• The power to arrest on suspicion and to search houses and seize has been extended beyond the Police to the Tri-Forces and the Coast Guard

A decisive legal battle has intensified in Sri Lanka’s political and social circles. The ‘Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB)’, proposed by the Government to replace the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 (as amended) (PTA) which has faced severe criticism over human rights (HR) violations for more than three decades, has caused grave concern and fear among the general public, trade unions (TUs) and legal experts.

The important fact that the current rulers, who strongly opposed the PTA in the past, are now trying to bring in an even more serious Law has raised a question mark over democracy.

The history and continuation of the PTA

After Junius Richard Jayewardene became the President in 1978, the PTA was introduced in 1979 as a Temporary measure to control the civil war and the violence in the South that had caused a severe threat to the country. The Bill was presented by the then Justice Minister, Kanapathipillai William Devanayagam. The Act did not solve the country’s problems. As a result, in 1982, under the then Justice Minister, Nissanka Parakrama Wijeyeratne, it was made a permanent Law, during that time, Opposition parties including Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), as well as civil society organisations (CSOs), strongly opposed it.

The United National Front for Good Governance Government’s attempt to bring in a ‘Counter-Terrorism Act (CTA)’ in 2018, and the President, attorney Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Government’s effort to bring in an ‘Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)’ in 2023, could not be implemented because of strong public opposition. In this backdrop, the current rulers, who vehemently opposed these laws in the past, began drafting in December of last year (2025), allowed time for public consultation until February of this year (2026), and are now preparing to present the new Bill in Parliament with further Amendments.

International definition

However, the proposed ‘PSTB’ has been widely criticised as being contrary to international standards on terrorism laws. According to the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1566 and the guidelines of the European Union, terrorism refers primarily to violent acts only, such as ‘causing death or serious bodily injury to members of the public, taking hostages, and compelling a government by putting the public in fear’.

HR organisations also insist that ordinary crimes, theft, damage to property and peaceful protests must not be included in it. However, TUs, social activists and HR organisations allege that the definition of terrorism in the new Bill proposed by the Government is very broad and vague.

Warnings on the PSTB

The Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) is actively working to prevent the Bill from being passed. In particular, the GMOA is planning to launch large-scale protests as part of a united and formidable TU alliance.

There is a danger that damaging State property, damaging private transport and even ordinary crimes could be brought under Terrorism. The main weakness of the new Bill is its limited judicial oversight. A person who is arrested can be held in detention on the orders of the Defence Secretary for two months at a time, on six occasions (about one year). Even if the Magistrate considers the offence to be a minor one, bail cannot be granted. Provision has also been made to keep the person in remand for up to a further year after this.

In addition, the power to arrest on suspicion and to search houses and seize has been extended beyond the Police to the Tri-Forces and the Coast Guard. The President has also been given extraordinary powers to proscribe political parties, organisations and institutions without valid reason. Because acts such as disrupting essential services and harming public health are portrayed as acts of Terrorism, thus TU action is being targeted indirectly.

Powers have also been given to prohibit places for up to 72 hours, where people/TUs hold protests, and even officers-in-charge of Police stations have been given the power to propose such restriction orders. Strong opposition to this Bill has arisen across the country. It is surprising to see, instead of repealing these draconian Laws as promised in the Election manifesto of the National People’s Power, an even worse Law is being brought in. The GMOA contemplates to raise this with international bodies such as the UN and the European Union, and to hold protests.

Terrorism has been given a broad definition in this Bill, for an example, even causing major damage to State or private property has been included in one Clause. Yet, international definitions of terrorism cover acts such as the death of a person, endangering life, causing bodily harm and taking hostages. The Government has gone beyond these norms and included several acts that are not serious.

Because the definition of Terrorism given in this Bill is vague, people will fear that they could become victim of this Law for any activity that they take part in. Harming public health and obstructing or disrupting essential services are also treated in this Bill as activities linked to Terrorism. In other words, these provisions are designed to restrict TU action indirectly.

In particular, the President has been given extraordinary powers in certain matters. The President could proscribe political parties, organisations or institutions without proper reason. Such provisions exist in the PTA as well. It was through them that Jayewardene banned the JVP for a period of time. In the same way, even trade unionists and TUs could be banned. Beyond banning itself, recruiting members and sources of funding can also be blocked. This is dangerous.

Sri Lanka being a democratic country, the Government must listen to the demands of its citizens. This Government that was brought to power by the people, must look beyond its two-thirds majority and respect the views of the people of this country. To prevent this Bill being passed at the Parliament, the GMOA will unite as a TU front and begin its struggle.

Opposition from other quarters

President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, who had been a member of the expert committee on drafting this Bill, withdrew from the committee, saying that ‘many of the recommendations we made to protect HR have been removed, and harsh new Clauses have been added’. Meanwhile, setting out its position, the Bar Association has announced that it will challenge the Bill in the Supreme Court when it is presented to Parliament, as it violates the people’s Fundamental Rights (FR). Overall, apart from those on the Government side, no CSO, HR organisation or TU has expressed any view in support of this Bill.

The Govt.’s justifications

In response to these criticisms, the Government has also offered explanations on several occasions. Minister Vijitha Herath said: ‘Even though the expert committee’s report was not accepted in full, the Amendments were made in view of the importance of national security. It will be balanced in line with international HR standards.’

In a statement, Minister K D Lal Kantha pointed out: ‘Its purpose is to protect the State from racism and to ensure national security. There is no restriction on peaceful protests, the right to criticise the President, or democratic opposition.’

The future of democracy?

With decades having passed since the end of the civil war, the public is asking why a Law even serious than the one that exists is then needed. In a democratic country, the mark of good governance is respecting the people’s views and FR, rather than the strength of a two-thirds majority. If the Government fails to protect individual freedom and democratic rights while ensuring national security, this will only lead to a massive struggle on the ground by TUs and CSOs.

The writer is the Secretary of the GMOA

-----------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication