Sri Lanka High Court Convicts 15 in Deadly 2019 Easter Sunday Bombings

Sri Lanka’s High Court has convicted 15 men over the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, a coordinated assault on churches and luxury hotels that killed 270 people and injured more than 500. The court acquitted nine other defendants.

Among those found guilty was Naufer Moulavi, whom prosecutors described as the mastermind of the suicide bombings. The blasts targeted three churches and three hotels on April 21, 2019, and remain the deadliest attack in Sri Lanka since the end of its civil war in 2009. Forty-five foreigners were among the dead.

All the bombers died in the attacks. Investigators have blamed Islamist extremists for the plot, and the 25 men indicted were members of Sri Lanka’s Muslim minority. One of the accused died in custody.

The defendants had faced more than 23,000 charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and possession of firearms. More than 2,300 people testified for the prosecution, and the case record included 2,076 pieces of evidence, among them explosives, swords, and firearms.

The convictions arrive after years of hearings and public anger over whether anyone would be held accountable. In the aftermath of the bombings, Sri Lankan authorities acknowledged a 'major intelligence lapse.' Parliament was told that a tip-off from India about the plot had not been properly shared with the authorities.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ordered former President Maithripala Sirisena to pay millions in compensation to victims after finding him responsible for national security failures that led to the attacks. Last month, two former senior officials were sentenced to death for criminal negligence connected to the bombings. Sri Lanka has a decades-old moratorium on executions, and death sentences are usually commuted to life in prison.

For years, Sri Lankans have held regular demonstrations demanding justice for the victims. The case has been closely watched by the country’s Muslim minority, which has long feared being blamed collectively for the actions of a small group of extremists. The verdicts may offer a measure of accountability, but they are unlikely to close broader questions about intelligence failures, security reforms, and how the state protects all communities.