A man questioned by authorities in Sri Lanka over his alleged involvement in the devastating 2019 Easter Sunday bombings is now fighting for the right to remain in the United Kingdom, after a tribunal judge granted him a fresh opportunity to pursue his asylum claim.
The 2019 Easter Sunday Atrocity
The suspect, who cannot be named due to an anonymity order, was originally detained in his home country over allegations connected to the co-ordinated suicide attacks on 21 April 2019. The bombings targeted three churches and three luxury hotels in Colombo, killing 269 people and injuring hundreds more.
Among the dead were eight British citizens, including a family of three from London who were killed while having breakfast at the Shangri-La Hotel. The attacks, which occurred on one of Christianity's holiest days, were widely blamed on local Islamist extremist groups with links to the Islamic State (ISIS).
A Contested Path to UK Asylum
According to the case presented to the tribunal, the Sri Lankan national was arrested by authorities in January 2022. He claims he was only released from police detention after his family paid a substantial bribe. Months later, he fled to Britain, where he promptly sought asylum for himself and his wife, arguing he faced persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.
Just two weeks after his arrival in the UK, Sri Lankan authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. The UK Home Office refused his asylum claim in April 2024, and a first-tier immigration tribunal judge rejected his initial appeal in March of this year.
Legal Reprieve and Next Steps
However, the suspect, who represented himself at a hearing in Birmingham, was granted a further chance after appealing to the Upper Tribunal. He argued the first judge was biased and had made legal errors, including failing to properly consider evidence from a Sri Lankan lawyer and producing findings on the arrest warrant that were contradictory to the evidence.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Claire Burns found that the first judge had indeed erred in law in their analysis of the documentary evidence. While she dismissed the claim of prejudice, she set aside the original decision, ordering a full reassessment of the man's credibility and account by a new tribunal. No date has yet been set for this fresh hearing.
