By Tharushi Weerasinghe Multiple Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations have responded to the government’s call for comments on Sri Lanka’s revised anti-terrorism bill that is set to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act by expressing “deep concern” over the continuation of “substantive deficiencies” that make the bill fall “significantly short of conformity with international [...]

News

UN experts raise alarm over draft PSTA Bill

View(s):

By Tharushi Weerasinghe

Multiple Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations have responded to the government’s call for comments on Sri Lanka’s revised anti-terrorism bill that is set to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act by expressing “deep concern” over the continuation of “substantive deficiencies” that make the bill fall “significantly short of conformity with international law.”

The concerns were outlined in a joint report by several UN human rights mandate holders, including the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial executions, human rights defenders, privacy, and torture.

The draft “Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill” (PSTA), published by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Justice in December last year, aims to replace the 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and was opened for public comments until February 28.

The detailed joint communication argued that the bill’s current framework is “significantly vague and overbroad,” making it prone to both unintended consequences and deliberate abuse, which could be used to target civil society and human rights defenders.

A primary point of contention for the experts is the proposed definition of terrorism under Section 3, which they contend fails to meet the principle of legality. The rapporteurs emphasise that international best practices should limit terrorism to conduct involving death, serious bodily injury, or hostage-taking, whereas the PSTA incorrectly includes “mere hurt”, property damage, and common crimes like robbery or weapons offences. Furthermore, they critiqued the bill’s mental element for extending liability to “knowledge” or “recklessness” rather than strictly requiring “intention”, and they urged the deletion of overbroad intent elements such as “infringing the sovereignty” of a country.

The legislation’s impact on freedom of expression also drew sharp criticism, particularly regarding the expansive definition of “confidential information” under Section 78.

The rapporteurs warned that this provision, when read with Section 8, could effectively criminalise legitimate media reporting on security operations, police misconduct, or human rights violations. They further noted that using the vague term “encouragement” of terrorism rather than “incitement” sets the threshold for criminal liability too low and lacks the necessary “double intent” requirement to prove a message was meant to incite a terrorist act. Similarly, they expressed concern that the “dissemination of terrorist publications” under Section 10 is so broad it could lead to the prosecution of journalists, researchers, or activists.

One of the most alarming points the UN experts warned about was the potential normalisation of a “permanent state of militarised emergency” through the extension of sweeping police powers to the armed forces and coast guard. The PSTA allows for military detention for up to 24 hours plus unspecified travel time, a gap that experts fear could invite abuse and lead to short-term enforced disappearances.

The bill also enables protracted detention for up to two years, including a full year of administrative detention issued by the executive branch. Crucially, the rapporteurs pointed out that the draft effectively strips magistrates of their power to release individuals or review the legality of their detention, which erodes essential judicial oversight.

Surveillance and privacy rights are similarly jeopardised by provisions allowing for warrantless searches and the interception of communications based on the vague standard that an individual is “likely” to commit an offence.

The rapporteurs expressed particular alarm over attempts to weaken end-to-end encryption by compelling service providers to grant access to data. Finally, the experts condemned the retention of an “overbroad immunity clause” in Section 70, which protects officials from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in “good faith”, and noted the complete absence of a right to an effective remedy for victims. To reflect a fundamental shift in priority, the rapporteurs urged the government to reconsider the act’s title, suggesting it should focus on protecting the “people” or “population” rather than the “State”.

The concerns outlined in this latest report echo sentiments expressed by local experts since the bill was released in December last year.

Former Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka member Ambika Satkunanathan holds that the PSTA is one of the worst revisions of the anti-terror law that Sri Lanka has seen over the years.

“The Counter Terrorism Act, proposed in 2018, was replicated in 2023 and challenged in the Supreme Court by members of the current government who were in the opposition at the time; so my question is, why is the current government copy-pasting what they challenged when they were in the opposition?” she questioned.

Secondly, she argues that all three proposed draft laws are, in key respects, worse than the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). While the period of detention remains the same, up to one year, the new framework extends the window between pre-bail detention and remand to two years. Under the current PTA, bail becomes possible if court proceedings do not commence within a year. “In effect, you are prolonging the period a person can be held without meaningful judicial progress,” she observed.

She also raised concerns about the dilution of accountability in the arrest process. Under the current PTA, the Minister of Defence issues detention orders. In the proposed law, that power shifts to the Secretary of Defence. “The stature of the person issuing the order is reduced, which in turn reduces accountability,” she said.

Share This Post

WhatsappDeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.