FOLLOW THE MONEY: Could an Unexplored Financial Trail Hold the Key to the Easter Sunday Mystery?
An Investigative Analysis of Unanswered Questions
Seven years after the Easter Sunday attacks, one question continues to haunt Sri Lanka: has every possible avenue of inquiry been fully explored?
For many members of the Catholic community and families of the victims, the search for accountability is far from over. While multiple investigations, commissions, court proceedings and intelligence reviews have taken place, public debate continues over whether investigators have examined every financial, political and intelligence-related lead connected to the tragedy.
The most important unanswered question remains remarkably simple: who financed the Easter Sunday attacks?
Former Governor Muzzamil colllected from Abul Hajiyar or the Watawala plantation ? this questions must be answered? Terrorist operations require money, logistics, communications,
transport, safe houses and planning. If funds were used to support the attackers, where did that money originate, who authorized its movement, and who benefited from the operation's outcome?
Did Ali Sabry ? Rohan Gunarathne? Kamal Gunarathne? Must it be investigated whether Dilith Jayaweera knew about the Easter Sunday Attack in advance to establish the facts? Equally important is the question of knowledge. Were there individuals beyond the direct perpetrators who possessed prior information about the impending attacks? Did any political figures, intelligence officers, business associates, intermediaries or foreign contacts become aware of suspicious activities before Easter Sunday? These questions do not presume guilt against any individual, but they underscore why a comprehensive investigation into financial transactions, communications records and intelligence reports remains essential to establishing the full truth behind one of the darkest chapters in Sri Lanka's history.
Among the questions raised by commentators and independent observers is whether investigators have sufficiently examined potential financial networks that may have supported extremist activities. If significant sums of money were moved before the attacks, who provided those funds? Where did they originate? Who benefited from the transactions? Most importantly, were all relevant records examined?
These questions naturally lead to a broader issue. In any major conspiracy investigation, investigators traditionally follow three paths: motive, capability and financing. While much public attention has focused on the perpetrators and intelligence failures, some observers argue that the financial dimension deserves equal scrutiny.
If, hypothetically, evidence were ever to emerge suggesting that substantial funds had moved through business networks, foreign accounts or intermediaries connected to persons of interest, investigators would need to determine whether those transactions were legitimate commercial activities or whether they had any connection whatsoever to extremist operations.
Such questions inevitably extend beyond the immediate perpetrators. Who possessed prior knowledge of potential threats? Who received warnings? Who had access to intelligence reports? Who participated in political or security discussions during the period preceding the attacks?
These questions do not establish guilt against any individual. Rather, they highlight the importance of transparency. In democratic societies, public confidence depends not only upon identifying perpetrators but also upon demonstrating that all relevant leads have been investigated thoroughly and impartially.
The enduring demand from victims' families is not for speculation but for answers. They seek a complete understanding of what happened, who knew what, when they knew it, and whether opportunities existed to prevent the tragedy.
As time passes, the central challenge remains unchanged. The Easter Sunday attacks were not merely a criminal act; they became a defining moment in modern Sri Lankan history. Any unresolved questions—whether financial, political, intelligence-related or institutional—continue to fuel public suspicion.
Ultimately, the question confronting Sri Lanka is simple: has every stone truly been turned over, or are there still avenues of inquiry waiting to be explored?
Until that question is answered convincingly, the search for truth will continue.