By Anubhavanananda
(Lanka-e-News -10 Nov 2026, 4.30 P.M.) The National People’s Power (NPP), led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, pledged in its 2024 election manifesto to work towards “the repeal of all repressive laws, including the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), and the protection of the civil rights of people in all parts of the country.”
However, the new Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA), introduced as a replacement for the old Prevention of Terrorism Act, has attracted widespread criticism, with allegations that it retains many of the same repressive powers. The proposed Organised Crime Prevention Bill has also sparked considerable controversy. Taken together, these developments expose a clear contradiction between the government’s political promises and its actions.
Among the various responses and criticisms voiced by human rights organisations, civil society activists, political parties and other groups, we pay particular attention to the observations made by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the new PSTA Bill.
On October 3, OHCHR called on the Sri Lankan Government to subject the proposed PSTA Bill to a comprehensive and detailed review before proceeding with its adoption. While acknowledging several limited but positive changes, including the removal of provisions allowing confessions made to police officers to be admitted as evidence, OHCHR warned in its detailed 19-page legal assessment that the proposed legislation reproduces many of the structural shortcomings of the existing PTA and, in certain respects, expands them further.
OHCHR made nine principal recommendations to the Sri Lankan Government in its legal assessment.
1. Narrow and clarify the definition of terrorism, ensuring that it applies only to the intentional commission of serious acts of violence.
2. Remove provisions that criminalise activities protected under the right to freedom of expression and legitimate civil society activities.
3. Make prompt judicial oversight mandatory for all arrests and detentions.
4. Strengthen legal safeguards against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
5. Guarantee due process, including the right to a fair trial.
6. Make judicial warrants the standard requirement for searches and seizures of property.
7. Give civilian police primacy in law enforcement.
8. Establish independent oversight mechanisms.
9. Conduct a meaningful and inclusive public consultation process involving all stakeholders, including civil society organisations.
On November 3, 2026, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara presented the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA) to Parliament. The Government intends to introduce this new legislation in place of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 48 of 1979. The PSTA Bill received Cabinet approval in principle on August 10, 2026, and was gazetted on September 22.
The proposed legislation raises numerous questions and concerns. Some of the principal criticisms we have identified are outlined below.
An excessively broad definition of terrorism:
Under Section 2 of the 1979 PTA, offences include murder, abduction, damage to State property, possession of weapons and explosives, as well as acts involving words, signs or visual representations intended to incite violence or ethnic and religious hatred.
Under Section 3 of the new PSTA Bill, an act may constitute a terrorist offence if a person intentionally or knowingly engages in conduct to advance a political or ideological cause by creating fear among the public or wrongfully compelling a government or an international organisation to do, or refrain from doing, something. The consequences covered by the provision include death, serious bodily injury, hostage-taking, serious damage to public property and infrastructure, and serious threats to public safety.
One notable feature of the new Bill is that it incorporates the objective of compelling a government to act into the definition of terrorism, where such conduct is intended to advance a political or ideological cause. However, it is important to recognise that such coercion must be connected to death, serious bodily injury or another specified serious consequence.
Therefore, merely exerting pressure on a government through peaceful means does not constitute terrorism. Nevertheless, legal questions remain concerning the meaning of the phrase “wrongfully compelling” and how this provision might be interpreted and enforced in practice.
The risk of peaceful protests and trade union activities being interpreted as terrorism:
Section 3(4) of the proposed PSTA Bill states that participation in protests, the expression of opinions, demonstrations, strikes, labour actions and humanitarian activities, by themselves, are insufficient to establish that an act constitutes terrorism. This provision offers a degree of legal protection.
However, the problem is that although participation in a protest alone is not classified as terrorism, other actions taking place during a protest could potentially be interpreted as terrorist acts under the new legislation.
For example, if State property is damaged during a strike or public demonstration, an important question arises: should such conduct be treated as an ordinary criminal offence, or could it fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 3 of the Bill? The answer would depend on evidence concerning the nature of the conduct, the intention behind it and the consequences that followed.
Granting the military powers to arrest civilians:
Under the old PTA, a police officer of the rank of Superintendent or an officer of a lower rank authorised by such an officer could make arrests without a warrant. The new Bill extends arrest powers not only to the police but, under specified circumstances, also to members of the armed forces and officers of the Coast Guard. It also provides broad powers of search and arrest based on reasonable suspicion.
This is a dangerous development. Even our police force, which is trained to deal with members of the public, has repeatedly demonstrated how its powers can be abused. Against that background, granting similar powers to military and Coast Guard personnel, who do not receive the same basic training in civilian law enforcement, is particularly alarming. This is our assessment.
Under the old PTA, a person arrested could be held for up to 72 hours without being produced before a court. Under the new Bill, a suspect must be brought before a Magistrate within 48 hours of arrest.
Reducing this period from 72 to 48 hours is a positive change. Nevertheless, granting arrest powers to the armed forces and the Coast Guard remains a serious concern.
Section 24 of the new Bill provides that the military may exercise these powers when the police are unavailable, when there is an urgent need to prevent an imminent terrorist act, or when the military has been lawfully deployed to maintain public order.
However, following an arrest by the military, it may take up to 24 hours to hand the suspect over to the police. The 48 hours for producing the suspect before a Magistrate is then calculated from the time the person is handed over to the police. Consequently, a person arrested by the military could remain in custody for longer before being brought before a court than someone arrested directly by the police.
Subordinating the Magistrate to the executive:
Under the old PTA, the Minister could issue an initial detention order for a period of three months. Under the proposed PSTA Bill, the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence may issue a detention order upon a request by the Inspector General of Police or a Deputy Inspector General of Police authorised for that purpose.
Under the old PTA, detention orders could be extended in periods of three months, up to a maximum of 18 months. Under the new Bill, detention orders may be issued in periods of two months, with the total detention period limited to one year. This can be recognised as a positive change.
Under Section 10 of the old PTA, an initial detention order issued by the Minister could not be challenged before a court. Under the new Bill, the initial two-month detention order must be presented to a Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is required to give effect to the order. In other words, the Magistrate is not empowered to independently determine whether the detention is justified. After the first two months, approval from the High Court is required to extend the detention order.
Reducing the maximum detention period from 18 months to one year is significant. However, the fundamental problem is that an executive order alone is sufficient to authorise detention for the initial two months. The Magistrate has no independent discretion to assess the merits of that order and is required to enforce it.
Restrictions on opportunities to obtain bail:
Under the old PTA, suspects arrested under the Act have limited access to bail compared with those charged under ordinary criminal law. The intervention of the Minister or the Attorney General plays an important role in the process.
Under Section 29 of the new Bill, the power to grant bail is vested in the High Court. A suspect accused of an offence punishable by life imprisonment may be granted bail only in exceptional circumstances.
Furthermore, the maximum period a suspect may be held on remand without an indictment being filed is one year. If no indictment has been filed within that period, the High Court must grant bail.
Although the maximum detention period has been reduced, transferring the power to grant bail from the Magistrate to the High Court is problematic. It could further restrict the opportunities available to suspects seeking bail.
Under Section 14 of the old PTA, when a special order was in force, the authorities had the power to prohibit newspaper publications relating to terrorist activities or investigations into such activities.
The new PSTA Bill does not contain a general prohibition on newspaper publications equivalent to Section 14 of the old Act. However, Sections 8 and 9 of the proposed legislation make it an offence to provide confidential information where the person knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the information will be used to commit a terrorist offence. The term “confidential information” includes certain information that could adversely affect national security or public safety.
The important question is how these provisions might affect journalists reporting on security operations, raids, arrests and security checkpoints.
OHCHR has also expressed particular concern in this regard. Its legal assessment warns that journalists and human rights monitors could face criminal charges when reporting on security operations.
Under Sections 9 and 11 of the old PTA, the Minister had the power to order the detention of individuals and restrict their movements, political activities and participation in organisations.
Under Section 59 of the new PSTA Bill, the President may proscribe an organisation by issuing a Gazette notification if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the organisation is committing an offence under the Act.
Such a ban could prohibit membership of the organisation, restrict its ability to raise funds, freeze or prohibit the use of its bank accounts, ban meetings and activities, and restrict the publication of statements or materials and the dissemination of propaganda on behalf of the organisation.
An organisation or individual affected by such a ban may request the President to reconsider the decision and seek judicial review before the Court of Appeal. However, the prohibition remains in force until it is revoked.
Granting the President the power to ban organisations, with the prohibition remaining effective until it is overturned, represents a substantial concentration of executive power. Although judicial review is available afterwards, the Bill does not require prior approval from an independent court before such a ban can be imposed.
Judicial oversight and human rights safeguards:
It is clear that the proposed legislation also contains several positive changes. These include:
- The suspect must be informed of the reason for the arrest and the identity of the arresting officer.
- The suspect must be informed of the right to legal representation.
- Relatives must be notified of the arrest.
- The Human Rights Commission must be allowed to inspect places of detention.
- A Magistrate may examine the welfare of a person in custody.
- A person may be referred for a medical examination where there are grounds to suspect torture.
- Interrogations must be audio-visually recorded.
The Bill also provides for the establishment of an independent review committee to examine detention orders. In our assessment, all these measures represent positive steps.
However, questions remain about the independence of this committee, particularly because the power to appoint its members rests with the Minister. Concerns also arise regarding the nature and binding effect of the recommendations it makes.
Although Sections 72 and 73 of the proposed Bill seek to repeal the old PTA, this does not mean that all existing cases and charges under the old legislation will automatically be extinguished.
Under Section 73, PTA cases currently pending before the courts may continue under the old law. Individuals alleged to have committed offences before the new Act comes into operation, but against whom proceedings have not yet been instituted, may also be prosecuted under the old PTA. In addition, certain regulations relating to the proscription of organisations under the old PTA may continue to operate under the new legislation.
Therefore, repealing the PTA does not mean that everyone charged or detained under that law will automatically be released. The effects of the old legislation will continue for some time.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA) has now been presented to Parliament and is at the First Reading stage. Several petitions challenging its constitutionality and compatibility with fundamental rights have also been filed before the Supreme Court.
We do not suggest that the new PSTA Bill simply reproduces every repressive feature of the old PTA. The proposed legislation contains significant positive changes relating to arrest periods, detention periods, judicial oversight, access to legal representation and the involvement of the Human Rights Commission.
However, these changes alone are not sufficient to conclude that the fundamental character of the Bill is democratic. In particular, the following provisions raise serious concerns:
- Granting the armed forces the power to arrest civilians;
- Requiring Magistrates to give effect to executive detention orders during the initial two-month period;
- Retaining an excessively broad definition of terrorism;
- Granting the President the power to proscribe organisations;
- The potential impact of provisions on confidential information on media freedom; and
- Allowing existing PTA cases and charges to continue under the old legislation.
These are provisions that pose serious challenges to democracy. We must clearly emphasise their implications and register our opposition to them.
Meanwhile, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has declared that the Government will not secure the passage of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill or the Organised Crime Prevention Bill in Parliament without first consulting the relevant stakeholders and social organisations and reaching a broad consensus.
Addressing the National People's Power's National Trade Union Convention at the P. D. Sirisena Stadium in Colombo last Saturday (November 7), the President also stated that every law would be enacted only with the consent of the people.
Indeed, this is a case of finding a silver lining in an otherwise difficult situation.
The NPP Government, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, has been compelled to adjust its position in response to the strong opposition these Bills have encountered, both domestically and internationally.
In fact, these Bills should have been presented to Parliament only after securing broad public approval and consent.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) is a law that has been abused for 47 years to suppress ethnic minorities, political opponents and journalists. From the time the Act was introduced, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) opposed it and consistently called for its repeal.
During 1983 and again in 1988–89, thousands of JVP members were arbitrarily arrested and subjected to torture under this legislation.
In reality, this is an extremely dangerous and consequential law, one capable of determining the very life and death of citizens.
Introducing an alternative to the PTA is an enormous legislative challenge. During the two years since the NPP Government came to power, one of the most consequential legislative challenges it has faced has been repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act and introducing an alternative. The responsibility for meeting this challenge fell primarily on Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara.
Drafting legislation of this nature, which has such far-reaching implications for people's freedom, democracy and human rights, through a hurried process controlled by a very small group is not only unethical but also fundamentally undemocratic.
When drafting legislation of this magnitude, the Government must follow an open and transparent process that allows broad sections of society to contribute their views and proposals. This is the approach required to make the drafting of new legislation genuinely democratic.
At the very least, the Government should have organised a series of public meetings in several provinces to obtain people's views and proposals on the new legislation. It should also have created extensive opportunities for members of the public to submit their suggestions in writing.
A broad and open consultation process should have been established with trade unions, media organisations, the business community and professional associations to facilitate the drafting of the new legislation.
Unfortunately, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara appeared to have neither the vision nor the inclination to establish such a democratic process. Instead, as has become customary, the responsibility for drafting the new PSTA Bill was handed over to a small group.
The committee was chaired by President's Counsel Rienzie Arsecularatne and consisted of 16 other members. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) was represented on the committee by President's Counsel Saliya Peiris and President's Counsel Chanaka de Silva.
However, even the final draft prepared by the committee became the subject of controversy. Saliya Peiris alleged that the draft gazetted by the Government had been substantially and unilaterally altered from the version prepared by the committee he had represented.
He wrote to the committee's chairman, President's Counsel Rienzie Arsecularatne, seeking clarification as to why the draft agreed upon by the committee had subsequently been changed and gazetted, and whose instructions had led to those changes. Copies of the letter were also sent to the other committee members and the President of the Bar Association.
This incident demonstrates that even within the drafting committee, the necessary independence, openness and transparency were lacking. The Organised Crime Prevention Bill appears to have been prepared in much the same manner.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara's approach to drafting legislation appears to be based on the principle of “Damned if you see it, damned if you don't” — or, in other words, doing things behind closed doors and hoping nobody notices.
It must be said that this is a deeply embarrassing approach to lawmaking.
Had the Government adopted a democratic, open and transparent approach from the very beginning in drafting these two highly consequential Bills, the level of opposition we are witnessing today could have been avoided.
We recognise that it is difficult to reach agreements that satisfy everyone in every situation. Nevertheless, being able to draft legislation with the consent of the majority of society would represent a significant political achievement for any government. It would also strengthen the social contract between the electorate and the Government.
We are not suggesting that Sri Lanka does not need a Protection of the State from Terrorism Act or an Organised Crime Prevention Act. Given the circumstances prevailing today, such legislation may be necessary for the country's functioning and security.
However, we must maintain a proper balance between new laws and citizens' freedom, rights, and human rights. Without such a balance, we warn, the country risks moving towards becoming a police state.
---------------------------
by (2026-11-10 11:02:14)
Read 7068 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news