Anti-Terrorism legislation must uphold international law and human rights

After decades of widespread domestic and international criticism of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), a law repeatedly used to justify arbitrary detention, torture, and suppression of dissent, successive governments have pledged to repeal it. The latest attempt to replace the PTA, now framed as the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA),  risks perpetuating, rather than ending, many of the very abuses that have marred Sri Lanka’s rule of law.

The PTA, first enacted in 1979, has for years enabled prolonged detention without charge, routine denial of fair trial guarantees, and the broad criminalisation of political dissent. Its impact was felt most acutely by Tamil and other minority communities, but also by students, journalists, trade unionists, and dissidents of all backgrounds. The law’s perceived impunity was such that even routine protests or civil society activity could be met with sweeping police and intelligence action.

The latest draft PSTA seeks to recast terrorism offences, investigative powers, and executive authority. Yet early analysis by rights groups and legal experts suggests that the new bill, like its predecessors, falls far short of international human rights standards.

A fundamental problem with the PSTA is its overbroad definition of terrorism. International norms on counter-terrorism law,  require that terrorism offences be defined with precision and narrow scope so as to target only acts of indiscriminate violence intended to cause massive harm or coerce a Government or population. Vague or expansive definitions risk criminalising legitimate expressions of dissent, peaceful protest, or lawful political opposition.

Under the PSTA, however, acts as varied as causing damage to public property or intimidating segments of the public could fall under the ambit of terrorism, and intent is loosely framed in ways that could ensnare non-violent civic action. Critics have warned that such language does not meet the international requirement of legality that laws must be sufficiently clear and foreseeable in their application.

Equally troubling are the expansive powers conferred on executive and security authorities. The proposed law would retain broad powers of arrest and detention with limited judicial oversight, empower the executive to designate prohibited organisations or curfews, and extend investigative authorities without robust due process guarantees. International human rights law clearly stipulates that any restrictions on liberty must be subject to prompt judicial review, respect the right to counsel, and apply only to genuinely necessary and proportionate measures.

Without clear boundaries and protections, the law could be weaponised against ordinary citizens, journalists, activists, minority communities, and political opponents, under the broad banner of “protecting the State.” Such misuse would not only erode civil liberties but further deepen mistrust in a justice system already weakened by years of conflict and institutional shortcomings.

There is an urgent need not just to repeal the PTA, but to replace it with legislation that reflects international law, protects human rights, and prevents abuse. A compliant anti-terrorism law should feature precise, narrow definitions of terrorism, strict procedural safeguards, independent judicial oversight, and mechanisms to prevent discrimination and arbitrary detention. These principles are not antithetical to security objectives, on the contrary, they strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of counter-terrorism efforts.

Our country’s bloody recent history, its diverse social fabric, and its ongoing recovery from conflict all argue for a counter-terrorism framework that is just, balanced, and rights-respecting. Anything less risks repeating the injustices of the past under a new title. True security is not achieved through unchecked powers and vague offences but when the law protects all citizens equally, adheres to international norms, and upholds the rule of law.