PTA repeal, beyond box ticking

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill which intends to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1979, is an opportunity to correct a fundamentally flawed law that has been weaponised against many law-abiding citizens. The PTA that was introduced as an exceptional response to a period of grave insecurity has now remained on the statute book for nearly five decades.  Replacing the PTA is necessary. But replacement alone is not reform.

A modern counter-terrorism law must protect the public from genuine threats while ensuring that the extraordinary powers given to the State cannot become ordinary tools of repression. That distinction is especially important in Sri Lanka, where the PTA has long attracted concerns about arbitrary detention, prolonged pre-trial detention, torture and inadequate judicial safeguards. The UN Human Rights Committee has specifically called for the PTA to be repealed and replaced by legislation based on legal certainty, predictability and proportionality.

The current draft includes provisions concerning notification of arrest, access to lawyers, judicial oversight, humane treatment of detainees and monitoring by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. These are important improvements in principle. But the central test is not what the Bill promises. It is how its powers could be used in practice.

The definition of terrorism must therefore be precise and narrowly drawn. Terrorism should not become a label that can be applied to peaceful protest, journalism, political dissent, industrial action or legitimate advocacy. The latest Bill covers a broad range of conduct, including certain damage to public property, environmental harm and interference with electronic systems. Such provisions must contain clear thresholds requiring serious criminal intent and a genuine connection to terrorism.

Detention powers require particular scrutiny as well. Anyone arrested must be promptly informed of the reasons for arrest, have meaningful access to legal counsel, be brought before an independent judge without undue delay, and have an effective means of challenging unlawful detention. The prohibition against torture must remain absolute, and evidence obtained through torture or coercion must have no place in a fair justice system. These are not obstacles to national security but safeguards against abuse.

International human rights standards are particularly relevant because Sri Lanka has voluntarily undertaken obligations under instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A counter-terrorism framework consistent with those obligations would strengthen, rather than weaken, the legitimacy of the State’s response to terrorism.

Parliament should therefore examine the Bill with exceptional care and invite sustained participation from the Human Rights Commission, lawyers, academics, civil society, victims’ groups and communities across the country. While it can be argued that Sri Lanka needs effective laws against terrorism, it is fundamental that these laws be credible and be weaponised as was the PTA and emergency regulations.

Therefore, after decades of exceptional legislation, Sri Lanka should not merely replace one terrorism law with another. It should demonstrate that national security and human rights are not competing objectives. A democratic State is strongest when it can defend its people without compromising the rights that it exists to protect.