The Government’s proposed security legislation is rapidly developing into a test of its commitment to democratic freedoms, human rights and international accountability, with potentially damaging consequences extending far beyond the courtroom to Sri Lanka’s export economy.
The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), intended to replace the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), is being examined amid growing concern over whether new security powers could be used against political opponents, trade unions, journalists, civil society organisations and ordinary citizens exercising their democratic right to protest.
The central issue is not whether Sri Lanka requires effective legislation to combat terrorism and organised crime. It is whether the Government can introduce such laws without creating opportunities for arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention, intimidation and restrictions on peaceful dissent.
The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce has now entered the debate, urging the authorities to incorporate precise legal definitions, meaningful judicial supervision and adequate due-process guarantees into the proposed PSTA. Its intervention is particularly significant because it connects the question of civil liberties directly with investor confidence and the country’s continued eligibility for European trade concessions.
The controversy also raises a fundamental political question. A Government elected on promises of democratic renewal, accountability and protection of ordinary citizens risks undermining its own credibility if security legislation recreates mechanisms previously criticised for suppressing dissent.
The proposed law must therefore be scrutinised not merely for its stated objectives but also for the powers it grants authorities, the circumstances under which those powers can be exercised and the remedies available to people subjected to abuse.
Sri Lanka’s international obligations make this more than a domestic political controversy.
The European Union’s assessment of the country’s GSP+ performance for 2023–2025 acknowledges progress in certain areas but identifies continuing shortcomings, including delays in reporting on several human-rights treaties. It also records the Government’s commitment to repeal the PTA and replace it with legislation conforming to international human-rights standards.
The stakes are considerable. In 2024, Sri Lanka received approximately EUR 139 million in tariff exemptions through GSP+ preferences, with EUR 1.5 billion in imports entering the EU under the facility. Apparel, rubber, seafood and other export industries depend on this preferential access.
More importantly, Brussels has explicitly placed anti-terrorism legislation on its GSP+ monitoring agenda. At the February 2026 Joint Commission meeting, the EU called for time-bound progress and conformity with international conventions.
The next challenge will be even more demanding. From January 2027, the revised EU trade-preference framework will strengthen sustainability requirements, expand the relevant international conventions to 32 and introduce more rigorous monitoring and an urgent withdrawal mechanism for exceptionally serious violations. Sri Lanka must also submit a new GSP+ application by the end of the 2028 transitional period.
Consequently, the Government cannot assume that retaining formal ratification of international conventions will automatically guarantee continued benefits. Their effective implementation, including protection against arbitrary detention and restrictions on fundamental freedoms, will matter.
There is also a danger that an unnecessarily broad definition of terrorism or organised crime could discourage public demonstrations and legitimate industrial action. Such an outcome would damage democratic participation while creating uncertainty for businesses and employees.
The proposed Prevention of Organised Crime Act adds another dimension to these concerns. The Chamber is still finalising its observations on that Bill, indicating that the private sector wants greater clarity about the wider legal framework.
The Government must now demonstrate that national security will not become a justification for restricting peaceful political opposition or silencing public grievances.
Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, international credibility and democratic legitimacy are closely interconnected. A security law that sacrifices fundamental freedoms could ultimately cost the country far more than the Government anticipates.
