Cabinet Spokesperson Dr Nalinda Jayatissa yesterday (20) rejected claims that the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill would allow people to be arrested simply for having long hair or tattoos, urging those concerned about its provisions to challenge them before the Supreme Court (SC).

Speaking at the weekly Cabinet media briefing, he responded to public concerns about the proposed legislation, including those raised by President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris in a social media post.

Dr Jayatissa said legal professionals, including those working in the field and individuals taught by Pieris, had been involved in drafting the Bill. He maintained that provisions allowing people to be arrested solely for having tattoos or long hair would not be included in the proposed legislation.

“If such provisions exist, anyone can go to the SC and challenge them. That is the best course of action,” he said, adding that the Bill should be considered as a whole rather than judged on one or two disputed provisions.

He said the Government had proposed repealing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and introducing a new legal framework to protect the State from terrorism while safeguarding human rights. He urged those concerned about specific provisions to seek judicial review rather than relying solely on public debate through the media.

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara told Parliament yesterday that provisions in the proposed Bill were being misinterpreted on social media, particularly claims that tattoos or long hair could constitute criminal offences punishable by imprisonment.

He explained that Section 4(2) sets out rebuttable presumptions that may be used to determine whether a person belongs to a criminal organisation. These are not conclusive evidence and can be challenged, he said.

Section 4(2)(b) refers to whether a person uses hairstyles, tattoos, hand signs, attire or language commonly used by known members of a criminal organisation.

Nanayakkara said organised crime gangs in countries such as Japan, the US, Australia and Singapore used common hand signals, rituals and tattoos to indicate rank. Examining tattoos and attire to help identify suspected gang members was an internationally used method, he added.

Describing claims that people could be arrested for having tattoos and detained for days as “totally misleading”, he stressed that citizens had the fundamental right to choose their hairstyles and clothing.

He also challenged anyone who believed a provision of the proposed legislation violated the Constitution to seek a determination from the SC.