• PSTB draft nearing completion; Govt. eyes March-April timeline
• Organised Crime Bill expected by May
• PTA replacement under pressure from UN, EU, civil society
• Govt. says constitutional concerns being addressed in final draft
• ICCPR Act misuse concerns resurface alongside new legislation 

Sri Lanka’s legal landscape will undergo a fundamental transformation in the coming months, with the Government having outlined specific timelines for the introduction of new national security and public order legislation.

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara said that the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB) was currently undergoing its final revisions. The drafting committee is targeting completion of the new framework by the end of March or April. However, the Minister expressed concerns that the ongoing global fuel crisis might affect the process and cause delays.

Nanayakkara also told The Sunday Morning that the Government was preparing a brand-new Organised Crime Bill, tentatively scheduled for official introduction in April or May.

These legislative changes will replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), a foundational security law criticised for decades for permitting prolonged detention without charge and the admissibility of Police confessions. As the Government seeks to balance security with human rights, existing instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also face scrutiny for their impact on civil liberties and freedom of expression.

The push for reform

The PTA was originally enacted in 1979 as a temporary provision to counter emerging insurgencies. It was made permanent in 1982. Over four decades, the law has drawn intense criticism from the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU). 

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has repeatedly issued resolutions highlighting how the legislation enables arbitrary arrests, prolonged administrative detention without judicial review, and the systemic targeting of minority communities. UN Special Rapporteurs have consistently documented allegations of torture and forced confessions facilitated by the sweeping powers of the law.

The EU has concurrently utilised its economic leverage to advocate for legislative reform. Sri Lanka temporarily lost its access to the GSP+ trade concession in 2010 due to severe human rights concerns directly linked to the application of the PTA. The trade concessions were reinstated in 2017 upon explicit commitments to reform the legal framework. However, the European Parliament has continuously passed resolutions demanding the complete repeal of the legislation. 

In 2022, the Government introduced an amendment to the PTA, reducing the maximum period of pre-trial detention from 18 months to 12 months. The UN, the EU, and domestic civil society groups widely dismissed these changes as purely cosmetic, maintaining that the core abusive features remained intact. This international and domestic pressure forced the Government to draft the PSTB as a replacement.

Finalising the PSTB

The drafting process for the PSTB has been lengthy. It included a defined period of public consultation during which stakeholders submitted their observations and legal perspectives. The Special Review Committee is tasked with reviewing these submissions and integrating them into a revised draft.

Nanayakkara outlined the current status of the committee’s work and the expected timeline. “We concluded the consultation process, and the committee is currently reviewing the submissions. It is taking all considerations into account, redrafting and adjusting the previous draft that was in public circulation to launch a more acceptable version. We are targeting the end of March to get the draft ready. If not, it will definitely be completed in April. That is our honest intention, although we must remain mindful of the country’s situation and how current crises might hamper our progress,” he said.

PSTB Special Review Committee Chairman Rienzie Arsecularatne, PC elaborated on the review of public feedback. “We provided an unusually long two-month period for people to respond to our draft. Various organisations and interested parties have sent their representations. At the moment, we are considering these submissions and accommodating the suggestions wherever possible. We have not been given a strict timeline, but we have been instructed to complete the process as early as possible,” he noted. 

It has been argued that the public must have an opportunity to review the final wording before it is presented to Parliament. However, Government officials have indicated that the specific window for direct public consultation has closed due to pressing international obligations. 

Addressing the possibility of future consultations, Nanayakkara explained the Government’s position. “The public consultation period is over, and I do not expect this new draft to undergo another round of public consultation. This is not because we do not want to, but due to the time factor and our international obligations to get this law passed. There will be an opportunity to challenge it in the Supreme Court, which is a standard procedure for all laws. That will be the appropriate time for critics to present their ideas.”

Arsecularatne pointed out the need for consultative boundaries. “We cannot have an endless consultative process. That is why we provided a two-month period for public response. The public has responded, and we are actively taking the feedback into consideration. The resulting document will be the final draft,” he said.

Definitions and powers

One primary criticism of the initial PSTB draft was the vagueness of its definitions regarding terrorist activity. Critics warned that broad definitions could easily be weaponised by the State against political opponents, trade unionists, and journalists. The extensive law enforcement powers granted within the bill raised severe constitutional concerns.

When asked how the ministry planned to resolve these conflicts, Nanayakkara provided assurances. “Those exact criticisms are being addressed right now. The intention is for the new law to resolve all these constitutional issues. I encourage everyone to wait and examine the final draft,” he said. 

Arsecularatne affirmed that these concerns were under review, noting that the drafting committee was actively considering these specific concerns.

Civil society stance

Civil society organisations remain deeply sceptical of the Government’s intentions regarding the new anti-terrorism legislation. There is a fear that the PSTB may simply be a strategic rebranding of the PTA.

The Centre for Policy Alternative (CPA) published a detailed analysis highlighting significant concerns regarding the draft PSTB. The CPA observed that the timing of the publication was highly problematic, as the draft was released for public comment during a period of national distress following Cyclone Ditwah. The CPA noted that expecting meaningful public engagement while communities were recovering from a disaster fundamentally limited transparency. It emphasised that the PSTB must be evaluated strictly on whether it complied with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The organisation raised alarms regarding the potential for prolonged detention. Its analysis points out that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being formally charged. The CPA argued this raised serious questions about the power of the State to target specific individuals. The document highlighted the continued militarisation of arrest and detention powers, noting that while the Police must produce a suspect before an officer-in-charge forthwith, the same urgency is not strictly applied to the armed forces.

The CPA also expressed deep concerns regarding the broad powers granted to the Executive branch. The president can autonomously issue curfew orders, and the secretary to the Ministry of Defence can declare prohibited places. The CPA asserted that these clauses were highly susceptible to political abuse.

CPA Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu articulated the need for public pushback. “As far as the terrorism bill is concerned, we must ensure there is maximum noise and protest from civil society to scrutinise this legislation and ultimately discard it. Otherwise, governments will keep these laws handy to suppress democratic dissent, which appears to be exactly what this current Government is planning to do. When the draft is released, even if formal public consultations are bypassed, we will hold meetings to ensure maximum publicity. We must highlight our demand for a proper bill, rather than a mere reworking of the old legislation,” he stressed.

When asked if the CPA would seek legal recourse, Dr. Saravanamuttu said: “We will certainly be going to court to challenge the legislation if it remains in violation of human rights.”

Political opposition

Political opposition has heavily mobilised against the proposed legal framework. Prof. G.L. Peiris of the Freedom People’s Congress (FPC) has strongly condemned the proposed legislation. The FPC argues that the PSTB is strategically designed to suppress democratic dissent under the guise of national security. According to the FPC, the broad definitions of terrorism risk criminalising legitimate political activism and peaceful protests.

The organisation highlighted that the sweeping powers granted to the Executive branch completely bypassed essential judicial oversight. This includes the ability to independently proscribe organisations and establish restricted zones. The FPC maintains that replacing the existing laws with more stringent regulations will silence civil society and weaken democratic institutions.

Int’l leverage and GSP+ 

The drafting of the PSTB is being heavily monitored by the EU and UN. Sri Lanka’s continued access to the GSP+ trade concession scheme is intrinsically linked to its adherence to core international human rights conventions.

Dr. Saravanamuttu highlighted the history of the trade concessions. “We have appealed to international bodies and will continue to do so. Regarding the GSP+ concessions, we previously urged the EU to withhold them because Sri Lanka lacked a proper framework for the prevention of terrorism, yet they proceeded to grant the concessions anyway. Given that the core treaties are due for review, I hope the international community will examine the situation much more critically this time.” 

Acknowledging the input received from international stakeholders, Nanayakkara confirmed the integration of foreign perspectives. “The committee received and is favourably considering opinions from numerous civil society groups and international organisations, including the EU and the UN Resident Coordinator’s Office.”

Rehabilitation under new legislative framework

The concept of systematic rehabilitation for individuals involved in terrorism-related activities remains an ambiguous aspect of the new legislation. Sri Lanka previously implemented a broad rehabilitation model. Questions remain about how the PSTB will structure specific programmes, especially regarding the strict requirement for official consent from the Attorney General before an individual can access rehabilitative channels.

Dr. Saravanamuttu questioned the necessity of a specialised rehabilitation process. “We must question the fundamental necessity of this rehabilitation process and the anti-terrorism legislation itself. In my opinion, we do not need a PTA or PSTB in this country. We already possess sufficient laws to handle these issues without requiring a special act. We need to approach this by evaluating the fundamental need for such legislation and proceed from that baseline,” he argued.

Discussing the inclusion of rehabilitation structures, Nanayakkara said if a rehabilitation structure was going to be part of the law, the committee would consider it and present it in the final draft. “We can discuss the specifics further once that draft is released,” he added.

Arsecularatne indicated that the operational details were still open to adjustment, noting: “If representations from the public indicate that the current provisions for rehabilitation are insufficient, the committee is fully prepared to consider expanding them.”

ICCPR Act and freedom of expression

Beyond the proposed anti-terrorism legislation, the ICCPR Act has also been a source of controversy. Section 3 of the act has frequently been utilised by law enforcement to arrest journalists and creative writers, leading to strict remand without bail.

When asked if the Government would issue clear operational guidelines to prevent the misuse of the ICCPR Act, Nanayakkara defended the written law itself. “When there are structural errors or violations in a law, we can redraft it. However, the issues surrounding the ICCPR Act stem from how the Executive of the day decided to implement it; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the law itself. Our Government will not go down the path of misusing it. We currently tolerate vast amounts of baseless criticism without taking action under the ICCPR Act, and that tolerant approach will continue,” he said.

Organised Crime Bill

In tandem with the PSTB, the Government is preparing the brand-new Organised Crime Bill. The precise contents remain guarded by ministries, leading to speculation regarding provisions on extended detention periods and property confiscation. Attempts by the media to gain clarity have been met with resistance from officials. 

Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala declined to provide specific details prior to formal Cabinet approval. “The draft has been finalised from the perspective of the Public Security Ministry and handed over to the Minister of Justice, who will present it to the Cabinet. I will provide further details after the draft is officially presented. The bill addresses the control of organised crime, including issues like human trafficking, which will be clear once you read the document. We have incorporated information from the Police, but we cannot release the specifics to the media before the Cabinet presentation is finalised,” Wijepala said. 

Nanayakkara also refrained from disclosing the specifics of the bill. “The Organised Crime Bill is still being prepared by the committee, and we are targeting an introduction in April or May. I cannot discuss the specific contents, such as detention periods or confiscation powers, because those details are currently being determined by the committee behind closed doors,” he said.