October 29, Colombo (LNW): Sri Lanka’s latest proposals to strengthen its counterterrorism and organised crime laws have drawn criticism from Human Rights Watch (HRW), which warns that the measures could entrench practices associated with arbitrary detention, alleged torture and excessive state surveillance.
The international rights organisation argues that the proposed legislation could recreate controversial aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) under new legal frameworks, potentially expanding the powers of law enforcement agencies without adequate safeguards to protect fundamental freedoms.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB), presented to Parliament on October 06, and the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, submitted on 20 October, have raised questions about the balance between national security and individual rights.
The proposals have also placed the government’s commitment to democratic reform under scrutiny. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s National People’s Power (NPP) alliance pledged during the 2024 election campaign to repeal repressive legislation, including the PTA, and strengthen protections for citizens’ civil liberties.
HRW maintains that introducing replacement laws with similarly extensive enforcement powers would fall short of that promise, particularly if suspects could be detained for lengthy periods without meaningful judicial intervention.
Elaine Pearson, HRW’s Asia director, warned that the organised crime proposals could permit prolonged detention without sufficient judicial scrutiny or convincing evidence of criminal activity. She also cautioned that allowing police-recorded confessions to be presented in court could increase the risk of coercion and ill-treatment.
Extensive detention powers under scrutiny
The proposed counterterrorism law contains a broad definition of terrorism and would empower the police, armed forces and coast guard to stop, search, question and detain individuals on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Certain powers could be exercised without obtaining a warrant.
Under the draft, detention orders could initially last for two months and be renewed for a period extending to one year. HRW has expressed concern that magistrates would lack the authority to overturn these orders and that other provisions could enable individuals to remain in custody without charge for as long as two years.
The organised crime bill proposes a similar detention framework, allowing successive two-month orders for up to a year while providing limited opportunities for effective judicial review. Access to bail would also be restricted, with suspects facing serious allegations generally required to meet exceptional conditions to secure release.
Another contentious feature is the proposed admissibility of confessions obtained by police. HRW argues that this could create incentives for coercive interrogation, particularly where suspects are held for extended periods and have limited access to independent legal safeguards.
Earlier efforts to reform counterterrorism legislation had sought to reduce this risk by requiring confessions to be recorded before a magistrate, a measure intended to strengthen accountability and reduce the possibility of abuse.
Freedom of speech and privacy at risk
Beyond detention, HRW has warned that the proposed laws could have a chilling effect on public debate, peaceful demonstrations and freedom of association.
The counterterrorism bill defines terrorism to include conduct intended to force a government or international organisation to take, or refrain from taking, particular action. According to HRW, the breadth of this definition could leave room for legitimate political activism, public campaigning and peaceful dissent to come under scrutiny, notwithstanding exemptions contained in the draft.
The organised crime proposal has also attracted criticism for the factors that could be considered when determining whether someone belongs to a criminal group. These include contact with known members, clothing, tattoos, hand gestures and visits to particular locations.
HRW cautions that such indicators, if relied upon without strong corroborating evidence, could expose individuals to suspicion because of their social connections, appearance or routine activities rather than demonstrable involvement in criminal offences.
The bill would also expand the authorities’ ability to access private communications and electronic information through court-approved orders. In certain circumstances, police could obtain subscriber details, call records and device location information from service providers without a court order.
Additional restrictions relating to the identification of crime victims and the publication of information about court proceedings have raised concerns about the ability of journalists to report freely on criminal cases and matters of public interest.
International commitments and EU trade preferences
The debate over the proposed laws extends beyond domestic policy, with potential implications for Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations and its trade relationship with the European Union.
Through the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) arrangement, Sri Lanka receives preferential access to the European market in return for meeting specified conditions, including commitments linked to international human rights conventions.
In 2017, Sri Lanka committed to repealing the PTA as part of the undertakings associated with the restoration of its GSP+ benefits. However, HRW says the legislation has continued to be used despite repeated political assurances that it would be abolished.
Information submitted to the United Nations by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka recorded 46 PTA-related detention cases during 2025, followed by another 12 in the first quarter of 2026.
For HRW, the figures reinforce concerns that replacing the existing framework without substantially strengthening legal protections could leave longstanding human rights problems unresolved. The organisation warns that retaining provisions associated with arbitrary detention, torture and restrictions on fundamental freedoms could also place Sri Lanka’s compliance with its international commitments under greater scrutiny.
Calls for a change of course
HRW has urged the government to suspend the use of the PTA immediately while undertaking a comprehensive review of the proposed counterterrorism framework. It has also called for the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill to be withdrawn and for any replacement legislation to be developed through transparent and inclusive public consultations.
The organisation argues that future laws should define criminal offences precisely, ensure meaningful judicial oversight of detention, guarantee access to legal representation and establish effective safeguards against torture and arbitrary imprisonment.
It has further called on the European Union to make clear that the organised crime bill, in its current form, could be inconsistent with the human rights commitments underpinning Sri Lanka’s GSP+ status.
The controversy presents the government with a significant policy challenge: demonstrating that it can address terrorism and organised crime effectively without weakening the legal protections and democratic freedoms it pledged to uphold. The outcome of the legislative process is likely to be closely watched by civil society groups, international partners and those seeking tangible progress in Sri Lanka’s human rights record.
