If they claim we did not provide information about the Easter attack will give technical evidence
Former State Intelligence Chief Nilantha Jayawardene has said he is able to provide technical evidence to counter any claims that the State Intelligence Service (SIS) had failed to present information on the Easter Sunday attacks sent by a foreign intelligence service to the Intelligence Review meeting held on April 9.
The former director of the SIS who testified before the Presidential Commission for the thirteenth consecutive day further stated that those at the meeting did not pay any special attention to the foreign intelligence, except for a bit at the end of the intelligence review meeting on April 9.
The Additional Solicitor General of the Government questioned the witness as to whether he had attended the intelligence review meeting held on April 9 last year.
Jayawardena said that he was present at the meeting which started at 10 am and was attended by the then Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, former Chief of National Intelligence Sisira Mendis, former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundara, Director of Army Intelligence and the Commanders of the triforces.
When asked if the former Secretary of Defence knew of the information received on April 4 about possible attacks prior to the meeting, Nilantha Jayawardena said that he had informed the Defence Secretary about the intelligence information through the phone on April 7 and that the former Defence Secretary was aware of it at the beginning of the meeting.
The Additional Solicitor General of the Government asked the witness if Jayawardene as the Director of State Intelligence had brought up for discussion the received relevant foreign intelligence information.
Nilantha Jayawardena gave a short answer saying no and explained the reason for not speaking. “Before the meeting started, I asked the Chief of National Intelligence, ‘Sir, why are you still holding the information in your hand, this could be a problem’.
Nilantha Jayawardena said that no one had tried to bring foreign intelligence into the discussion until the end of the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Sisira Mendis, the Chief of National Intelligence, said, “Sir Nilantha’s paper …” He reminded Defense Secretary Hemasiri Fernando of foreign intelligence.
Hemasiri had then asked Jayawardene what action he had taken.
“Sir, the team I sent to the East to look into this came last night. We are preparing a special report. I will send it to the IGP today,” Jayawardena told the Defense Secretary. He told the commission that he had submitted a special report to IGP Pujith Jayasundara after the intelligence review meeting at around 1 pm.
The Chairman of the Presidential Commission asked the witness, “Somehow if the Defense Secretary says that Nilantha Jayawardena did not talk about this at the 9th meeting, is that correct?
In response, Nilantha Jayawardena said,
“No, sir. I have technical evidence to prove it. We are officers who have served very closely and very faithfully. But if there is a problem with my position at any point, I will present that technical evidence.”
The chairman then ordered Nilantha Jayawardena to prove through that technical evidence that foreign intelligence was discussed at the relevant meeting.”
However, in response to the commission’s order, Jayawardena said, “Get it from me after Sisira Mendis, the former head of the National Intelligence Service, testifies before the commission.”
In response the Chairman of the Presidential Commission said in a stern tone,
“Mr. Nilantha Jayawardena, you cannot set conditions for the Commission. The manner in which the Commission conducts itself is determined by the Commission. Therefore, present that evidence.”
The private counsel appearing for Mr. Nilantha Jayawardena stood up and requested an opportunity to speak privately with the members of the Commission and the Presiding Judge directed the Additional Solicitor General to attend the discussion as well.
Accordingly, after a brief discussion, the Chairman of the Commission directed that the relevant technical evidence be presented only if the witness so desired.
