Who Is Telling the Truth — Federal Bureau of Investigation or Ali Sabry?
Colombo Awaits Evidence After Explosive Claims on Easter Sunday Probe
A political and legal storm is gathering in Colombo after former Sri Lankan Foreign Minister and Justice Minister Ali Sabry claimed during the television programme “The Exchange with Ali Sabry” that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had refused a request for a secondary investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, allegedly stating there was “nothing further to investigate.”
The statement, delivered in a calm and lawyerly tone on national television, has now triggered an entirely different question among Sri Lankans:
Who is telling the truth?
Because according to sources familiar with communications involving American authorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has reportedly denied that such a formal exchange ever took place in the manner described by Sabry. Critics are now publicly demanding documentary proof — letters, emails, diplomatic correspondence, or official requests — to substantiate the former minister’s extraordinary claim.
And in the absence of such evidence, the controversy is rapidly becoming a credibility test not only for Sabry himself, but for successive Sri Lankan governments that handled the aftermath of the Easter Sunday massacre.
The political implications are severe.
Sabry, who served at various times as Justice Minister, Foreign Minister and Finance Minister under the Rajapaksa administration, is now facing growing scrutiny over comments that many believe attempted to close the door on renewed international investigation into the bombings.
His critics argue that such statements are especially sensitive now because fresh allegations and investigative leads have emerged linking elements of Sri Lankan military intelligence and political actors to the attacks.
The recent remanding of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay has dramatically intensified public attention. Although the legal process remains ongoing and allegations are yet to be proven in court, the development has reignited long-standing suspicions regarding state complicity, intelligence failures, and political manipulation surrounding the Easter Sunday atrocities.
Against that backdrop, Sabry’s remarks have acquired explosive significance.
If the FBI genuinely concluded there was nothing more to investigate, then Sabry’s statement could support the argument that international investigators found no evidence warranting deeper inquiry.
But if no such FBI refusal exists, then critics argue the former minister may have seriously misrepresented communications with one of the world’s most powerful investigative agencies.
In legal terms, the issue is straightforward: burden of proof.
Sabry frequently presents himself as a legal authority in Sri Lankan political discourse. Yet opponents have pointedly highlighted that he is an Attorney-at-Law rather than a university-trained LLB graduate, arguing that his public assertions must therefore be backed by documentary evidence rather than political rhetoric.
That criticism may sound elitist to some. Sri Lanka’s Law College pathway has produced many capable lawyers and judges over decades. But critics insist the issue here is not educational pedigree — it is evidentiary accountability.
“You made the claim. Show the communication,” one Colombo-based commentator remarked this week.
Indeed, public pressure is mounting for the publication of any correspondence between Sabry and the FBI or the United States Department of Justice concerning a proposed secondary investigation.
The stakes extend far beyond political embarrassment.
The Easter Sunday attacks remain one of the darkest chapters in modern Sri Lankan history, killing more than 250 people and injuring hundreds more across churches and hotels. Families of victims have spent years demanding transparency, accountability, and an independent investigation free from political interference.
Successive commissions, parliamentary committees, intelligence reviews and court proceedings have produced conflicting narratives, contradictory findings and persistent allegations of cover-ups.
Now, with new investigative directions emerging, the question of whether international agencies were asked to re-engage has become critically important.
Equally controversial were Sabry’s remarks opposing the use of Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) against suspects linked to the Easter Sunday investigations.
During the programme, he reportedly argued that the draconian 1979 legislation should not be used to detain or question individuals allegedly connected to the attacks.
That position has triggered backlash from both nationalist and victim advocacy groups, who argue that the state previously used the PTA aggressively against students, activists, journalists and minorities, yet suddenly urges restraint when investigations edge closer to politically connected individuals or intelligence figures.
For many Sri Lankans, the controversy now boils down to a simple challenge:
If the FBI refused further investigation, where is the evidence?
If correspondence exists, publish it.
If no correspondence exists, then why was the claim made on national television?
In the corridors of power in Colombo, diplomats, lawyers and intelligence officials are watching carefully. Because the credibility gap surrounding the Easter Sunday investigations has already damaged public trust in institutions.
And if conflicting narratives continue to emerge between a former Sri Lankan minister and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the consequences could reach far beyond one television interview.
For the victims’ families, this is not merely political theatre.
It is a battle over truth itself.