“I Was Not in Sri Lanka”: The Easter Sunday Suspect’s Alibi Faces Fresh Scrutiny
The latest defence offered by the alleged mastermind behind the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks is as simple as it is familiar: “I was not in Sri Lanka.”
According to investigators, the suspect has repeatedly insisted that he was in India at the time of the bombings on April 21, 2019. He claims he had travelled to South India to attend a security-related academic course in Chennai.
Yet phone records, travel data and other forensic evidence reportedly tell a far more complicated story.
Authorities examining the suspect’s communications say that, while he may indeed have been in India during the relevant period, key records place him not in Chennai, but in New Delhi for at least part of the time. That discrepancy has become a central question for investigators.
There is, after all, a considerable distance between New Delhi and Chennai. Investigators are now seeking to establish whether the suspect was genuinely enrolled in a course, how frequently he attended, and whether his stated movements are consistent with mobile phone tower data, airline records, hotel bookings and financial transactions.
The suspect’s argument appears to rely heavily on the fact that he was allegedly outside Sri Lanka when the attacks occurred. But investigators say physical absence from the country does not necessarily exclude involvement in planning, directing or coordinating a terrorist operation.
Modern terrorist conspiracies are not always conducted face-to-face. Encrypted messaging apps, international phone calls, email communications and intermediaries allow individuals to coordinate operations across borders. For investigators, the question is no longer simply where a suspect was standing on a given day, but what instructions were sent, what meetings took place, and who was in contact with whom.
Officials involved in the case say the suspect is now in custody and is being questioned intensively about inconsistencies between his public claims and the evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies.
Particular attention is being paid to digital forensic material, including call records, device extractions, IP address logs and travel history. Investigators are reportedly attempting to determine whether evidence previously submitted to foreign agencies may have been incomplete, manipulated or misleading.
That issue could have major international consequences.
For years, several public figures argued that overseas agencies had already settled the question of responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks. Former officials frequently cited the involvement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other foreign intelligence services as proof that the case had been conclusively resolved.
Among those who publicly relied on such arguments was Ali Sabry, who stated on several occasions that foreign investigators had pointed in a different direction.
Likewise, Rohan Gunaratna repeatedly referred to foreign findings in his public commentary and publications, arguing that the matter had already been examined by international experts.
But if investigators now conclude that fabricated or planted material was knowingly provided to foreign agencies, it could undermine years of assumptions about the case.
A growing concern among investigators is whether some forensic material, witness statements or intelligence summaries provided to overseas partners may have been selectively edited, distorted or deliberately constructed to steer suspicion away from certain individuals.
If that proves true, it would raise troubling questions about whether foreign agencies, including the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were given inaccurate information during earlier stages of the inquiry.
Authorities are now said to be revisiting phone metadata, international travel movements and intelligence communications from the months leading up to the Easter attacks.
The suspect may continue to insist that he was not in Sri Lanka.
But investigators appear increasingly focused on a different question altogether: not whether he was physically present on the island, but whether he was directing events from somewhere else.