The arrest of Mohamad Rusdi, a young Muslim man, under the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) over an anti-Israel sticker has reignited fierce debate over the law’s necessity, its potential for misuse, and the Government’s long-delayed promise to repeal it.
The case took a more alarming turn when Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala disclosed that Rusdi had allegedly expressed a willingness to commit suicide in pursuit of extremist goals – a claim that has intensified scrutiny over whether the PTA remains a justified counterterrorism tool or an outdated law prone to abuse.
The arrest: Extremism or overreach?
The controversy began when Rusdi was detained for pasting a sticker in Colombo bearing the words ‘F*** Israel.’ While the act itself could be dismissed as crude political expression, the Government has argued it was merely the starting point of a deeper investigation.
Police Spokesperson SSP Buddhika Manatunga clarified that the sticker alone did not warrant Rusdi’s arrest under the PTA but served as a trigger for further surveillance. “We understood that he was a little extremist and it was suspicious. We could not take any chances given how these little details contributed to a large-scale terrorist attack in the past,” Manatunga said. “We realised his thinking is not as an ordinary Muslim, but as an extremist Muslim.”
Police obtained a Detention Order under Section 11(1) of the PTA, though Rusdi was later granted conditional bail. Manatunga has maintained that the Terrorist Investigation Division acted cautiously, releasing him once they confirmed he had no direct links to militant networks and that the investigations could continue without further detaining him.
Critics cry foul
Human rights advocates, including Amnesty International, however, have argued that the arrest was a disproportionate response to what amounted to political speech.
Attorney-at-Law Swasthika Arulingam, a prominent human rights activist and member of the People’s Struggle Alliance (PSA), dismissed the Police’s justification.
“His statements fall within the realm of freedom of expression,” she said. “The fact that the Police carried out the arrest without a clear reason, and apparently without even having a valid detention order at the time, highlights how arbitrarily the PTA continues to be used.”
Arulingam pointed out that criticising Israel, particularly in the context of its military actions in Gaza, was not uncommon globally and did not inherently indicate terrorism. The question, then, is whether Rusdi’s alleged statement about being willing to die for his beliefs crossed a legal threshold, or whether it was taken out of context to justify his detention.
PTA: A necessary evil or tool of oppression?
The PTA, enacted in 1979 to combat armed insurgencies, has faced persistent criticism for its draconian provisions that enable prolonged detention without trial, forced confessions obtained under duress, and the disproportionate targeting of minority communities.
Despite repeated pledges by successive governments to repeal the controversial law, these efforts have consistently stalled due to national security concerns, especially following the devastating 2019 Easter Sunday attacks that killed 269 people.
The Government maintains that the PTA remains a necessary tool in its counterterrorism arsenal, even as human rights organisations continue to highlight its abusive implementation and call for comprehensive reforms that better balance security needs with Fundamental Rights protections.
Deputy Minister of National Integration Muneer Mulaffer acknowledged the Government’s commitment to repeal the PTA but defended its temporary use in cases like Rusdi’s. “In some instances, the PTA is applied, and it becomes inevitable because the law exists and must apply where necessary until it has been repealed. We are all bound by the law,” he said.
Minister Wijepala echoed this sentiment, arguing that pre-emptive action was essential to prevent another Zahran Hashim, the Easter attacks mastermind, from emerging. “We cannot allow another incident where people like Zahran come up,” he said. “If there is something suspicious, we must investigate properly.”
Manatunga also voiced similar sentiments: “In the past, there was abundant criticism over the fact that such fears and suspicions were not investigated, and it led to a massive scale attack resulting in the death of many Sri Lankans. When we observe anything suspicious, we must act with precaution and prevent any act of violence. This is the role of the Police.”
Human rights concerns
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) Commissioner Nimal Punchihewa emphasised that any use of the PTA must meet a high legal threshold.
“Our concern is whether detention orders are truly based on valid legal grounds,” Punchihewa said. “We are currently inquiring into whether due process was followed in this case and we will be able to provide further details into this inquiry after the forthcoming Sinhala and Tamil New Year.”
The HRCSL has previously documented cases where the PTA has been used to detain individuals for months, sometimes years, without sufficient evidence. In some instances, suspects have been eventually released without charges, but only after enduring lengthy incarcerations.
Punchihewa felt strongly about instances where the PTA had been abused, but explained that any such verdict would have to be revealed after investigations. “We do not know yet if the PTA had been exercised properly, but it is an operative law and must be used cautiously without violating the individual liberties of the people,” he said.
Anti-Terrorism Bill: A better alternative?
The proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill, designed to replace the controversial PTA, introduces several significant reforms aimed at addressing long-standing human rights concerns while maintaining national security capabilities.
Among its most notable provisions is the reduction of maximum detention periods from 90 to 60 days, a move intended to prevent the prolonged incarceration of suspects without charge that has characterised PTA cases. The bill also eliminates the admissibility of confessions obtained while in custody, a crucial reform given widespread allegations of torture and coercion under the current system.
Furthermore, the bill mandates stricter judicial oversight of detention procedures and seeks to align counterterrorism measures with ordinary criminal justice standards, potentially reducing the exceptional nature of terrorism cases that has led to rights abuses under the PTA framework.
Former Minister of Justice Ali Sabry, who played a key role in initial reform efforts under the previous administration, acknowledged the progressive nature of these proposed changes while emphasising practical challenges in implementation.
Sabry particularly highlighted the legislative gap regarding organised crime as a complicating factor in the PTA’s immediate repeal. “The reality is that until we establish a comprehensive legal framework specifically addressing drug trafficking and organised extremism, law enforcement will continue needing tools like the PTA for high-risk cases,” Sabry explained.
He cited several high-profile cases, including those involving notorious drug kingpins like ‘Wele Suda’ and ‘Kanjipani Imran,’ where the PTA’s special provisions had been used to prevent witness intimidation and flight risk, scenarios he argued ordinary criminal procedures may not adequately address.
Incumbent Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to replacing the PTA, but stressed the importance of careful, deliberate reform. “We are currently engaged in extensive stakeholder consultations with civil society groups, legal experts, and international partners,” Nanayakkara stated, noting that this inclusive approach aimed to create legislation that balanced security needs with human rights protections.
While unable to provide a specific timeline for the Anti-Terrorism Bill’s implementation, the Minister emphasised that the drafting process prioritised alignment with international human rights standards, particularly those outlined in Sri Lanka’s commitments to UN conventions.
This cautious approach reflects both the complexity of counterterrorism legislation and the Government’s awareness of international scrutiny regarding this sensitive reform process. The administration appears determined to avoid rushing the bill’s implementation, recognising that a poorly drafted replacement could face both domestic legal challenges and international criticism.
No religious bias?
Police Spokesperson Manatunga strongly refuted allegations of religious bias in the application of the PTA, maintaining that the law was enforced based solely on behavioural evidence rather than ethnic or religious identity.
“Our actions are guided by observable threats, not demographics,” Manatunga stated. “Whether Sinhalese, Tamil, or Muslim, any individual demonstrating extremist tendencies would face identical legal scrutiny under the PTA framework.”
Deputy Minister Mulaffer stated: “We invite everyone to live as Sri Lankans, not through the lens of religion.”