticised by human rights organisations for enabling prolonged detention without charge and for its susceptibility to abuse.
Hizbullah’s case became emblematic of these concerns. He was held for an extended period without formal indictment, raising serious questions about due process and judicial oversight.
International observers, including legal advocacy groups, highlighted the risks of relying on uncorroborated intelligence and informant testimony. In this instance, the apparent weakness of the evidence only intensified scrutiny.
Was the PTA used as intended—to protect national security—or as a convenient legal mechanism to detain without immediate accountability?
The Question of Motive
If one entertains the possibility of a conspiracy, motive becomes central.
Several theories have emerged:
- Political expediency: In a climate demanding swift accountability for the Easter attacks, detaining a high-profile Muslim lawyer may have served to demonstrate action.
- Professional rivalry or personal animus: As a human rights advocate, Hizbullah may have attracted opposition from within legal or political circles.
- Narrative construction: Targeting individuals connected, however tenuously, to alleged networks could help reinforce a broader security narrative.
None of these theories have been conclusively proven. Yet their persistence underscores the lack of a clear, evidence-based account from authorities.
A Test for the Present Government
The current administration led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake now faces a critical test. Calls are growing for an independent, transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Hizbullah’s detention.
Key questions demand answers:
- Who initiated and authorised the arrest?
- What role, if any, did intelligence officials or external advisors play?
- Were political figures—past or present—directly involved?
- Why was the evidentiary threshold seemingly so low?
An inquiry that merely revisits procedural details will not suffice. What is required is a forensic examination of decision-making processes, including the influence of informal networks and advisory channels.
Justice Beyond One Man
The case of Hijaz Hizbullah is not solely about an individual. It raises fundamental questions about the rule of law in Sri Lanka.
If a lawyer can be detained on contested evidence, allegedly influenced by political or intelligence actors, what safeguards exist for others?
Conversely, if the arrest was justified, why has the state struggled to present a coherent and compelling evidentiary narrative?
The Imperative of Truth
In post-conflict and post-crisis societies, the line between security and justice is often blurred. Yet it is precisely in such moments that adherence to due process becomes most critical.
The detention of Hijaz Hizbullah stands at this intersection—where law, politics, and intelligence converge. Whether it was a necessary act of national security or a miscarriage of justice shaped by hidden hands remains an open question.
For Sri Lanka, the answer is not merely academic. It is a test of institutional integrity.
Until the full truth is established—through credible, independent investigation—the shadow of doubt will persist, not only over one case, but over the system itself.