Initial Comments on the Draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has been alerted to the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (Bill) published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, which invited public comments within a month of its publication. Whilst the government publicly announced in August its intention to publish a draft Bill for public comments, the publication at the present moment, when Sri Lanka is confronted with multiple challenges in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, raises serious concerns. Such a context limits meaningful public engagement of any proposed legislation, and the limited time further impedes an inclusive and transparent law reform process. Whilst CPA appreciates the decision of the government to place the Bill in the public domain for comment, we urge for further time for comments and discussion.

With the hope that more time is provided for a fuller comment on the Bill, CPA shares these initial comments with the view of constructive engagement and public awareness of key areas requiring attention. At the outset, CPA emphasises that the benchmark against which this Bill must be assessed is not merely whether it represents an improvement over the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), but whether the Bill, in and of itself, complies with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka and with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations. It must be borne in mind that the PTA was never constitutional, nor did its drafters claim that it was. No meaningful effort was made to ensure compliance with fundamental rights standards and due process safeguards, as it was taken as granted that the legislation could be enacted with a special two-thirds majority in Parliament. The result has been a draconian law that has been used for decades to target and suppress the rights of citizens, with limited debate as to what is meant by terrorism and the need for extremely broad terror laws in a post war context.

It is within this broader context that CPA sets out these initial observations on the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill. The following are several clauses that raises concerns:

The Offence of Terrorism and Other Offences

• The definition of the offence of Terrorism remains broad, seemingly designed in a manner that can be used to suppress dissent, rather than being limited to actual acts of terrorism. One of the main criticisms of the Anti-Terrorism Bill of 2024 was that it may have been used against those who protest against the Government, and while the present Bill contains a provision that seems to exclude protestors in clause 3(4), this clause is vague as to what will and will not be defined as terrorism in the course of a lawful protest.

Arrests made by Members of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard

• Clause 24 of the Bill provides that when a suspect is arrested by the armed forces or the coast guard, then they shall ‘without unnecessary delay, and in any event within a period not exceeding twenty-four hours’ be produced before the Officer – in – Charge of the nearest police station. When contrasted with clause 23, which requires a police officer making an arrest to produce the suspect before the OIC ‘forthwith’, it raises the question as to why the same urgency is not seen with the armed forces. This perpetuates the norm of militarising the powers of arrest and detention.

Pre-Trial Detention and Detention Orders

• As per clause 28(1), a person can be held in remand for up to a year. As per clause 28(2), if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.

Proscription Orders

• Clause 63 gives sweeping powers to the executive to proscribe an organisation, similar to what was seen in the 2024 Bill. Coupled with the wide power of the President to impose restrictions on such an organisation, the criminalisation of acts related to the organisation in terms of clause 6 gives the State a wide power to use this law to restrict freedom of association and crackdown on dissent.

Curfew Order and Prohibited Places

• The Bill provides power under clause 65 for the President to issue a curfew order and under clause 66 for the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to issue a direction that a place is a prohibited place. These clauses are broad and vague, thus making them susceptible to abuse.

The above are some clauses that raise concerns, though CPA notes that a fuller and in-depth study of the Bill is required for a comprehensive review and comment, which we hope to do in 2026. In the spirit of constructive engagement, CPA urges the authorities to provide greater time for public comments and consultation, enabling the citizens to be aware of proposed laws and facilitate a law-making process that is transparent, inclusive and contributes to upholding the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka.                     

(Source - Cpalanka)