Sri Lanka Convicts 15 Over Easter Bombings
A Colombo court convicted 15 defendants and acquitted nine after a five-year terrorism trial—but arguments over intelligence failures and a wider conspiracy remain.
Sri Lanka’s High Court has convicted 15 men for their roles in the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, delivering the most important verdict yet in a case that has haunted the country for seven years.
Nine other defendants were acquitted and discharged. Sentencing was expected to follow the verdict, with the case involving murder, terrorism, conspiracy and assistance to the network that carried out coordinated suicide attacks against three churches and three luxury hotels.
The attacks killed more than 260 people and wounded roughly 500. Forty-five foreign nationals were among the dead. They shattered Sri Lanka’s fragile post-civil-war stability and exposed catastrophic intelligence failures.
The scale of the trial was extraordinary. Prosecutors filed 23,270 charges against 24 defendants in 2021. More than 2,300 prosecution witnesses testified during proceedings that lasted almost five years before a three-judge Trial-at-Bar.
Among those convicted were Mohamed Naufar, also known as Naufer Moulavi, Ahamed Milhan Hayathu Mohamed and Mohamed Anwar Mohamed Rizkan. The U.S. Justice Department had separately charged the three in California with conspiring to provide material support to ISIS, citing recruitment, weapons training, explosives preparation and other alleged activities.
The verdict establishes criminal responsibility for important members of the network. It does not automatically resolve the argument over who enabled, directed or failed to prevent the attacks.
Sri Lanka’s Catholic Church has repeatedly said the publicly identified militants may not represent the complete conspiracy. Church leaders and victims’ families have demanded investigation of political motives, intelligence contacts and warnings that were not acted upon.
Former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Salley was arrested in February 2026 in a separate investigation. Prosecutors and government officials have made serious allegations about his role. His lawyers reject them, emphasize that he was abroad during the attacks and say previous inquiries cleared him. Those claims must be decided through evidence and due process, not political declarations.
Earlier proceedings found senior officials responsible for failing to respond to warnings. That matters because negligence and conspiracy are different questions. A state can fail catastrophically without having organized the crime; evidence of contacts can be suspicious without proving operational direction.
The court’s acquittal of nine defendants is also significant. In a mass-terrorism case carrying intense public pressure, acquittals can indicate that judges distinguished between association, suspicion and proof beyond the required standard.
Justice is larger than one judgment
Victims’ families need more than convictions. They need a clear account of how warnings from Indian intelligence and other sources moved through Sri Lanka’s security system, why protective action failed and whether institutional rivalries after the 2018 constitutional crisis contributed.
The Supreme Court previously found senior officials responsible for violating fundamental rights through their failures. Criminal liability requires a different and higher evidentiary showing. Conflating administrative negligence with participation in terrorism risks both injustice and confusion.
The U.S. indictment adds international pressure but remains an allegation unless tested in court. Extradition may be unlikely while defendants serve Sri Lankan sentences. Cooperation could still provide digital evidence, financial records and testimony relevant to appeals or connected cases.
Sri Lanka must also avoid using the verdict to stigmatize the wider Muslim population. The attackers represented extremist organizations, not a community collectively. Collective suspicion after 2019 produced discrimination and can create the alienation extremist recruiters exploit.
Transparency will determine whether the judgment builds confidence. Publishing a reasoned decision, protecting witnesses and separating proven findings from ongoing allegations would let the public understand why 15 were convicted and nine acquitted. Justice is strongest when it explains not only whom the state punished, but how the evidence met the law.
Appeals may take years, especially given the immense record. Courts must ensure that the scale of the indictment did not prevent each defendant from answering the specific evidence against him. Speed matters to victims, but durable convictions require procedures that survive appellate review.
What to watch next
What sentences will the 15 receive, and will prosecutors appeal the acquittals? Will the separate Salley investigation produce admissible evidence and a trial? The verdict delivers accountability for part of the attack network. Sri Lankans will judge the process complete only when the unanswered intelligence and political questions are tested with the same rigor.