Sri Lanka Jails 15 for Up to 260 Years Over Easter Sunday Church Bombings
The Archdiocese of Colombo welcomed the ruling but said those convicted are only part of the case, as a separate probe into alleged state links continues.
8 days ago
Sri Lanka’s High Court sentenced 15 men to prison terms of 200 to 260 years for their roles in the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, the first convictions directly tied to the attacks. The Archdiocese of Colombo welcomed the verdict while saying investigations must continue into who else may have been involved and whether officials could have prevented the attacks. 2 3
A three-judge panel in Colombo delivered the ruling on September 22, following a trial lasting nearly five years and involving 23,270 charges. Fourteen defendants were convicted on all counts, including murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and weapons and explosives offenses; a 15th was convicted on some counts, while nine defendants were acquitted. The court also ordered the convicted men’s property confiscated. 2 3
One defendant received a 260-year sentence, four received 240 years, five received 220 years, and five received 200 years. Prosecutors identified Islamist preacher Mohamed Naufar as a ringleader who supported the suicide bombers; he was sentenced to 220 years. 2 3
The April 2019 attacks targeted three churches and three hotels and killed 279 people, including 45 foreign nationals, among them five U.S. citizens. 2 3
Father Jude Krishantha Fernando, communications director for the Archdiocese of Colombo, welcomed the ruling but said the convicted men represented only one part of the case. He called for scrutiny of whether intelligence and security officials had enough information to stop the bombings. 2 3
The Church has continued to call for those who ordered the attacks to be identified. In February 2026, police arrested former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay; he denies the allegations, and the archdiocese has urged that the investigation proceed without interference. 2 3
Separately, former police chief Pujith Jayasundara and former defense secretary Hemasiri Fernando were sentenced to death in July for failing to act on intelligence warnings. In August, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith said the Church could not support capital punishment because it violates human dignity. 2 3
Catholic teaching on justice, mercy, and accountability after terrorism
Catholic teaching holds together three obligations after terrorism: honor and protect the victims, hold the guilty personally accountable, and refuse vengeance. Mercy does not mean excusing terrorism or abandoning justice; justice does not permit indiscriminate retaliation or hatred.
Terrorist attacks deliberately killing or maiming civilians are gravely wrong. No grievance, political cause, or religious claim can justify such attacks on human life and dignity.
Those responsible should be identified and brought to account. But guilt must be personal: it cannot be extended to a whole nation, ethnic group, or religion because some members committed or supported terrorism. Accountability should proceed through law and due process, not collective blame.
Governments have a duty to protect people from terrorism, and defense against it can be legitimate. Yet the end—security—does not make every means acceptable. Responses must respect moral and legal limits, distinguish the guilty from the innocent, and reject torture.
The Church therefore rejects revenge as a guiding purpose. A response based on vengeance risks perpetuating violence, while indiscriminate force can injure innocents and deepen injustice. The proper aim is protection and justice, pursued with restraint and lawful accountability.
Christian forgiveness means refusing to let hatred and retaliation dictate the future. It does not mean denying the crime, silencing victims, or declaring that perpetrators should face no consequences. Catholic teaching presents justice and forgiveness as necessary companions in the pursuit of peace.
Mercy also extends to perpetrators as human beings: they remain responsible for their actions, but they are not reducible to those actions. Forgiveness can coexist with lawful punishment and measures needed to protect others. The available sources affirm both accountability and forgiveness, though they do not prescribe one uniform form of reconciliation for every victim or community.
Recognizing injustice, oppression, or marginalization can help explain how extremist movements recruit and gain support; it does not excuse terrorism. A responsible response combines security and accountability with efforts to address underlying injustices, pursue political solutions, and build solidarity.
In practical moral terms, this means grieving with victims, protecting the public, investigating and prosecuting the guilty fairly, avoiding blame of innocent communities, and resisting the cycle of hatred. Mercy opposes vengeance; justice opposes impunity; both serve peace.