By Skandha Gunasekara
The inclusion of the death penalty would be one of the new amendments that would be included in the proposed Counter Terrorism Bill (CTB) once it is presented to Parliament, The Sunday Morning learnt.
At present, the CTB has been given to the Sectoral Oversight Committee on International Relations (SOCIR) by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security (SOCNS).
The SOCIR has been tasked with holding hearings on the bill, giving effect to the determinations of the Supreme Court, and sending the bill forward for a vote in Parliament.
SOCIR Chair United National Party (UNP) MP Mayantha Dissanayake said the Supreme Court had recommended the inclusion of the death penalty to the CTB.
“Following its scrutiny of the CTB, the Supreme Court recommended that an amendment be made to the bill in the form of the death penalty being included,” Dissanayake said, pointing out that under the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the death penalty could not be imposed even if a terror act resulted in fatalities.
He then noted that the Government too had proposed an amendment on the maximum time period before authorities must produce a suspect before courts.
“The Government has proposed an amendment to ensure that suspects arrested under this proposed act would be produced before a magistrate court within a period of 48 hours,” Dissanayake said.
However, many are of the opinion that the proposed Counter Terrorism Act must be heavily amended before it could be enacted, or completely retracted.
At present, one of the most controversial and contentious provisions of the CTB is its definition of terrorism.
However, Dissanayake stated the definition of terrorism was more liberal than a lot of foreign nations.
“I believe that the definition of terrorism is acceptable. We have arrived at a definition of terrorism that is more liberal than those adopted by either the US or the UK,” he iterated.
“Joint Opposition” Leader United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MP Dinesh Gunawardena, who is also a member of the SOCIR, said the definition of terrorism in the current form of the bill was unacceptable.
“It defines terrorism as anyone who obstructs the functioning of the Government. This is too broad a definition of terrorism and directly curtails the democratic rights of the masses,” Gunawardena said, adding that the bill attempts to make emergency law as normal law if passed in its current state.
Article 3 of the CTB which defines terrorism states: (1) Any person, who commits any act referred to in subsection (2), with the intention of – (a) intimidating a population; (b) wrongfully or unlawfully compelling the government of Sri Lanka, or any other government, or an international organization, to do or to abstain from doing any act; (c) preventing any such government from functioning; or (d) causing harm to the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, shall be guilty of the offence of terrorism.
He went on to say that several state institutions directly linked with the anti-terror bill such as the Attorney General’s Department and the Ministry of Defence had not been consulted when the bill was initially drafted.
In addition, Gunawardena said there were too many provisions of the bill at present to be just amended and it would be best if the bill was retracted and a fresh bill was proposed.
“The whole thing has to change. Even the Ministry of Defence and the Attorney General’s Department have criticised the bill. There is no piecemeal when it comes to this bill. The entire bill must go,” he said.
Meanwhile, United National Front (UNF) MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne said it would be detrimental to democracy if the bill was enacted in its current form.
He too noted that the definition of terrorism in the third section of the bill was far too wide.
“The Hartal of 1953 would be good example of how this bill would infringe on democratic rights. If this bill was in place in 1953, the Hartal would have been considered an act of terrorism,” Dr. Wickremeratne said, adding that it would have led to the arrests of N.M. Perera, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, and Philip Gunawardena as being guilty of terrorism.
Furthermore, referring to the many demonstrations held at Polduwa junction en-route to the Parliament complex, Dr. Wickramaratne said those too would be categorised as acts of terrorism.
“The demonstrations at Polduwa junction often block the road to the Parliament. This is unlawful but non-violent, so we tolerate such illegal acts in the larger interest of democracy. However, if this is bill is passed, such demonstrations too would be considered acts of terrorism,” he said.
Citing Section 3 (3) of the bill, Dr. Wickramaratne said that the act of cooking hoppers on the railroad in Balapitiya by female cadres of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party during the 1953 Hartal would also be considered an act of terrorism.
Section 3 (3) states: “Any action taken by any person in good faith in the lawful exercise of a fundamental right, or in pursuance of, or to give effect to a lawful order given to him, or in accordance with or to give effect to a judicial order, shall not amount to an offence under this Act.”
“They were burning hoppers on the railway line which is not a fundamental right and violated the railway ordinance. So under this bill that too would be an act of terrorism,” he said.
However, Dr. Wickramaratne said there were some positives to the bill as well, such as the ability to penalise a person for terrorist acts carried out both in Sri Lanka as well as in a foreign country.
This is provided for in Section 2 which states: 2. (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to– (a) any citizen of Sri Lanka, who commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka; (b) any person who commits an offence under this Act – (i) wholly or partly, in Sri Lanka; (ii) in or over territorial waters of Sri Lanka; (iii) in the airspace of Sri Lanka; (iv) on-board or in respect of an aircraft or vessel registered in Sri Lanka or belonging to or used by the Government of Sri Lanka; (v) wholly or partly within the office premises of a diplomatic mission of Sri Lanka, or a consular Post or officer of Sri Lanka, or at the residence of the Head of such diplomatic mission or consular post or at the residence of any diplomatic or consular officer or any other employee of such mission or post; (vi) wholly or partly within the office premises situated outside Sri Lanka of a statutory board of the government of Sri Lanka or within the residence of an employee of such statutory board; (c) any person, who commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka in respect of – (i) a citizen of Sri Lanka including a citizen deployed in an international peace-keeping or monitoring mission; (ii) a property owned by the Government of Sri Lanka; (d) any person who had been a citizen of Sri Lanka, and commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka.
“This provision is significant as the existing PTA does not allow such a penalisation; one of the key reasons why it was not initially possible to proscribe the terror groups responsible for the Easter Sunday bombings,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Dissanayake stated that the report of the SOCIR would be presented to Parliament at the next sitting.
“After it has been tabled in Parliament, it is up to the House to decide whether to have a second reading debate or whether to add amendments at a party leaders meeting. MPs could even suggest amendments following the second reading debate,” he said.
The inclusion of the death penalty would be one of the new amendments that would be included in the proposed Counter Terrorism Bill (CTB) once it is presented to Parliament, The Sunday Morning learnt.
At present, the CTB has been given to the Sectoral Oversight Committee on International Relations (SOCIR) by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security (SOCNS).
The SOCIR has been tasked with holding hearings on the bill, giving effect to the determinations of the Supreme Court, and sending the bill forward for a vote in Parliament.
SOCIR Chair United National Party (UNP) MP Mayantha Dissanayake said the Supreme Court had recommended the inclusion of the death penalty to the CTB.
“Following its scrutiny of the CTB, the Supreme Court recommended that an amendment be made to the bill in the form of the death penalty being included,” Dissanayake said, pointing out that under the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the death penalty could not be imposed even if a terror act resulted in fatalities.
He then noted that the Government too had proposed an amendment on the maximum time period before authorities must produce a suspect before courts.
“The Government has proposed an amendment to ensure that suspects arrested under this proposed act would be produced before a magistrate court within a period of 48 hours,” Dissanayake said.
However, many are of the opinion that the proposed Counter Terrorism Act must be heavily amended before it could be enacted, or completely retracted.
At present, one of the most controversial and contentious provisions of the CTB is its definition of terrorism.
However, Dissanayake stated the definition of terrorism was more liberal than a lot of foreign nations.
“I believe that the definition of terrorism is acceptable. We have arrived at a definition of terrorism that is more liberal than those adopted by either the US or the UK,” he iterated.
“Joint Opposition” Leader United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MP Dinesh Gunawardena, who is also a member of the SOCIR, said the definition of terrorism in the current form of the bill was unacceptable.
“It defines terrorism as anyone who obstructs the functioning of the Government. This is too broad a definition of terrorism and directly curtails the democratic rights of the masses,” Gunawardena said, adding that the bill attempts to make emergency law as normal law if passed in its current state.
Article 3 of the CTB which defines terrorism states: (1) Any person, who commits any act referred to in subsection (2), with the intention of – (a) intimidating a population; (b) wrongfully or unlawfully compelling the government of Sri Lanka, or any other government, or an international organization, to do or to abstain from doing any act; (c) preventing any such government from functioning; or (d) causing harm to the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, shall be guilty of the offence of terrorism.
He went on to say that several state institutions directly linked with the anti-terror bill such as the Attorney General’s Department and the Ministry of Defence had not been consulted when the bill was initially drafted.
In addition, Gunawardena said there were too many provisions of the bill at present to be just amended and it would be best if the bill was retracted and a fresh bill was proposed.
“The whole thing has to change. Even the Ministry of Defence and the Attorney General’s Department have criticised the bill. There is no piecemeal when it comes to this bill. The entire bill must go,” he said.
Meanwhile, United National Front (UNF) MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne said it would be detrimental to democracy if the bill was enacted in its current form.
He too noted that the definition of terrorism in the third section of the bill was far too wide.
“The Hartal of 1953 would be good example of how this bill would infringe on democratic rights. If this bill was in place in 1953, the Hartal would have been considered an act of terrorism,” Dr. Wickremeratne said, adding that it would have led to the arrests of N.M. Perera, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, and Philip Gunawardena as being guilty of terrorism.
Furthermore, referring to the many demonstrations held at Polduwa junction en-route to the Parliament complex, Dr. Wickramaratne said those too would be categorised as acts of terrorism.
“The demonstrations at Polduwa junction often block the road to the Parliament. This is unlawful but non-violent, so we tolerate such illegal acts in the larger interest of democracy. However, if this is bill is passed, such demonstrations too would be considered acts of terrorism,” he said.
Citing Section 3 (3) of the bill, Dr. Wickramaratne said that the act of cooking hoppers on the railroad in Balapitiya by female cadres of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party during the 1953 Hartal would also be considered an act of terrorism.
Section 3 (3) states: “Any action taken by any person in good faith in the lawful exercise of a fundamental right, or in pursuance of, or to give effect to a lawful order given to him, or in accordance with or to give effect to a judicial order, shall not amount to an offence under this Act.”
“They were burning hoppers on the railway line which is not a fundamental right and violated the railway ordinance. So under this bill that too would be an act of terrorism,” he said.
However, Dr. Wickramaratne said there were some positives to the bill as well, such as the ability to penalise a person for terrorist acts carried out both in Sri Lanka as well as in a foreign country.
This is provided for in Section 2 which states: 2. (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to– (a) any citizen of Sri Lanka, who commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka; (b) any person who commits an offence under this Act – (i) wholly or partly, in Sri Lanka; (ii) in or over territorial waters of Sri Lanka; (iii) in the airspace of Sri Lanka; (iv) on-board or in respect of an aircraft or vessel registered in Sri Lanka or belonging to or used by the Government of Sri Lanka; (v) wholly or partly within the office premises of a diplomatic mission of Sri Lanka, or a consular Post or officer of Sri Lanka, or at the residence of the Head of such diplomatic mission or consular post or at the residence of any diplomatic or consular officer or any other employee of such mission or post; (vi) wholly or partly within the office premises situated outside Sri Lanka of a statutory board of the government of Sri Lanka or within the residence of an employee of such statutory board; (c) any person, who commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka in respect of – (i) a citizen of Sri Lanka including a citizen deployed in an international peace-keeping or monitoring mission; (ii) a property owned by the Government of Sri Lanka; (d) any person who had been a citizen of Sri Lanka, and commits an offence under this Act, within or outside the territory of the Republic of Sri Lanka.
“This provision is significant as the existing PTA does not allow such a penalisation; one of the key reasons why it was not initially possible to proscribe the terror groups responsible for the Easter Sunday bombings,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Dissanayake stated that the report of the SOCIR would be presented to Parliament at the next sitting.
“After it has been tabled in Parliament, it is up to the House to decide whether to have a second reading debate or whether to add amendments at a party leaders meeting. MPs could even suggest amendments following the second reading debate,” he said.