• The Suresh Sallay episode and the PTA
• Ali Sabry saw green, but now the light is revolutionary red 

The National People's Power (NPP) Government is yet to fulfill its Election campaign pledge to repeal the controversial Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) and it has come to the limelight once again with the detention of the former State Intelligence Service Director, Major General (Retired) Suresh Sallay. On Wednesday (10), the Government reiterated its commitment to replace the PTA with a new legal framework, a move that has reignited debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties.

Justice and National Integration Minister, attorney Harshana Nanayakkara has indicated the Government intends to abolish the decades-old PTA and introduce new legislation designed to address contemporary security threats while adhering to democratic principles and international human rights (HR) standards. This pledge is consistent with commitments made by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake during both the Presidential campaign and after assuming office.

The PTA, first enacted in 1978, has long been criticised by local and international HR organisations for granting sweeping powers of arrest and detention to the security authorities. Critics argue that provisions allowing prolonged detention without trial have led to abuses and undermined fundamental freedoms.

While supporting reforms to outdated security legislation, Opposition lawmakers insist that any replacement law must not weaken the State's capacity to combat terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime, and threats to national security.

Several Opposition figures have also reminded the Government of its own past criticisms of the PTA when in the Opposition. They argue that the true test of reform will be whether the new legislation prevents future Governments from using anti-terror laws to suppress dissent, peaceful protests, or political opponents.

Legal experts stress that any new counter-terrorism legislation must clearly define terrorism-related offenses, ensure the judicial oversight of arrests and detentions, and guarantee constitutional protections for citizens.

The debate comes at a time when Sri Lanka continues to face complex security challenges, including transnational crime networks, cyber threats, and concerns about religious extremism. Security analysts argue that while reforms are necessary, the country cannot afford to create legal gaps that could undermine intelligence and law enforcement operations.

As the Government prepares to present its proposals to Parliament, attention will focus on whether the new legislation can achieve the difficult balance between protecting national security and safeguarding democratic freedoms. For many observers, the replacement of the PTA represents not merely a legal reform but a significant test of the NPP Government's commitment to both security and civil liberties in a changing political landscape.

The PTA, often criticised for allowing prolonged detention without trial and systemic impunity, has been a major point of contention for both domestic activists and international bodies. Critics argue that previous and current attempts to replace or amend the law were and are inadequate because they retain egregious provisions.

Civil society groups like Justice for All and the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development have heavily criticised the Government moves to replace the PTA with a new anti-terror framework. They warn that the new law replicates and entrenches the repressive administrative detention powers and the lack of judicial oversight that plagued the original PTA. 

Sri Lanka faced two insurrections by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, now the leading Party in the NPP, in addition to the costly war against separatist Tamil militants that lasted for over 30 years. The PTA, instead of eliminating violence, multiplied terrorism and economically bankrupted the nation while enriching the arms-producing countries.

There were many instances where the PTA was abused, directing it only against the opponents of the Government. If the PTA is repealed with an equally draconian anti-terrorism Bill, it will send a negative message and image of Sri Lanka worldwide. It will discourage tourism, investments, and economic recovery.

The Suresh Sallay episode and the PTA

The recent controversy surrounding Sallay has once again pushed the country into an uncomfortable but necessary debate: how should a democracy balance national security with civil liberties?

At the centre of the discussion is not only the reputation of one Intelligence officer, but the broader question of whether Sri Lanka’s security laws, especially the PTA, remain fit for purpose in a post-war democracy.

Sallay became a prominent public figure after the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, when questions were raised about intelligence coordination and prior warnings. In subsequent years, he was both defended as a professional officer and criticised by political opponents and activists who accused elements of the security establishment of opacity and excessive power.

More recently, political rhetoric around his role has intensified, with allegations and counter-allegations circulating in Parliament, media outlets, and the social media. Some Opposition figures portray him as emblematic of a security apparatus that operated with too little accountability. Government supporters and some security analysts argue that he is being unfairly politicised for partisan gain. The facts remain contested, and that is precisely the problem. In a polarised political climate, intelligence matters are often discussed through speculation rather than evidence. That weakens both public trust and national security. The Sallay episode has revived scrutiny of the PTA because the Law sits at the intersection of intelligence operations, detention powers, and political accountability.

HR groups, lawyers, and international organisations have long argued that these powers are overly broad and vulnerable to abuse. Critics point to cases involving prolonged detention without charge, coerced confessions, and restrictions on dissent.  Successive Governments have promised reform, yet, the Law has endured with only limited Amendments. The current NPP administration has pledged to repeal and replace it with a modern counter-terrorism framework.

The public debate often falls into extremes: either the PTA is portrayed as essential and untouchable, or as entirely illegitimate. The reality is more complicated. Sri Lanka still faces risks from violent extremism, organised crime, cyber threats, and regional instability. Hence, intelligence agencies need legal tools to act quickly against credible threats in order to safeguard national security interests. However, broad detention powers can be misused against journalists, protesters, political opponents, or ordinary citizens. A democracy cannot rely indefinitely on emergency-style laws without strong judicial oversight.

Both concerns are valid. A state that cannot protect its citizens fails in its most basic duty. A state that can detain people without adequate safeguards risks eroding the rule of law and public confidence. Hence, a genuine debate is required on the proposed new law before it is enacted.

Ali Sabry and the revolutionary red light

President’s Counsel and former Minister Mohamed Uvais Mohamed Ali Sabry recently achieved what many Sri Lankan politicians consider an impossible feat: he stopped when the Police said "stop." After allegedly jumping a red light, Ali Sabry reportedly paid the fine without summoning a host of legal luminaries or party supporters, quoting immunity, blaming an international conspiracy, or appointing a committee to investigate the traffic signal itself.

Even more shocking, he publicly praised the Police officer who issued the ticket. Political observers are now concerned that such behaviour could set a dangerous precedent. If politicians begin obeying traffic laws and complimenting Police officers for doing their jobs, what next? Paying taxes on time? Declaring assets accurately? Reading Cabinet of Ministers papers before the Cabinet briefings?

The traffic Policeman, meanwhile, is said to be recovering from the rare experience of issuing a fine to a prominent politician and receiving thanks instead of a transfer order to the Kayts Island. 

Ali Sabry may be more comfortable with the green light than the red. But, in a country where politicians often speak of the "rule of law", Ali Sabry may have accidentally demonstrated it — at a red light. The nation's motorists are advised not to try this at home until further notice.

The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations

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

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