PSTA and POC Bills threaten fundamental rights of citizens

Saturday, 17 October 2026 00:00 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The Government recently published in the gazette the Prevention of Organised Crimes (POC) Bill, which gives law enforcement agencies wide powers. The Bill defines an organised criminal group as a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. A “structured group” is defined as a “group that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of a serious crime and that does not need to have formally defined roles for its members, continuity of its membership or a developed structure.”

In determining whether any person is or acts as a member of an organised criminal group, the matters which a court may consider include involvement in physical or virtual meetings with known members of the organised criminal group; whether that person adopts the style of dress, hand signs, language or tattoos used by known members of the organised criminal group; whether that person associates with known members of the organised criminal group; whether that person has recruited or attempted to recruit any other person to be a member of the organised criminal group; and whether that person habitually visits premises or meeting places known to be used by the organised criminal group.

This kind of vague and wide definition to identify members of a criminal gang is dangerous and is a direct attack on individual freedom. How one dresses, what kind of tattoo one decides to ink or what premises one chooses to frequent is not the business of any government or the law enforcement authorities. These are individual rights on which the Government is trying to tread by introducing laws which will only help to stifle individual freedom and violate the fundamental rights of the people.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is among those that have raised the alarm over the contents of the Bill, stating that it is framed in broad, vague and sweeping language and contains few, if any, meaningful safeguards. The CPA warns that the Bill creates a parallel regime of arrest and detention that has the potential to entrench torture and severely curtail fundamental rights.

This and the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTA) are a dangerous mix that could be easily abused by those they empower.

This is a Government that came to power promising to undo what previous administrations had done, that is, repeal repressive laws and ensure that the rights of the public are safeguarded, but since it took office, some of the laws it has enacted so far or is proposing to enact seem intended to tighten its grip on power and not to safeguard the citizens. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was driven more by the desire of the President and his Government to make a point or, to paraphrase a popular saying, “it’s our way or the highway”, despite widespread opposition to the amendment.

Now the PSTA and the Bill on organised crime are weeks away from becoming law, and the Government will stubbornly defend them, as it did the 22A. While there is a demand to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the demand was not to replace it with more regressive legislation. Once these two laws are enacted, together they will pose a serious threat to the fundamental rights of the people.

The Government is hinging its public approval on cracking down on corruption, or more so tightening the noose around the Rajapaksas and their associates, and on cracking down on the so-called underworld. There has been moderate success in both these areas, with the drugs/organised crime issue being overplayed to justify arrests and searches that are being done in a manner which is worrying. Once more repressive laws come into place, the situation will worsen for the people of this country.

While the Government can enact laws, it’s good to keep in mind that laws will not work when the public reacts against moves to stifle freedom and rights.

COMMENTS