Sri Lanka court convicts 15 men over Easter Sunday bombings

What happened

Fifteen men have been convicted by Sri Lanka’s High Court of involvement in the plot behind the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, which killed 270 people. The judgment addresses the organisation of an attack that struck religious and tourist sites in a co-ordinated series of explosions.

Naufer Moulavi was among those found guilty. Prosecutors identified him as the mastermind of the suicide attacks, which injured more than 500 people as well as causing mass fatalities. Nine other defendants were acquitted.

The bombers targeted three churches and three luxury hotels. Forty-five foreign nationals were among those killed, giving the attacks an international reach alongside their devastating consequences for Sri Lankan families and communities.

Twenty-five men were originally indicted in the prosecution. One died in custody, leaving 24 defendants whose cases ended in the latest convictions and acquittals. All the suicide bombers themselves died when they detonated their explosives; this trial concerned men accused of involvement in the wider plot.

The prosecution brought more than 23,000 charges, covering offences including murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism and possession of firearms. The number of charges reflected a case extending beyond the individual explosions to the preparation and support alleged to have made them possible.

More than 2,300 people gave evidence for the prosecution. The proceedings also involved 2,076 pieces of evidence, including explosives, swords and firearms. That material formed part of a substantial criminal case examining responsibility for the attacks.

The background

The bombings were Sri Lanka’s deadliest attacks since its civil war ended in 2009. They brought mass violence back to the country a decade after the end of that conflict, this time through simultaneous attacks on places of worship and hotels.

Investigators attributed the bombings to Islamist extremists. The men indicted were members of Sri Lanka’s Muslim minority, although the criminal proceedings concerned their individual alleged actions and responsibilities, rather than the wider community.

Alongside the investigation into the attackers and their associates, the disaster prompted scrutiny of the state’s ability to act on advance warnings. Sri Lankan authorities acknowledged a major failure in intelligence handling after the bombings.

Parliament heard that India had provided a warning about the attacks, but that the information had not been properly passed to the relevant authorities. The handling of that tip-off became a central part of the separate question of whether the killings could have been prevented.

In 2023, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court held former president Maithripala Sirisena responsible for national security failures that contributed to the attacks. It ordered him to pay compensation to victims, extending accountability beyond those accused of planning or supporting the bombings.

Last month, two former senior officials received death sentences for criminal negligence that led to the attacks. Their case dealt with failures by those holding public responsibilities, rather than participation in the bombing plot itself.

These proceedings address different forms of responsibility. The High Court case concerns criminal involvement in organising the violence; the cases involving the former president and senior officials concern the state’s failure to protect people from it. A finding in one does not substitute for a judgment about the conduct examined in another.

What people are saying

For years, Sri Lankans have repeatedly demonstrated to demand justice for those killed and injured. Those protests have kept the victims’ cause in public view while proceedings have examined both the extremist plot and the conduct of the authorities before the explosions.

The prosecution’s identification of Moulavi as the organiser placed the planning of the attacks at the centre of its case. Because the suicide bombers died at the scenes, establishing the role of others was essential to the effort to prosecute the network behind them.

The authorities’ acknowledgement of an intelligence failure focused attention on a different part of the disaster: how security information was handled. The warning from India meant the public debate was not confined to identifying the attackers, but also covered the decisions and omissions of officials responsible for responding to threats.

The nine acquittals are an important distinction within the outcome. Those defendants were prosecuted alongside the men convicted, but the court did not find them guilty. The judgment therefore does not amount to a conviction of everyone who faced allegations in the case.

What happens next

Sri Lanka’s longstanding approach to capital punishment is relevant to the separate sentences imposed on the two former senior officials. The country has maintained a moratorium on executions for decades, and death sentences are usually commuted to life imprisonment.

A death sentence in those proceedings therefore should not be read as an execution date. The distinction is between the punishment imposed by a court and the way that punishment is subsequently implemented under Sri Lanka’s established practice.

The compensation order against Sirisena represents another form of redress. Financial compensation and criminal punishment serve different purposes: one provides a remedy for victims, while the other addresses the responsibility of people found guilty of offences. The legal response to the Easter bombings has included both.

For the latest case, the result must also be understood separately from those earlier decisions. The 15 men have been convicted over the bombing plot; the death sentences imposed last month concerned two former officials and criminal negligence. They are distinct outcomes involving different defendants and conduct.

Why this matters

For UK readers, the targeting of luxury hotels alongside churches shows why the attacks were both a national tragedy and an international event. The 45 foreign deaths formed part of the overall toll of 270, linking violence in Sri Lanka to bereaved families beyond its borders.

The case also illustrates the practical importance of passing security warnings to those able to act on them. Scrutiny of the Indian tip-off, compensation for victims and prosecutions of former officials show that accountability has extended beyond the perpetrators to the public institutions responsible for protecting lives.