Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda on Friday (6) accused President Anura Kumara Dissanayake of deliberately drawing public attention to only three issues in the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, while leaving its most dangerous provisions unmentioned.

Speaking at a press conference in response to the President’s remarks on Thursday (5), Jayagoda said the offered concessions were cosmetic and diverted attention from the fact that the bill’s legal foundation departed from established criminal law.

Addressing a special interfaith convention on Thursday marking one year of the Ratama Ekata national anti-drug operation, the President said that the 72-hour period a suspect may be held before being produced before a magistrate would be reduced to 48 hours. 

He said the bill would also be amended to remove provisions on tattoos and offences under the Excise Ordinance, and that the Government was willing to hold discussions with human rights organisations.

Jayagoda said that under existing law a person could be arrested only on reasonable suspicion of an actual criminal act, whereas the bill was built on arresting people for their appearance and associations. He pointed to Clause 4(2), which he said covered communication over the internet; “knowing” association with gang members; dress, gestures, and slang; and frequenting certain places.

He said that “the definitions are made completely vague” so that the authorities could deliberately misrepresent them when they needed to.  

Jayagoda added that the 48 versus 72 hours debate also concealed the detention powers in Clauses 20 and 21, under which detention orders could be issued for up to two months at a time and renewed up to a year. Under Clause 23, he said, a magistrate had no discretion once such an order was issued.

“If a magistrate examines the case and concludes there are no sufficient grounds whatsoever to arrest the person under this act, the magistrate does not have the power to grant bail and release them. The powers belonging to the Judiciary have been hijacked by the Executive,” he said.

On the pledge to review the 72-hour period, Jayagoda said legislation could not be shaped in such a casual manner. “You include a provision for 72 hours, and when people protest, you make it 48. Tomorrow you might ask, ‘Shall we make it 24?’ Who drafted this bill? Who takes responsibility for it? Why was 72 hours inserted in the first place?” he asked.

Questioning why the President had singled out the Excise Ordinance, Jayagoda alleged that liquor manufacturers who had petitioned the Supreme Court included financiers of the National People’s Power. He said that offences under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and the Intellectual Property Act remained in the bill.

He also noted that the President had said nothing regarding the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, which he said should be discarded, with the Prevention of Terrorism Act repealed.

The controversial bill is before the Supreme Court, which began hearing 26 petitions challenging it on Wednesday (4) before a bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abayakoon.

Appearing for petitioner Malinda Seneviratne, President’s Counsel Romesh De Silva argued that the bill contradicted the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. He described the definition of “serious crime” as dangerous, saying it covered an intellectual property offence carrying a six-month sentence or a Rs. 500,000 fine. He also challenged provisions allowing the secretary of defence to issue detention orders at the request of senior Police officers and argued that the bill required approval at a referendum.

Appearing for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris pointed to Clause 14(3), which he said would make it an offence to publish information on proceedings concerning a serious crime without court permission, preventing journalists from reporting such cases. He too said a referendum was required.

Attorney-at-Law Suren Fernando argued that under Clause 19(4), a magistrate would have no option but to remand a suspect where no detention order was issued, reducing the magistrate to a “rubber stamp”. He also questioned the removal of magistrates’ power to grant bail, which would instead be vested in the High Court.