PAFFREL warns new security, organised crime Bills threaten rights

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

The People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) has urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to review two proposed laws to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and tackle organised crime, warning that they could undermine fundamental rights.

In a letter to the President dated yesterday, PAFFREL Executive Director Rohana Hettiarchchi called for a thorough review of the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill and the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill before they are enacted. While welcoming the Government’s commitment to repeal the PTA, he said the Bills contained provisions that could threaten civil liberties, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the right to association.

The letter recalled the National People’s Power (NPP) election manifesto pledge to repeal oppressive laws, including the PTA, and guarantee civil rights. It also cited Sri Lanka’s commitments under the European Union’s GSP+ trade concession scheme and United Nations human rights benchmarks set in 2021, stressing that counter-terrorism legislation must comply with international human rights standards.

On the terrorism Bill, PAFFREL said the broad definition of terrorism under Article 3, particularly provisions referring to significant economic harm, could bring peaceful protests, trade union activities and humanitarian assistance within the scope of terrorist offences. It warned that vague terms in Article 8, such as “obstruction” and “interference”, could allow non-terrorist activities to be treated as terrorism, while Article 10’s definition of terrorist publications could restrict calls for peaceful gatherings. Article 15 was criticised for criminalising the failure to provide information without adequately distinguishing intentional withholding from other circumstances.

PAFFREL also raised concerns over expanded enforcement powers. Article 19 would give the armed forces and Coast Guard warrantless arrest powers, removing safeguards that previously required senior police oversight, while Article 26 would allow the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to issue detention orders of up to one year without effective judicial supervision.

The letter further questioned restrictions on judicial oversight of evidence submitted to the Government Analyst under Article 49, and said Article 39, which gives the Minister power to appoint an independent detention review committee, could compromise the committee’s independence. Under Article 61, the Defence Secretary could declare any location a prohibited place, while senior police officers could obtain court orders restricting individuals’ movements and communications for up to three months.

On the organised crime Bill, PAFFREL warned that relatively minor offences, including intellectual property violations, excise offences and forestry-related breaches, could be classified as serious organised crimes. It also questioned provisions allowing executive detention orders of up to one year, cautioned that the law’s broad scope could be used against trade unions and civil society organisations, and said making confessions to police officers admissible as evidence could undermine the right to a fair trial.

While acknowledging the Government’s responsibility to protect national security and combat terrorism and organised crime, Hettiarchchi urged the President to reconsider both Bills and ensure adequate safeguards against abuse of power. PAFFREL said legislation introduced in the name of national security must not compromise democratic freedoms, fundamental rights or the Government’s commitment to dismantling oppressive laws.