• Draft committee highlights need to balance citizens’ rights, national security concerns 
• Critiques question rationale of some of the clauses 

The Government has opened the draft of the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill for public consultation until 28 February 2026, with Justice and National Integration Minister, Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara stressing that the legislation is not final and will be revised following feedback from the public, civil society, and other stakeholders before submission to the Cabinet of Ministers or Parliament.

Making a special statement to the media on Friday (19), the Minister said that the draft law intended to repeal and replace the existing Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No.48 of 1979 (PTA) had been published in Sinhala, Tamil, and English on the official website of the Ministry of Justice and National Integration to ensure transparency and broad public engagement in the legislative process.

According to Nanayakkara, the initiative stems from a pre-election commitment made by the incumbent Government to abolish the PTA and introduce a new counter-terrorism framework that better aligns national security imperatives with constitutional safeguards, human rights, and freedom of expression.

“Before the current Government came into power, we made a promise to abolish the existing PTA and introduce a new act that protects human rights and freedom of speech,” the Minister said, outlining the policy rationale behind the proposed legislation.

He explained that, in line with this commitment, a 17-member expert committee had been appointed to draft the new law under the chairmanship of President’s Counsel Rienzie Arsecularatne, bringing together legal professionals and subject-matter experts to review the deficiencies of the PTA and propose a modernised legal framework.

“That committee prepared the draft bill within a period of 11 months, drafted it in all three languages, and handed it over to me,” Nanayakkara said.

He added that the draft had now been published on the ministry’s website, www.moj.gov.lk, and that the Government considered public consultation essential given the far-reaching legal and civil liberties implications of counter-terrorism legislation.

“As this is a very delicate and sensitive bill of great importance to our country, we believe that members of the public must be made aware and their views consulted before presenting it directly to the Cabinet of Ministers or Parliament,” the Minister said.

Consultation key, not final legislation

Drafting Committee Chairman Arsecularatne confirmed that the proposed legislation remained in a consultative phase. “The draft has been published on the Ministry of Justice website, but it has not been presented to Parliament yet,” he said, responding to concerns raised by civil society organisations.

Addressing criticism from groups including the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), which has said that the draft is not fit to replace the PTA yet, Arsecularatne emphasised the importance of the consultation process.

“Time will be given for people to give their comments,” he said, noting that the specific timeframe for this consultation period would be determined by the Ministry of Justice.

Explaining the core challenge faced by the drafting committee, Arsecularatne said the exercise required balancing two competing and equally important interests: safeguarding national security while protecting the freedoms of citizens.

“There was a manifesto pledge and a Cabinet decision to abolish the PTA because it had draconian provisions. At the same time, we cannot ignore national security. We looked at the two competing interests and had to balance them to the best of our ability,” he said.

He also stressed that the draft remained open to further amendment: “This is not the final draft. Once representations are received, we will review them. If those representations are meaningful and possible, we will try to accommodate them.”

PTA and draft bill: Key differences

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill introduces several structural and substantive changes compared with the PTA, which has been in force for more than four decades and has drawn sustained domestic and international criticism for broad powers of detention, limited judicial oversight, and the admissibility of confessions made to Police officers.

One of the most significant changes relates to the definition of terrorism itself. Whereas the PTA does not contain a single comprehensive definition and instead lists specific unlawful activities, the new bill introduces a consolidated definition of the offence of terrorism. 

Under the draft bill, an act must satisfy both a defined purpose, such as intimidating the public, compelling the Government, or undermining the territorial integrity of the State, and a specified consequence, including death, serious injury, substantial damage to public infrastructure, interference with electronic systems, or serious risk to public health or safety. 

The bill explicitly states that advocacy, protest, dissent, or industrial action, by themselves, cannot be used to infer terrorist intent.

Enhanced oversight

The draft legislation revises the framework governing arrest and detention. Under the PTA, a Police officer not below the rank of superintendent or an authorised sub-inspector may arrest a suspect without a warrant, while the Minister can issue successive detention orders for up to three months at a time, extendable to a maximum of 18 months without the suspect being produced before a court.

In contrast, the new bill limits initial detention under a ministerial detention order to a maximum of two months. Any extension beyond this period requires judicial approval from a magistrate, who must be satisfied that continued detention is justified, and suspects must be produced before a magistrate every 14 days while a detention order is in force. 

The bill further allows arrests in specific circumstances by members of the armed forces or coast guard, in addition to Police officers.

Judicial oversight and statements

Another major departure from the PTA concerns the admissibility of confessions. Under the PTA, statements made to a Police officer not below the rank of assistant superintendent could be admitted as evidence in court. 

The new bill places responsibility on magistrates, who must ensure that suspects are informed of their right to legal counsel and that statements are made voluntarily, with strict preconditions governing admissibility.

Human rights safeguards

While amendments to the PTA in 2022 introduced measures such as access to legal counsel and magistrate visits to detention centres, the new bill strengthens these protections by making forensic medical examinations mandatory upon a suspect’s first production before a magistrate, to assess whether there are signs of torture or ill-treatment.

In addition, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) must be notified of every arrest and detention order issued under the proposed law. Authorised HRCSL officers are entitled to visit places of detention without prior notice, and the bill explicitly mandates humane treatment of suspects, including access to next of kin and legal representatives.

Sentencing and new offences

The sentencing framework under the new bill also departs from the PTA. While the PTA provides for life imprisonment for offences involving death and custodial sentences ranging from five to 20 years for other offences, the new legislation specifies that where offences refer to laws permitting the death penalty, such punishment shall, for the purposes of this bill, be deemed life imprisonment. 

The draft also introduces significant financial penalties, with fines of up to Rs. 20 million for certain terrorist offences, and creates new offences such as encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications.

CPA calls for broader participation

The CPA formally responded to the publication of the draft bill with initial comments, welcoming the decision to place the draft in the public domain for comment while raising substantive concerns about aspects of the legislation and the process, including its timing and scope for meaningful engagement.

In its initial submission, the CPA noted that the Government’s invitation for public comments had come at a time when Sri Lanka was confronted with multiple challenges, which could limit meaningful public engagement. It urged authorities to extend the consultation period to enable fuller discussion and participation by citizens, legal professionals, and civil society groups.

At the outset, the CPA emphasised that the benchmark for assessing the draft bill should not be merely whether it represents an improvement over the PTA, but whether the bill, in and of itself, complies with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka and with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations. 

The organisation recalled that the PTA had never been constitutional and that no meaningful effort had historically been made to ensure compliance with Fundamental Rights standards or due process safeguards.

The CPA said that several clauses raised concerns that the draft bill could be applied in ways that undermined fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. On the definition of the offence of terrorism, it noted that while the draft included language intended to exclude lawful protest or dissent, it remained broad and could be used to suppress dissent rather than being limited to actual acts of terrorism. 

Furthermore, the organisation highlighted that Clause 3(4) appeared to exclude protestors but described the language as vague on what would or would not be defined as terrorism in the course of lawful protest.

The CPA also raised concerns about Clause 24, which allows members of the armed forces or Coast Guard to arrest suspects but requires them to be presented before the officer-in-charge of a Police station within 24 hours. When contrasted with Clause 23, which requires Police officers making an arrest to produce a suspect before the officer-in-charge forthwith, the CPA suggested that the provision could perpetuate the militarisation of arrest and detention powers.

On pre-trial detention, the CPA noted that under Clause 28(1), a person could be held in remand for up to one year, and, in combination with a detention order under Clause 28(2), total remand and detention could extend up to two years without a formal charge being filed. It added that such lengthy detention periods raised serious questions about State detention powers, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long remand periods that had contributed to abuse and violence.

The CPA also flagged concerns about Executive powers to proscribe organisations under Clause 63, describing the sweeping authority to designate organisations as proscribed and impose restrictions as potentially undermining freedom of association and facilitating crackdowns on dissent. Similar concerns apply to provisions for curfew orders under Clause 65 and the designation of prohibited places under Clause 66, which the organisation described as broad and vague, making them susceptible to abuse.

CPA Chairman Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu offered a sharp critique on the draft of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill. 

When asked if the new bill represented an improvement over the PTA, Dr. Saravanamuttu was unequivocal: “It’s not a better draft.” He argued that the fundamental problem remained an “overbroad definition” of terrorism that granted the Executive excessive discretion.

“You are taking away their Fundamental Rights. And you don’t do that by coming up with some broad definition. What kind of world are we living in, where the State frames legislation primarily to defend itself against the people who they are supposed to protect?” he charged.

He identified two core issues with the draft. First, he dismissed the bill’s attempt to define terrorism through “purpose and consequence” as vague and ineffective. “What is that definition when you can drive a cart and horses right through it?” he said. Second, he challenged the necessity of such a law altogether: “Do we actually need a bill of this sort? Do we not have enough laws to protect ourselves against all of this?”

In the process, he acknowledged the Government’s intent to repeal the PTA and replace it with this new bill, fulfilling a promise made internationally. “The PTA needs to be abolished, but not at the cost of a new law endorsing the same ideals in a different form.”

Process and next steps

Nanayakkara said consultations on the draft had already begun, with submissions from members of the public and civil society organisations already received. 

“By now, the general public and civil organisations have submitted views and proposals. Therefore, what has been drafted here is not the final draft,” the Minister said. 

He further requested that all constructive views and proposals relating to the preparation of the final draft be directed to the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and National Integration.