The recent devastation caused by cyclone Ditwah has left Sri Lanka grappling with an immense loss of life, widespread destruction and also a deepening humanitarian crisis. As the country struggles to recover, frustration has spilled over onto social media platforms, where many citizens have openly criticised the Government’s actions and inactions concerning the recent disaster. These range from the perceived failure to issue timely early warnings to what many describe as slow or inadequate responses and a lack of effective coordination.

Given the magnitude of the crisis that the county is facing at the moment, such criticisms are both natural and expected. However, the Government’s reaction to public dissent has sparked serious concerns about the state of democratic freedoms in Sri Lanka. Deputy Public Security Minister, attorney Sunil Watagala has reportedly instructed the Police to use Emergency laws to act against individuals engaged in what he described as defamatory campaigns targeting the President and certain Government Ministers on social media. He accused some of these posts of containing extremely malicious attacks.

This development raises serious questions about the Government’s approach to dissent, particularly at a time when the death toll from last week’s disaster continues to rise with the discovery of missing persons’ bodies, and the scale of the financial loss of the destruction becomes increasingly apparent. It is understandable that public frustration would be expressed via critical commentary directed at those in power, especially officials responsible for disaster management. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression, recognising that citizens have the right to voice their opinions, including criticism, and this right is fundamental to the democratic process. Public criticism, particularly during times of crisis, serves as a barometer for the effectiveness and responsiveness of the authorities. It highlights areas where improvements are needed.

However, the right to free speech is not absolute. Speech that is false, defamatory, incites violence or threatens public order can and should be subject to reasonable legal restrictions. Balancing these competing interests, i.e. protecting the freedom of expression while safeguarding individuals and the public from harm caused by irresponsible speech, is a complex matter. In cases where the freedom of expression seems to have been misused, it is not an issue to take legal action. However, a critical comment directed at the Government or public officials does not automatically constitute defamation or hate speech. The manner and proportionality of the Government’s response to such speech is a matter that requires attention.

The decision to use Emergency laws in response to social media criticism is troubling. Emergency laws typically grant extraordinary powers to the State, intended for use in grave situations such as national security threats or natural disasters. Employing such laws to police online commentary risks creating a chilling effect on free speech and discourages citizens from expressing legitimate concerns or grievances. It also opens the door to the potential abuse of power and undermines public trust in Government institutions. Moreover, given that this Government has always presented itself as a protector of the freedom of expression, the people may not welcome the Government’s decision on the aforementioned legal action.

Rather than focusing on silencing critics, the Government should focus on engaging with the public’s concerns constructively. Open dialogue and transparency can build trust and facilitate cooperation in the recovery process. Admitting shortcomings and taking responsibility for failures are signs of strong leadership, not weakness. In the wake of a disaster that has exposed systemic vulnerabilities, the Government’s priority should be to address these issues directly and cordially, and work collaboratively with citizens, experts and the civil society.

In addition, social media platforms offer valuable insights into public sentiment and can serve as early warning systems for issues on the ground. By monitoring and responding to legitimate criticism, the authorities can better understand the needs and frustrations of the affected communities and design their response accordingly. Citizens have a right and a responsibility to hold their leaders accountable, especially in times of crisis. Rather than suppressing these voices, the Government should embrace them as opportunities to listen, learn and improve.