UN rights office urges substantive redraft of PSTA Bill

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has urged the Government to substantively redraft the Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill before enactment. It warned that the proposed law reproduces and expands several shortcomings of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) it is meant to replace.

In comments dated 13 October, 2026 on the Bill as gazetted on 22 September, 2026, the OHCHR welcomed the Government’s stated intention to repeal the PTA and acknowledged improvements on the December 2025 draft. The current Bill narrows the definition of terrorism, removes confessions to police as admissible evidence, and provides some safeguards for journalism, research, civil society activity and dissent. It also requires audio-visual recording of police interviews, shortens notification of detention to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to 48 hours and establishes a central database of arrests and case outcomes.

“The PSTA Bill still contains multiple provisions that risk contravening the State’s obligations under international human rights law and domestic constitutional guarantees, and carries risks of continuation and recurrence of serious human rights violations observed recurrently under the existing PTA regime,” the OHCHR said.

The Office said the definition of terrorism remains overly broad and vague. It objected to the Bill covering acts committed ‘knowingly’ as well as intentionally, to the undefined phrase ‘unduly compelling a government’, and to the inclusion of harms such as substantial economic loss. Safeguards for protest, advocacy, dissent, strikes and humanitarian aid are framed only as an evidential caution rather than an express exclusion, it said.

Speech-related offences, including inducement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, contain vague terms and fall below the threshold required for incitement offences, the OHCHR said. Because these offences would apply extraterritorially, they could criminalise lawful expression by people abroad, including members of diaspora communities. The definition of ‘confidential information’ could expose journalists and civil society to prosecution for routine reporting on raids, arrests or checkpoints, it added.

Administrative detention remains central to the framework, the Office said. The Secretary to the Ministry of Defence could order detention for up to two months at a time, up to a maximum of one year, and a Magistrate presented with an initial Detention Order must give effect to it. “The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that such detention presents severe risks of arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” it said. The Bill also makes remand mandatory even where no Detention Order is presented, with a maximum remand period of one year. The Independent Review Committee only makes recommendations, with the Minister of Defence taking the final decision.

The OHCHR raised concern over arrest and search powers extended to the armed forces and coast guard. Suspects they arrest may be held for up to 24 hours before transfer to police, without express guarantees of immediate access to counsel, medical examination or recording of questioning. The Bill does not define chains of command for joint police-military operations, it said, risking gaps in accountability.

It also criticised the breadth of executive powers. These include the President’s power to proscribe organisations without automatic expiry or independent review, and to issue directions on the Act’s implementation without Parliamentary scrutiny. “Immunity provisions should not shield unlawful arrest, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, recklessness, gross negligence or other serious human rights violations,” the Office said.

While section 72 would repeal the PTA, section 73 would preserve pending PTA cases, existing regulations and proscriptions. “Repeal should therefore be effective and comprehensive in substance as well as in form, with transitional arrangements reviewed to ensure that no person remains subject to proceedings, detention, evidentiary rules, proscriptions or regulations that are incompatible with international human rights law,” it said.

Among its recommendations, the OHCHR called for the Government to: narrow the definition of terrorism; require prompt, independent judicial oversight of every arrest and detention; make judicial warrants the rule for searches; ensure civilian police primacy; narrow the immunity provisions; and hold meaningful public consultation with civil society, independent institutions and legal experts before further legislative action. The Office said it stood ready to continue its dialogue with the Government and provide technical assistance.